Overall, good stuff (with the possible exception of Welle’s “F for Fake”). But a few things you might consider:
1) Perhaps try and identify a unifying theme on which to center the screening series. This piece of advice (despite appearances) does not seek organization for organization’s sake; the idea is to subdue the otherwise unwieldy content of the works for the purpose of providing a series of films that are more accessible to audience members who are likely distracted in their roles as detectives (trying to make sense of the works) rather than allowing the films to wash over them, freeing them to analyze their responses to the films. Put another way, highlighting a theme (or set of themes) gives viewers confidence as they approach the films. Don’t worry about being reductive, either. Most will not be inhibited in forming their own, alternative interpretations of the work by the apparent rigidity of a thematic imposition; if the parameters are set right, the audience should perceive a great deal of flexibility in this regard. The others, those whose responses will be heavily influenced by the aforementioned thematic imposition, will likely not have been able to keep up with/ understand the film without the same.
2) Try finding films covering a broader range of history. Whenever I sit down with members of my own film organization (also on campus) to arrange a screening series, we ALWAYS start with a silent film (or two) and advance forward to the present. This not only shows the evolution of the medium, but also gives viewers a sense of the history of the films and (if appropriately synchronized with the first suggestion) very effectively demonstrates the universality and timelessness of the anxieties/conflicts from which the films have arisen. This is one point that has the entire group’s support, a fact which I’m sure you’d appreciate if you could be a fly on the wall in one our screening committee meetings.
3) I’m sure you’re doing it already, but make sure each film is adequately introduced and that you’re leaving plenty of time to facilitate discussion after the viewings. There’s virtually no film you couldn’t show if you do this.
That’s it, for what it’s worth. I certainly wish you well and applaud you for your passion and enthusiasm. Oh, and your taste.
Like most on here, I had the same WTF! reflex to the Michael Bay flicks. The obvious aside…
I’ve really only struggled with the films of Jules Dassin. I’ve watched them. I’ve rooted for them. I’ve half-convinced myself “I get” them. But in the end, when honesty wins out, I really don’t see anything noteworthy about them. Apart from the quiet heist in Rififi, I simply don’t get it.
Your favorite Woody Allen's film? over 3 years ago
I’ll probably always concede that Annie Hall is his best, nevertheless I have a few that stand out in my mind as my personal favorites:
1) Interiors
2) Husbands & Wives
3) Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy
Go to Comment
Film Club over 3 years ago
Overall, good stuff (with the possible exception of Welle’s “F for Fake”). But a few things you might consider:
1) Perhaps try and identify a unifying theme on which to center the screening series. This piece of advice (despite appearances) does not seek organization for organization’s sake; the idea is to subdue the otherwise unwieldy content of the works for the purpose of providing a series of films that are more accessible to audience members who are likely distracted in their roles as detectives (trying to make sense of the works) rather than allowing the films to wash over them, freeing them to analyze their responses to the films. Put another way, highlighting a theme (or set of themes) gives viewers confidence as they approach the films. Don’t worry about being reductive, either. Most will not be inhibited in forming their own, alternative interpretations of the work by the apparent rigidity of a thematic imposition; if the parameters are set right, the audience should perceive a great deal of flexibility in this regard. The others, those whose responses will be heavily influenced by the aforementioned thematic imposition, will likely not have been able to keep up with/ understand the film without the same.
2) Try finding films covering a broader range of history. Whenever I sit down with members of my own film organization (also on campus) to arrange a screening series, we ALWAYS start with a silent film (or two) and advance forward to the present. This not only shows the evolution of the medium, but also gives viewers a sense of the history of the films and (if appropriately synchronized with the first suggestion) very effectively demonstrates the universality and timelessness of the anxieties/conflicts from which the films have arisen. This is one point that has the entire group’s support, a fact which I’m sure you’d appreciate if you could be a fly on the wall in one our screening committee meetings.
3) I’m sure you’re doing it already, but make sure each film is adequately introduced and that you’re leaving plenty of time to facilitate discussion after the viewings. There’s virtually no film you couldn’t show if you do this.
That’s it, for what it’s worth. I certainly wish you well and applaud you for your passion and enthusiasm. Oh, and your taste.
Go to Comment
Best title over 3 years ago
“Winter Light”; I’m sure there are more, but this one stands out right now. It very much suits the bleak film to which it is attached.
Go to Comment
Silent Films over 3 years ago
Chaplin’s “Sunnyside”
Oscar Micheaux’s “Body and Soul”
G.W. Pabts’s “Pandora’s Box”
Oh, and by the by, “City Lights” is, technically speaking, not a silent film; it’s actually considered to be his first sound film.
Go to Comment
CONFESSIONS--FILMS YOU ARE ASHAMED TO SAY YOU HAVE NOT SEEN (YET) over 3 years ago
Psycho
Magnificent Ambersons
Raging Bull
Barry Lyndon…
…shame forbids me to continue (though—the horror!—I could).
Go to Comment
Worst Criterion DVDs over 3 years ago
Like most on here, I had the same WTF! reflex to the Michael Bay flicks. The obvious aside…
I’ve really only struggled with the films of Jules Dassin. I’ve watched them. I’ve rooted for them. I’ve half-convinced myself “I get” them. But in the end, when honesty wins out, I really don’t see anything noteworthy about them. Apart from the quiet heist in Rififi, I simply don’t get it.
Sorry?
Go to Comment