How about The Sweet Hereafter? The Russell Banks novel isn’t bad by any means, but its approach to the story (five sections=five stages of grieving) seems much more obvious than Atom Egoyan’s scattered chronology in the film. I can appreciate the book, but only the film really haunts me.
I also greatly prefer Bertolucci’s version of The Conformist to the Alberto Moravia novel. The book just irks me, actually. It relies on cheap psychology a bit too much (childhood trauma=fascist!), while Bertolucci’s extreme stylizing of everything tends to render psychology moot (childhood trauma=pretty pictures!).
My preferred version of Dracula is Guy Maddin’s, not Bram Stoker’s. Fleshpots!!!!!
Scott Walker has at least a couple of movie-related songs, including one called “The Seventh Seal,” which is basically a synopsis of the film’s plot set to a sub-Morricone score. It’s actually kind of fun, though a bit pointless. Less fun, but more interesting, is “Farmer in the City,” Walker’s agonized, operatic meditation upon the death of Pasolini.
Robyn Hitchcock has a song called “Don’t Talk to Me About Gene Hackman.” (Sample lyric: “He’s in every film/sometimes wearing a towel/and if it isn’t him/you get Andie MacDowell”)
Someone mentioned the Pixies (love “Debaser” by the way): I get the impression Frank Black is a bit of a cinephile in his own right. Not only do the Pixies do a cover of the Lady in the Radiator song from Eraserhead, but Black also has a song from his solo career called “The Jacques Tati”:
You kind of lean your head
You kind of get on your toes
Try to take big steps
And when you start to coast
Take a look on down at nothing particular
Oh, I forgot a good one: “Busby Berkley Dreams” by the Magnetic Fields. (“I haven’t seen you ages/but it’s not as bleak as it seems/we still dance on whirling stages/in my Busby Berkley dreams.”)
Also, there’s some notable name-dropping in “Name Names” by the Mendoza Line, which contains this fine verse: “Give my regrets to Clifford Odets/the other side won Elia Kazan/give up your neighbours to Whitaker Chambers/and all that remains is to name names.”
I’ve always thought there was something about Quebec culture that leads to good coming-of-age dramas. For instance, there’s the recently Criterionized Mon Oncle Antoine (sex+death=growing up), but my personal favourite is Leolo, a demented and beautiful film about a young boy retreating into fantasy to escape from his lunatic family.
Shades of another thread about brilliant opening sequences: the film starts with Leolo imagining his biological father was a lusty Italian tomato picker who masturbated into a crate of tomatoes that was shipped to Quebec, whereupon Leolo’s mother falls onto the crate of tomatoes, thus impregnating herself. The rest of the film follows similar logic. Oh, the joy of bodily fluids!
Otherwise, who can argue with such fine choices as have already been mentioned? In particular, Rushmore and the 400 Blows (which I’ll be seeing on the big screen tomorrow, huzzah, lucky me) are particularly fine. And Tideland is much better than the critical shit-kicking it received would lead you to believe. Hopefully time will rehabilitate that one.
I think Nate hit the problem on the head. Anderson seems stuck in a bit of a rut with these “dysfunctional family” films. Keep mining the same material and things will start to dry up sooner or later, and if Darjeeling is any evidence, the law of diminishing returns has already started taking effect.
Still, I love Rushmore, so I follow what Anderson does, even if I come away vaguely disappointed each time. He’s definitely one of the most accomplished stylists in America these days, which means there’s always some sort of pleasure to be had in an Anderson film, even if the material is thin. But since Rushmore, his stories seem to withdraw further and further into his hermetic private world. What made Rushmore so appealing to me was the way it pushed his whimsical, fantastic world up against a more mundane reality filled with disappointments and compromises. Since then, reality has been on the wane in his films; instead, we get stories populated with eccentric and exceptional people wandering through a fantasy land. In the end, everyone walks away happy in slo-mo while a sixties pop song plays, but what has really been gained? He needs to start opening up this world and letting some air in.
And letting people walk at normal pace to a score composed by a member of Radiohead.
I think everyone has covered the essentials already, but Viridiana and The Phantom of Liberty are both among his best as well. In general, I think you can’t go wrong with Bunuel from the 1960s and 70s. Even the weaker films of that period are still worth watching.
The pre-1960 work is a bit more variable in quality, especially since he was really cranking them out in the 1950s. But it’s a bit harder to find some of these films, and I still haven’t seen what are supposed to be his best from that era (like Los Olivados and Nazarin). El and The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz are both pretty good, though.
Leaving aside Cronenberg and Egoyan (who are great, but we all know about them, right?), here are a few off the top of my head: Leolo, Hard Core Logo, Les Ordres, Mon Oncle Antoine, Of Whales, the Moon and Men (horrible title, but a great documentary), most of the work of Guy Maddin (but Careful and Cowards Bend the Knee especially), the collected works of Norman McLaren, Monkey Warfare, Picture of Light, Gambling, Gods and LSD, Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, Le Confessionnal, and lords knows what else I’m forgetting.
It is kind of funny that the Dardenne brothers aren’t on the list yet, especially considering several of their films are in the database (but not Rosetta and The Son, probably their two best, go figure that one), but I assume that the database will steadily grow to encompass more and more directors and films. It doesn’t particularly trouble my mind much.
However, in regards to Ratner: is he not an auteur? My understanding of the term was that it simply referred to the author of the film. It does not matter if that film is crap or the director a hack. The term is descriptive, not qualitative. John Grisham, for example, might not be on the same level as Faulkner, but both men are still authors. Ditto Ratner and the Dardennes. All are auteurs. Which, as far as I understand it, was one of the issues with auteur theory when it was first introduced to America, since the directors of supposedly “low-brow” films were suddenly considered praise-worthy, while the directors of the traditional “high-brow” movies were being dismissed or ignored.
What I’m getting at is this: who’s to say that in fifty years time, Ratner might not be considered the greatest film artist of our time, while the Dardennes languish in the dustbin of history? God help us, but maybe Ratner is the true artist, and we are all mad fools, totally devoid of perspective, praising the moribund fringes of a dead neo-realist aesthetic while the artform thrives elsewhere, in the braying noise of the Rush Hour movies.
Um, I’m a little embarrassed to see my cheeky, sky-is-falling speculation produced such an impassioned response. I wasn’t really saying Godard is less important than McG, honest! And if it’s any comfort to you, I shudder at the thought of Ratner being canonized and studied while passionate, thoughtful artists like the Dardennes languish in obscurity.
My main point was that I think we need to distinguish between an author and an artist. I realize the theory was primarily used to isolate and elevate distinguished directors, but I don’t think the concept of the auteur is necessarily limited to what most of us would consider great artists. After all, would people place Samuel Fuller on the same level as, say, Andrei Tarkovsky? Of course not, but Fuller is very clearly the author of his work, even if much of it is sensationalistic and lurid studio product, whereas Tarkovsky fits more readily into the role of an artist (and let me just be clear—I like both directors). Even a shallow director can have a recurring set of stylistic and thematic concerns—it’s just that these will most likely be shallow concerns. This doesn’t make them a great artist, but does it not make them a recognizable author?
Emphasizing the purity of the artist in a medium like film is particularly tricky, and I’m always a little cautious about it. When you speak of Ratner as “a symptom of the machine model,” it seems as if you are denying him any authorship over what he has done. I don’t doubt he is an employee, but like any project manager for a large corporation, he still exerts an influence over his project, even if he answers to his bosses in the end. For me, the problem is that there are so many compromises that come from working with large amounts of money (the studio system) or with small amounts (independents) that to take this approach to auteur theory opens up a lot of thorny questions. As has been noted earlier, even great auteurs like Hitchcock and many other Hollywood directors were forced to compromise their work at the behest of the studio. They still produced great films, but in all of this, who knows which changes proved helpful and which proved damaging to the final work? And other great auteurs, like Welles in his post-Hollywood films, faced numerous constraints outside the Hollywood system due to financial and logistical restrictions. In some cases, the limitations might have spurred the director to creative solutions, but in other cases, the end result might have suffered from lack of finances or resources. The line becomes fuzzy: what are the author’s intentions and what are the compromises the situation has forced upon him/her? I worry that if you start drawing too many qualifiers around the idea of the “auteur” that you risk calling into question the authorship of many of the great directors.
After all, where does this leave a film like The Magnificent Ambersons? Is Welles the auteur if the ending isn’t his and he didn’t control the editing? Is the fact that it was altered because of test screenings a reason to deny its strengths or Welles’ overall status as the film’s author? I’m not sure if I can really answer these questions, but I think this is the problem with using “auteur” qualitatively. I’m not advocating canons be formed without discrimination or solid critical criteria; I just think denying authorship to bland or weak directors isn’t the best way to go about this.
First, I think it’s impressive (or maybe absurd, depending on your perspective) on how far we’ve managed to take this considering pretty much everyone here agrees that Ratner is a terrible director. Chalk one up for the allure of arguing semantics on the internet.
Second, even though I largely agree with your concerns about film culture and film discussion, I’m not sure if this is the best way to bring them up. I mean, this is just a database on the beta version of a website. You’re really after much bigger fish here, aren’t you? I’m not saying you shouldn’t bring this stuff up, but I was a little surprised to see how much weight there is behind a seemingly simple question of what names are missing from the list of directors.
Finally, no harm in being impassioned. One of the nice things about this site is that there are so many informed and impassioned people like yourself on it. Beats IMDB any day of the week. I was just embarrassed because I was being cheeky and received a serious response—it’s sort of like being caught with your pants down and then having to pull them up and have a rational discussion. (Everyone please ignore the boxer shorts with the big red hearts on them.)
Shock Corridor is probably my favourite. Gorgeously shot, and the film proceeds like a series of kicks to the head. The rainstorm in the corridor is demented brilliance, and the close-up of Johnny as the voice-over exclaims “Nymphos!” is one of the most blissfully silly things Fuller ever did. Actually, every second of the nympho sequence is golden.
However, The Big Red One is right up there, and Pickup on South Street is pretty fine, if only for Thelma Ritter. And while it has been a while since I saw it, I remember enjoying Park Row quite a lot—it’s punchy and passionate like all the best Fuller films.
Also, that book of his (“A Third Face”) is a damn good time in its own right.
Mine is Brazil, although this isn’t really because of the movie itself, enjoyable as it is, but rather because it was being screened with a short film by a local filmmaker. It was part of a program where a local filmmaker gets to pair his/her own short film with a well-known feature. It’s a nice idea, and a good way to get some exposure for unknown local talent while offering a chance to see some great older films in a theatre.
However, in this case, some friends of the local director played a prank on him. They switched out his film for another, which was some sort of montage mash-up set to lively, Bollywood-esque music. It began with all sorts of generic footage (flowers, pea pods, baking, random geometric shapes), but then it began to intersperse scenes of hardcore porn in with the stock footage. Not knowing what the actual film was like, I just assumed this was the short film we were supposed to be watching. I couldn’t really see why the director felt his goofy porn/stock footage montage was a good match-up with Brazil, but I never really questioned that I was watching the right film.
After it was over, some greatly chagrined person announced that we would now watch the actual short film. It was a modest student film about where the money in ATM machines comes from. I think I preferred the other short.
I agree that 2007 was a particularly rich and rewarding film year. 2008 by comparison was maybe a bit of a let-down, but I’ve still been pleasantly surprised by quality from unexpected quarters throughout the year. I certainly wasn’t expecting something like Rachel Getting Married from Demme. And who saw something like Let the Right One In coming? I’ve been blind-sided by quality this year. It’s a nice feeling.
Anyway, Alanedit, if you’re saying critics didn’t see the innovation of Fight Club when it came along, then who’s to say what is being missed right now? Give it some time. If the good work isn’t obvious, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
There are a few big resources that have probably been mentioned elsewhere on the forums, but haven’t been mentioned in this thread. First, there’s UbuWeb , a vast collection of experimental filmmaking that includes quite a few notable names. And there’s also Archive.org , which has more films than I could ever link to. To name one example, I recently downloaded Samuel Fuller’s The Naked Kiss from the site, and there are many more excellent older Hollywood and foreign films to be found, including stuff from Hitchcock, John Huston, Fritz Lang, and Howard Hawks, just to name a few.
The National Film Board of Canada is digitally archiving their films and making them available as streaming video on their site, which means a lot of pro-Canadian propaganda films, but also some really excellent short animation and other strange wonders: http://www.nfb.ca/
Yeah, in hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have posted the link to the Freaky Flicks group and I apologize for that. Although in my defense, I would like to point out their mandate seems focused on rare, hard-to-find films, many of which of not commercially available (at least not on my continent, anyways). However, files of dubious legality will appear there, and this probably isn’t the ideal forum for those kind of sites.
I’m still an unrepentant file sharer, though. If not for this shady underground world of online cinephiles and torrent sites, I would not have movies like Chimes at Midnight, A Brighter Summer Day, Los Angeles Plays Itself, Celine & Julie Go Boating, and various other rare treats that aren’t commercially available. So thank god for an online system that can keep such movies alive until someone is willing or able to commit to a proper DVD release.
Also, by the way, Archive.org is completely legit as well (they only post public domain works—yes, The Naked Kiss is public domain, apparently). I’m not sure about UbuWeb, and as for Superstar…well, screw Mattel.
Guy Maddin’s Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary is an adaptation of a ballet version of Dracula, and well worth looking up. Probably one of my favourite film versions of the Dracula story.
I saw Pour la suite du monde several years ago at a local repertory cinema and loved it. So beautifully shot, and filled with all sorts of lovely little moments of fine observation (I love that part where the grandfather declares that they can’t leave for New York until he gets a chance to vote, as he wants to vote Liberal one more time before he dies—that’s traditional Canadian party politics for you).
Sadly, his work doesn’t seem widely available out here in the anglo wasteland, as is often the the case with many of the notable older Quebec directors (where’s a DVD of Les Ordres by Michel Brault, for instance?). It’s hard to imagine him getting the Criterion treatment considering how little known he is in English Canada, never mind America. But then again, I never would have thought they would release a film like Mon Oncle Antoine, so perhaps anything is possible.
By the way, if you can speak French (sadly, je ne parle pas francais), you can find Pour la suite du monde and several other Perrault films streaming on the NFB website.
Also, while digging around there, I discovered that you can order a DVD collection (with English subtitles!) of four of his films.
Come and See is phenomenal, and probably one of the most visceral film watching experiences I’ve ever had. I think I was shaking a bit after I saw that one. (When I saw Children of Men, the little first-person touches in that movie—like the ringing-in-the-ears noise on the soundtrack after the explosion—really reminded me of Come and See. Makes me wonder if Cuaron was maybe inspired by Klimov just a little.)
I’ve also seen Klimov’s Adventures of a Dentist, which is radically different from Come and See. It’s been a few years, but as I recall, the film is about a dentist who has the ability to remove teeth without pain and how his exceptional abilities only bring him trouble from the authorities. Basically a satire about how the Soviet system breeds mediocrity and discourages talent. There’s some physical humour (a bit like Tati in parts), and some really beautiful sequences. It’s not quite as, um, weighty as Come and See, but it’s very likable and masterfully done, as I recall.
Yes! Now the love for Under Capricorn starts appearing. It’s been unfairly neglected in North America, but I agree with Darvil about its excellence. It really is one of Hitchcock’s most beautiful films, what with all those long takes and elegant camera movements—it’s an incredibly rich, layered viewing experience. Of course, it’s an easy one to overlook because at first glance it seems like bland period romance, but it really can crawl under your skin.
For those interested, it’s available in a surprisingly decent-looking public domain version (free and legal, in other words) on Archive.org at http://www.archive.org/details/UnderCapricorn
So, if you can’t find a copy (which happens—I’ve seen many a video store with a robust Hitchcock section overlook this one), here’s your chance.
People have already mentioned the great Jonathan Rosenbaum and J Hoberman, which are probably my two favorites, so I just wanted to put in a recommendation for Dave Kehr. He pulls on a remarkably expansive knowledge of film history, and he can be a fairly pithy writer too (digging through his capsule reviews at the Chicago Reader always yields some finely polished gems of critical observation).
Films that are better than the books that they are are based on over 3 years ago
How about The Sweet Hereafter? The Russell Banks novel isn’t bad by any means, but its approach to the story (five sections=five stages of grieving) seems much more obvious than Atom Egoyan’s scattered chronology in the film. I can appreciate the book, but only the film really haunts me.
I also greatly prefer Bertolucci’s version of The Conformist to the Alberto Moravia novel. The book just irks me, actually. It relies on cheap psychology a bit too much (childhood trauma=fascist!), while Bertolucci’s extreme stylizing of everything tends to render psychology moot (childhood trauma=pretty pictures!).
My preferred version of Dracula is Guy Maddin’s, not Bram Stoker’s. Fleshpots!!!!!
Go to Comment
Films for Canadians over 3 years ago
Another Edmontonian here, just throwing my voice into the fray. Anything expanding our viewing options would be greatly appreciated.
Go to Comment
SONGS (MUSIC ) ABOUT ACTORS OR FILMMAKERS over 3 years ago
Scott Walker has at least a couple of movie-related songs, including one called “The Seventh Seal,” which is basically a synopsis of the film’s plot set to a sub-Morricone score. It’s actually kind of fun, though a bit pointless. Less fun, but more interesting, is “Farmer in the City,” Walker’s agonized, operatic meditation upon the death of Pasolini.
Robyn Hitchcock has a song called “Don’t Talk to Me About Gene Hackman.” (Sample lyric: “He’s in every film/sometimes wearing a towel/and if it isn’t him/you get Andie MacDowell”)
Someone mentioned the Pixies (love “Debaser” by the way): I get the impression Frank Black is a bit of a cinephile in his own right. Not only do the Pixies do a cover of the Lady in the Radiator song from Eraserhead, but Black also has a song from his solo career called “The Jacques Tati”:
You kind of lean your head
You kind of get on your toes
Try to take big steps
And when you start to coast
Take a look on down at nothing particular
Go to Comment
SONGS (MUSIC ) ABOUT ACTORS OR FILMMAKERS over 3 years ago
Oh, I forgot a good one: “Busby Berkley Dreams” by the Magnetic Fields. (“I haven’t seen you ages/but it’s not as bleak as it seems/we still dance on whirling stages/in my Busby Berkley dreams.”)
Also, there’s some notable name-dropping in “Name Names” by the Mendoza Line, which contains this fine verse: “Give my regrets to Clifford Odets/the other side won Elia Kazan/give up your neighbours to Whitaker Chambers/and all that remains is to name names.”
Go to Comment
Best of Coming-Of-Age Cinema over 3 years ago
I’ve always thought there was something about Quebec culture that leads to good coming-of-age dramas. For instance, there’s the recently Criterionized Mon Oncle Antoine (sex+death=growing up), but my personal favourite is Leolo, a demented and beautiful film about a young boy retreating into fantasy to escape from his lunatic family.
Shades of another thread about brilliant opening sequences: the film starts with Leolo imagining his biological father was a lusty Italian tomato picker who masturbated into a crate of tomatoes that was shipped to Quebec, whereupon Leolo’s mother falls onto the crate of tomatoes, thus impregnating herself. The rest of the film follows similar logic. Oh, the joy of bodily fluids!
Otherwise, who can argue with such fine choices as have already been mentioned? In particular, Rushmore and the 400 Blows (which I’ll be seeing on the big screen tomorrow, huzzah, lucky me) are particularly fine. And Tideland is much better than the critical shit-kicking it received would lead you to believe. Hopefully time will rehabilitate that one.
Go to Comment
Do You Like Wes Anderson? over 3 years ago
I think Nate hit the problem on the head. Anderson seems stuck in a bit of a rut with these “dysfunctional family” films. Keep mining the same material and things will start to dry up sooner or later, and if Darjeeling is any evidence, the law of diminishing returns has already started taking effect.
Still, I love Rushmore, so I follow what Anderson does, even if I come away vaguely disappointed each time. He’s definitely one of the most accomplished stylists in America these days, which means there’s always some sort of pleasure to be had in an Anderson film, even if the material is thin. But since Rushmore, his stories seem to withdraw further and further into his hermetic private world. What made Rushmore so appealing to me was the way it pushed his whimsical, fantastic world up against a more mundane reality filled with disappointments and compromises. Since then, reality has been on the wane in his films; instead, we get stories populated with eccentric and exceptional people wandering through a fantasy land. In the end, everyone walks away happy in slo-mo while a sixties pop song plays, but what has really been gained? He needs to start opening up this world and letting some air in.
And letting people walk at normal pace to a score composed by a member of Radiohead.
Go to Comment
Do You Like Wes Anderson? over 3 years ago
Wow, my first thumbs down.
Today, I am a man.
Go to Comment
Buñuel recommendations? over 3 years ago
I think everyone has covered the essentials already, but Viridiana and The Phantom of Liberty are both among his best as well. In general, I think you can’t go wrong with Bunuel from the 1960s and 70s. Even the weaker films of that period are still worth watching.
The pre-1960 work is a bit more variable in quality, especially since he was really cranking them out in the 1950s. But it’s a bit harder to find some of these films, and I still haven’t seen what are supposed to be his best from that era (like Los Olivados and Nazarin). El and The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz are both pretty good, though.
Go to Comment
Best of Coming-Of-Age Cinema over 3 years ago
We’re few and far between, but we’re out there. :-)
Ah, Jean-Claude Lauzon. Died too soon. He was just getting started with that one.
Go to Comment
The Best Canadian Films of all time? over 3 years ago
Leaving aside Cronenberg and Egoyan (who are great, but we all know about them, right?), here are a few off the top of my head: Leolo, Hard Core Logo, Les Ordres, Mon Oncle Antoine, Of Whales, the Moon and Men (horrible title, but a great documentary), most of the work of Guy Maddin (but Careful and Cowards Bend the Knee especially), the collected works of Norman McLaren, Monkey Warfare, Picture of Light, Gambling, Gods and LSD, Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, Le Confessionnal, and lords knows what else I’m forgetting.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
It is kind of funny that the Dardenne brothers aren’t on the list yet, especially considering several of their films are in the database (but not Rosetta and The Son, probably their two best, go figure that one), but I assume that the database will steadily grow to encompass more and more directors and films. It doesn’t particularly trouble my mind much.
However, in regards to Ratner: is he not an auteur? My understanding of the term was that it simply referred to the author of the film. It does not matter if that film is crap or the director a hack. The term is descriptive, not qualitative. John Grisham, for example, might not be on the same level as Faulkner, but both men are still authors. Ditto Ratner and the Dardennes. All are auteurs. Which, as far as I understand it, was one of the issues with auteur theory when it was first introduced to America, since the directors of supposedly “low-brow” films were suddenly considered praise-worthy, while the directors of the traditional “high-brow” movies were being dismissed or ignored.
What I’m getting at is this: who’s to say that in fifty years time, Ratner might not be considered the greatest film artist of our time, while the Dardennes languish in the dustbin of history? God help us, but maybe Ratner is the true artist, and we are all mad fools, totally devoid of perspective, praising the moribund fringes of a dead neo-realist aesthetic while the artform thrives elsewhere, in the braying noise of the Rush Hour movies.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
That said, I cling to Rosetta like Ishmael clings to that coffin at the end of Moby-Dick. But still, I wonder…
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
Um, I’m a little embarrassed to see my cheeky, sky-is-falling speculation produced such an impassioned response. I wasn’t really saying Godard is less important than McG, honest! And if it’s any comfort to you, I shudder at the thought of Ratner being canonized and studied while passionate, thoughtful artists like the Dardennes languish in obscurity.
My main point was that I think we need to distinguish between an author and an artist. I realize the theory was primarily used to isolate and elevate distinguished directors, but I don’t think the concept of the auteur is necessarily limited to what most of us would consider great artists. After all, would people place Samuel Fuller on the same level as, say, Andrei Tarkovsky? Of course not, but Fuller is very clearly the author of his work, even if much of it is sensationalistic and lurid studio product, whereas Tarkovsky fits more readily into the role of an artist (and let me just be clear—I like both directors). Even a shallow director can have a recurring set of stylistic and thematic concerns—it’s just that these will most likely be shallow concerns. This doesn’t make them a great artist, but does it not make them a recognizable author?
Emphasizing the purity of the artist in a medium like film is particularly tricky, and I’m always a little cautious about it. When you speak of Ratner as “a symptom of the machine model,” it seems as if you are denying him any authorship over what he has done. I don’t doubt he is an employee, but like any project manager for a large corporation, he still exerts an influence over his project, even if he answers to his bosses in the end. For me, the problem is that there are so many compromises that come from working with large amounts of money (the studio system) or with small amounts (independents) that to take this approach to auteur theory opens up a lot of thorny questions. As has been noted earlier, even great auteurs like Hitchcock and many other Hollywood directors were forced to compromise their work at the behest of the studio. They still produced great films, but in all of this, who knows which changes proved helpful and which proved damaging to the final work? And other great auteurs, like Welles in his post-Hollywood films, faced numerous constraints outside the Hollywood system due to financial and logistical restrictions. In some cases, the limitations might have spurred the director to creative solutions, but in other cases, the end result might have suffered from lack of finances or resources. The line becomes fuzzy: what are the author’s intentions and what are the compromises the situation has forced upon him/her? I worry that if you start drawing too many qualifiers around the idea of the “auteur” that you risk calling into question the authorship of many of the great directors.
After all, where does this leave a film like The Magnificent Ambersons? Is Welles the auteur if the ending isn’t his and he didn’t control the editing? Is the fact that it was altered because of test screenings a reason to deny its strengths or Welles’ overall status as the film’s author? I’m not sure if I can really answer these questions, but I think this is the problem with using “auteur” qualitatively. I’m not advocating canons be formed without discrimination or solid critical criteria; I just think denying authorship to bland or weak directors isn’t the best way to go about this.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
First, I think it’s impressive (or maybe absurd, depending on your perspective) on how far we’ve managed to take this considering pretty much everyone here agrees that Ratner is a terrible director. Chalk one up for the allure of arguing semantics on the internet.
Second, even though I largely agree with your concerns about film culture and film discussion, I’m not sure if this is the best way to bring them up. I mean, this is just a database on the beta version of a website. You’re really after much bigger fish here, aren’t you? I’m not saying you shouldn’t bring this stuff up, but I was a little surprised to see how much weight there is behind a seemingly simple question of what names are missing from the list of directors.
Finally, no harm in being impassioned. One of the nice things about this site is that there are so many informed and impassioned people like yourself on it. Beats IMDB any day of the week. I was just embarrassed because I was being cheeky and received a serious response—it’s sort of like being caught with your pants down and then having to pull them up and have a rational discussion. (Everyone please ignore the boxer shorts with the big red hearts on them.)
Go to Comment
Fuller over 3 years ago
Shock Corridor is probably my favourite. Gorgeously shot, and the film proceeds like a series of kicks to the head. The rainstorm in the corridor is demented brilliance, and the close-up of Johnny as the voice-over exclaims “Nymphos!” is one of the most blissfully silly things Fuller ever did. Actually, every second of the nympho sequence is golden.
However, The Big Red One is right up there, and Pickup on South Street is pretty fine, if only for Thelma Ritter. And while it has been a while since I saw it, I remember enjoying Park Row quite a lot—it’s punchy and passionate like all the best Fuller films.
Also, that book of his (“A Third Face”) is a damn good time in its own right.
Go to Comment
Best Bunuel scene? over 3 years ago
I love the dinner party scene from The Phantom of Liberty where instead of chairs at the table there are toilets.
Also noteworthy: the scene in Simon of the Desert where Satan (Silvia Pinal in a beard) drop-kicks a lamb.
Go to Comment
What is your most memorable film going experience? (Only one per post please!) over 3 years ago
Mine is Brazil, although this isn’t really because of the movie itself, enjoyable as it is, but rather because it was being screened with a short film by a local filmmaker. It was part of a program where a local filmmaker gets to pair his/her own short film with a well-known feature. It’s a nice idea, and a good way to get some exposure for unknown local talent while offering a chance to see some great older films in a theatre.
However, in this case, some friends of the local director played a prank on him. They switched out his film for another, which was some sort of montage mash-up set to lively, Bollywood-esque music. It began with all sorts of generic footage (flowers, pea pods, baking, random geometric shapes), but then it began to intersperse scenes of hardcore porn in with the stock footage. Not knowing what the actual film was like, I just assumed this was the short film we were supposed to be watching. I couldn’t really see why the director felt his goofy porn/stock footage montage was a good match-up with Brazil, but I never really questioned that I was watching the right film.
After it was over, some greatly chagrined person announced that we would now watch the actual short film. It was a modest student film about where the money in ATM machines comes from. I think I preferred the other short.
Go to Comment
Why aren't films as good as they used to? over 3 years ago
I agree that 2007 was a particularly rich and rewarding film year. 2008 by comparison was maybe a bit of a let-down, but I’ve still been pleasantly surprised by quality from unexpected quarters throughout the year. I certainly wasn’t expecting something like Rachel Getting Married from Demme. And who saw something like Let the Right One In coming? I’ve been blind-sided by quality this year. It’s a nice feeling.
Anyway, Alanedit, if you’re saying critics didn’t see the innovation of Fight Club when it came along, then who’s to say what is being missed right now? Give it some time. If the good work isn’t obvious, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Go to Comment
Why aren't films as good as they used to? over 3 years ago
Also, did someone thumbs-down a hug? Is this what it has come to now?
Go to Comment
FREE Movies Online over 3 years ago
Kudos, Neh, on a great thread topic.
There are a few big resources that have probably been mentioned elsewhere on the forums, but haven’t been mentioned in this thread. First, there’s UbuWeb , a vast collection of experimental filmmaking that includes quite a few notable names. And there’s also Archive.org , which has more films than I could ever link to. To name one example, I recently downloaded Samuel Fuller’s The Naked Kiss from the site, and there are many more excellent older Hollywood and foreign films to be found, including stuff from Hitchcock, John Huston, Fritz Lang, and Howard Hawks, just to name a few.
You can download Todd Haynes’ Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story from this site: http://www.illegal-art.org/video/index.html
The National Film Board of Canada is digitally archiving their films and making them available as streaming video on their site, which means a lot of pro-Canadian propaganda films, but also some really excellent short animation and other strange wonders: http://www.nfb.ca/
And finally, a great resource for the torrent-inclined: http://freakyflicks.proboards54.com/
Go to Comment
FREE Movies Online over 3 years ago
Yeah, in hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have posted the link to the Freaky Flicks group and I apologize for that. Although in my defense, I would like to point out their mandate seems focused on rare, hard-to-find films, many of which of not commercially available (at least not on my continent, anyways). However, files of dubious legality will appear there, and this probably isn’t the ideal forum for those kind of sites.
I’m still an unrepentant file sharer, though. If not for this shady underground world of online cinephiles and torrent sites, I would not have movies like Chimes at Midnight, A Brighter Summer Day, Los Angeles Plays Itself, Celine & Julie Go Boating, and various other rare treats that aren’t commercially available. So thank god for an online system that can keep such movies alive until someone is willing or able to commit to a proper DVD release.
Also, by the way, Archive.org is completely legit as well (they only post public domain works—yes, The Naked Kiss is public domain, apparently). I’m not sure about UbuWeb, and as for Superstar…well, screw Mattel.
Go to Comment
Ballet in Film over 3 years ago
Guy Maddin’s Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary is an adaptation of a ballet version of Dracula, and well worth looking up. Probably one of my favourite film versions of the Dracula story.
Go to Comment
Pierre Perrault about 3 years ago
I saw Pour la suite du monde several years ago at a local repertory cinema and loved it. So beautifully shot, and filled with all sorts of lovely little moments of fine observation (I love that part where the grandfather declares that they can’t leave for New York until he gets a chance to vote, as he wants to vote Liberal one more time before he dies—that’s traditional Canadian party politics for you).
Sadly, his work doesn’t seem widely available out here in the anglo wasteland, as is often the the case with many of the notable older Quebec directors (where’s a DVD of Les Ordres by Michel Brault, for instance?). It’s hard to imagine him getting the Criterion treatment considering how little known he is in English Canada, never mind America. But then again, I never would have thought they would release a film like Mon Oncle Antoine, so perhaps anything is possible.
By the way, if you can speak French (sadly, je ne parle pas francais), you can find Pour la suite du monde and several other Perrault films streaming on the NFB website.
Also, while digging around there, I discovered that you can order a DVD collection (with English subtitles!) of four of his films.
Go to Comment
Elem Klimov almost 3 years ago
Come and See is phenomenal, and probably one of the most visceral film watching experiences I’ve ever had. I think I was shaking a bit after I saw that one. (When I saw Children of Men, the little first-person touches in that movie—like the ringing-in-the-ears noise on the soundtrack after the explosion—really reminded me of Come and See. Makes me wonder if Cuaron was maybe inspired by Klimov just a little.)
I’ve also seen Klimov’s Adventures of a Dentist, which is radically different from Come and See. It’s been a few years, but as I recall, the film is about a dentist who has the ability to remove teeth without pain and how his exceptional abilities only bring him trouble from the authorities. Basically a satire about how the Soviet system breeds mediocrity and discourages talent. There’s some physical humour (a bit like Tati in parts), and some really beautiful sequences. It’s not quite as, um, weighty as Come and See, but it’s very likable and masterfully done, as I recall.
Go to Comment
Top 5 Hitchcock over 2 years ago
1. Vertigo
2. Psycho
3. Shadow of a Doubt
4. Under Capricorn
5. Notorious
Vertigo surpasses all the others for me and is pretty much in a class of its own. The rest aren’t in any particular order.
Go to Comment
Top 5 Hitchcock over 2 years ago
Yes! Now the love for Under Capricorn starts appearing. It’s been unfairly neglected in North America, but I agree with Darvil about its excellence. It really is one of Hitchcock’s most beautiful films, what with all those long takes and elegant camera movements—it’s an incredibly rich, layered viewing experience. Of course, it’s an easy one to overlook because at first glance it seems like bland period romance, but it really can crawl under your skin.
For those interested, it’s available in a surprisingly decent-looking public domain version (free and legal, in other words) on Archive.org at http://www.archive.org/details/UnderCapricorn
So, if you can’t find a copy (which happens—I’ve seen many a video store with a robust Hitchcock section overlook this one), here’s your chance.
Go to Comment
Who is the BEST critic in the business right now? over 2 years ago
People have already mentioned the great Jonathan Rosenbaum and J Hoberman, which are probably my two favorites, so I just wanted to put in a recommendation for Dave Kehr. He pulls on a remarkably expansive knowledge of film history, and he can be a fairly pithy writer too (digging through his capsule reviews at the Chicago Reader always yields some finely polished gems of critical observation).
Go to Comment