Watch every single one and though some will not be aligned with your taste, they are all distinctively Woody Allen. And that’s the highest compliment I can pay to any filmmaker.
Why are these posts so list-obsessed? Watch each and every Scorsese film before making any judgments. He expresses himself uniquely and distinctly in each film. To list and rank them is to cheapen the incredible amount of personal effort he puts into each work. Do you rank Van Gogh paintings and Mozart symphonies?
Why are these posts so list-obsessed? Watch each and every Scorsese film before making any judgments. He expresses himself uniquely and distinctly in each film. To list and rank them is to cheapen the incredible amount of personal effort he puts into each work. Do you rank Van Gogh paintings and Mozart symphonies?
Why are these posts so list-obsessed? Watch each and every Scorsese film before making any judgments. He expresses himself uniquely and distinctly in each film. To list and rank them is to cheapen the incredible amount of personal effort he puts into each work. Do you rank Van Gogh paintings and Mozart symphonies?
There is an interview with Gus on the Mala Noche Criterion wherein I think he himself characterizes his career best. He says something along the lines of loving how simple and honest Mala Noche was to make and how he’s been trying to get back to that type of filmmaking ever since. And for me, when he is closest to that goal, he is at his best: Mala Noche, My Own Private Idaho, Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park. I would classify the style of his (in these films) as risk-taking, ethereal, and innovative. He is playing with time, creating new narrative techniques as well as a visually interesting environment. Some call Gus a formalist, but his storytelling is also very valuable. Gus’ rhythm (something prized in the films of Bresson and Tarkovsky) is almost unrivaled in today’s cinema.
No offense to Drugstore Cowboy, Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester or even Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. They were enjoyable (for the most part) viewings, but just nothing new or full of vitality, like his aforementioned riskier films. I could take them or leave them.
Milk, in my opinion, was the first true blending of his commercial and true filmic sensibilities. And I thought it was one of his most successful films thus far in terms of expression. It really felt instilled with his voice (and eye).
If not taking his entire body of work into account when saying he is a worthy filmmaker or not, and instead considering the high points he hits pretty consistently (and recently, almost every time), he has emerged as one of my favorite filmmakers working today. I put him in the ranks of Jim Jarmusch (which I consider to be a high billing).
Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton (even though both have more than enough collections out there from other companies)
F.W. Murnau
D.W. Griffith
Nagisa Oshima
Marco Ferreri
2 sexually explicit films that people just can’t seem to see past the notoriety around them:
The Brown Bunny
I think it’s an excellent film (better than Buffalo ‘66, which received quite a bit of acclaim). Very well shot, edited and conceived. And it’s a Do-it-yourself inspiration, Gallo pretty much handling all of the major tasks himself.
9 Songs
A strong offering from Winterbottom. The structure is an interesting experiment (and the music actually was the weakest component for me). Another accomplished DIY example, but not as impressive as Gallo’s.
Even though Brakhage and Un Chien Andalou are non-narrative driven (it’s a good point), that is not to say they are devoid of narrative.
They are in fact even more interesting (to me at least) because a narrative still emerges from their experimental modes of expression. Brakhage’s film titles are evidence of this.
Narrative is not simply a character or plot conveyance. The images themselves arranged in a certain order can tell a highly effective story without dialogue or characters.
I think Wong Kar-Wai is of a rare filmmaker breed. The comparisons to Godard undermine what he really brings to cinema. Sure, they both experiment quite a bit and might have some similar techniques, but I think they are actually quite different.
WKW is a sensual filmmaker. His lighting, motion effects, color palette, and camera angles are all innovative and additive to his atmospheres. Almodovar could learn a thing or two from him. Along with his style, his narrative technique and content are broadening cinema’s horizons.
-Days of Being Wild displays film music and rich, lush cinematography at their finest.
-Happy Together was Brokeback Mountain ten years prior and I’d be seriously suprised if Ang Lee hasn’t seen it.
-2046’s use of inter-titles and special effects (though maybe cheesy) could be a discussion topic of its own.
-Fallen Angels is a whirlwind of experiments.
-In the Mood for Love may be one of the most melancholy films I’ve ever seen (which is a compliment). The music here rivals Scorsese in its enhancing effect; the slow motion and rhythm are matched by maybe only Gus Van Sant among contemporary filmmakers.
-I think My Blueberry Nights suffered from the acting. (Norah Jones?) The technique and risks were there, but without Maggie Cheung or Tony Leung to anchor the film, it just kind of floated away.
Definitely worth watching and exploring the body of work.
I think Lost in Translation has heralded in a new breed of quasi-independent filmmaking that like-it-or-not may be considered the most influential film movement of the decade, for better or worse. The hip soundtrack, the minimal dialogue, the young adult in crisis, etc.
In my opinion, the reason Lost in Translation was so successful (aside from the pitch-perfect performance by Bill Murray), was its identification with a generation. Intentionally or not (it’s widely said the film’s story is highly autobiographical), the urban malaise, the ennui and social isolation encapsulated our increasingly technological (and some would say, cold) culture.
Although maybe not the best film of the decade (a common misunderstanding for “Defining”), I think it is for the 2000s what Slacker was to the 90s and what Raging Bull was to the 80s and so on.
Television for me is the great untapped resource in all of technology. The power of this box (or more appropriately recently, this flat screen) has been harnessed and manipulated by the cable conglomerates and the only venues that really use television’s broad reach and full capabilities are the news/media machines and sports.
I think if films and other art forms begin the move to television in more depth (beyond the already excellent IFC channel and HBO, etc.), it would revolutionize how we see movies. Alas, if only the cable companies allowed a la carte channel ordering or something less package-deal-oriented than they do now so that people could pick and choose what they see. Even further, the studios could move away from physical items (DVDs) and cut packaging/warehouse/shipping costs to invest in broadcasting the latest films, which could then be recorded and stored on a hard drive by the viewer (i.e. the move of the music industry over the past decade).
I don’t see a reason that all films shouldn’t be accessible to all people because of price or expensive distribution or overhead. A lower income person might not be able to afford Criterion DVDs or Netflix, so where can they see all of these cinematic gems? The library remains the sole source. If I am missing some sources, please post them here. I want to see Robert Bresson on CBS or Kurosawa on ABC when I’m home on a Sunday!
Museums offer often-free or low admissions to view the greatest paintings in the world. Music is relatively low cost in comparison to films. Books can be found in cheap paperback editions or even cheaper (and sometimes free) electronic copies. I think it’s time for film as an art form all its own to finally break through the economic bubble encompassing it. $12 to view a movie once in a theater? $20+ to own a newly-released non-Criterion DVD? Why?
I would say Raging Bull, if not for the broad-reaching effects its had since (its use of sound effects, narrative structure, mixture of black&white with color film, and as always the music in Scorsese films), but also for the trends that it sat in direct opposition to: namely, the feel-good happy ending, the straight-forward chronological narrative, the sports movie being directly about the sport, the biopic being strictly a story about the person chosen. More specifically, Raging Bull is the anti-Rocky and for good reason.
Scorsese has been quoted as saying that his approach to Raging Bull was that of kamikaze filmmaking, in that he threw all he had into that film with the uncertainty if he would ever make a film again. Let’s be thankful it was not his last film (several greats were to come), but also appreciate the boundaries of cinema that Marty stretched and the cliches he obliterated (even if they continue to be overused today, they are painfully obvious after seeing Raging Bull; one needs look only as far as Cinderella Man).
And for these reasons, it is my pick for best film of the 80s.
Tarkovsky, like Bresson (of whom Andrei was a great admirer), completed very few films, but with both it is quality over quantity. Each was consistently excellent, and I don’t use the word lightly.
Their small repertoires might be misleading though, as their films get richer on multiple viewings almost seeming like something entirely new.
I recommend seeing each and every film in his body of work. Several times.
First off, I want to say this is a great topic. I think the forum needs more interesting conversations like this that really convey a true love for cinema.
Okay, my favorite title sequences are the plain ones: Bresson, Ozu, Woody Allen, etc. but some interesting ones are:
Truffaut’s Jules et Jim
Fassbinder’s Marriage of Maria Braun
Lots of Hitchcock
Scorsese’s Raging Bull
Kurosawa is just one of those filmmakers that listing a favorite for is really just pointless. He is almost beyond analysis or film critique. Really.
This is a filmmaker I almost feel ashamed to judge or rank or write about intellectually. Just simply see them all.
He’s such a human and compassionate director, whose films hit you in the gut, on an emotional level. They get wiser and age very well. Everyone will have different favorites and even the same people will have different favorites at different times in their lives.
This is a guy that if you really love film, you should have no excuse for not going to IMDB (if you haven’t already), and methodically finding each and every film of his that you can get your hands on to watch. Then, watch each one several times.
I would put Jarmusch up there, but along with Van Sant and Linklater and Lynch. For me, they’re the only ones doing things interesting enough (and on a consistent basis) cinematically to be considered as leaders of an American movement or generation.
My argument against the rest:
Wes Anderson needs to grow.
PT Anderson took his first leap out of his comfort zone (the Scorsese/Altman style) with There Will Be Blood. He’ll get there.
Tarantino “borrows” too much to be considered a filmmaker of his own.
I find Robert Bresson to be as revolutionary to cinema as Sergei Eisenstein; he just hasn’t been paraded around for his impact yet.
Bresson’s impact can be felt in such diverse works as those of Martin Scorsese, Jim Jarmusch, Abbas Kiarostami, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Jean-Luc Godard.
He is the other end of the spectrum for me from what was described in the original post.
Very few filmmakers reach this level of excellence today. So, though Bresson is long dead and gone, I recommend starting with him and then seeing if anyone can measure up.
I saw The Third Man this weekend and I would love to see the non-Selznick version.
Everything I hear about Selznick is that he mettled with production, or that he changed things around, or compromised the director’s work for the sake of commercial value.
Unfortunately, I think Hollywood has caught a case of Selznick-itis.
He is the epitome of the producer Kirk Douglas plays in The Bad and the Beautiful (though not sure if it was a direct representation). Great film, by the way.
I think the fact that George Clooney is even considered by some to be a good director illustrates the degradation of cinema.
Are his politically-driven, quieter films the best American film has to offer? Of course, his competition are Ron Howard and Michael Moore, but come on.
Taken in the history of film, Clooney is nothing more than a Mel Gibson. Forgettable.
Inventive Narrative Structures over 3 years ago
Well, there’s Brakhage and Bresson and Bunuel without even getting out of the B’s.
Go to Comment
Your favorite Woody Allen's film? over 3 years ago
Watch every single one and though some will not be aligned with your taste, they are all distinctively Woody Allen. And that’s the highest compliment I can pay to any filmmaker.
Go to Comment
Top Scorsese over 3 years ago
Why are these posts so list-obsessed? Watch each and every Scorsese film before making any judgments. He expresses himself uniquely and distinctly in each film. To list and rank them is to cheapen the incredible amount of personal effort he puts into each work. Do you rank Van Gogh paintings and Mozart symphonies?
Go to Comment
Top Scorsese over 3 years ago
Why are these posts so list-obsessed? Watch each and every Scorsese film before making any judgments. He expresses himself uniquely and distinctly in each film. To list and rank them is to cheapen the incredible amount of personal effort he puts into each work. Do you rank Van Gogh paintings and Mozart symphonies?
Go to Comment
Top Scorsese over 3 years ago
Why are these posts so list-obsessed? Watch each and every Scorsese film before making any judgments. He expresses himself uniquely and distinctly in each film. To list and rank them is to cheapen the incredible amount of personal effort he puts into each work. Do you rank Van Gogh paintings and Mozart symphonies?
Go to Comment
Opinions of Van Sant? over 3 years ago
There is an interview with Gus on the Mala Noche Criterion wherein I think he himself characterizes his career best. He says something along the lines of loving how simple and honest Mala Noche was to make and how he’s been trying to get back to that type of filmmaking ever since. And for me, when he is closest to that goal, he is at his best: Mala Noche, My Own Private Idaho, Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park. I would classify the style of his (in these films) as risk-taking, ethereal, and innovative. He is playing with time, creating new narrative techniques as well as a visually interesting environment. Some call Gus a formalist, but his storytelling is also very valuable. Gus’ rhythm (something prized in the films of Bresson and Tarkovsky) is almost unrivaled in today’s cinema.
No offense to Drugstore Cowboy, Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester or even Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. They were enjoyable (for the most part) viewings, but just nothing new or full of vitality, like his aforementioned riskier films. I could take them or leave them.
Milk, in my opinion, was the first true blending of his commercial and true filmic sensibilities. And I thought it was one of his most successful films thus far in terms of expression. It really felt instilled with his voice (and eye).
If not taking his entire body of work into account when saying he is a worthy filmmaker or not, and instead considering the high points he hits pretty consistently (and recently, almost every time), he has emerged as one of my favorite filmmakers working today. I put him in the ranks of Jim Jarmusch (which I consider to be a high billing).
Go to Comment
BEST SEQUENCE OR SCENE FROM ANY FILM(CAN BE AN OPENING OR ANYTHING ELSE) over 3 years ago
Just a few from Robert Bresson:
-the almost ballet-like choreographed sequence in Pickpocket
-the ending of Au Hasard Balthazar
-the bumper car scene in Mouchette
Go to Comment
Now, how about CRITERION issued films you just don't like!! over 3 years ago
Wasn’t crazy about The Browning Version, but that might be more due to taste than the film itself
Go to Comment
Godard: Marx and others who influenced his films over 3 years ago
A maybe unlikely and at first seemingly inaccurate influence on JLG is Robert Bresson.
Watching Godard’s later works (from the 80s on), his compositions, narrative structures and pacing are unmistakably Bressonian.
JLG was a huge fan.
Go to Comment
WHICH DIRECTORS...NOT...CURRENTLY REPRESENTED IN THE CRITERION COLLECTION DO YOU WANT TO SEE INCLUDED? over 3 years ago
Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton (even though both have more than enough collections out there from other companies)
F.W. Murnau
D.W. Griffith
Nagisa Oshima
Marco Ferreri
Go to Comment
Films you love but most people hate. over 3 years ago
2 sexually explicit films that people just can’t seem to see past the notoriety around them:
The Brown Bunny
I think it’s an excellent film (better than Buffalo ‘66, which received quite a bit of acclaim). Very well shot, edited and conceived. And it’s a Do-it-yourself inspiration, Gallo pretty much handling all of the major tasks himself.
9 Songs
A strong offering from Winterbottom. The structure is an interesting experiment (and the music actually was the weakest component for me). Another accomplished DIY example, but not as impressive as Gallo’s.
Go to Comment
Copying DVDs over 3 years ago
I use Popcorn.
Go to Comment
Inventive Narrative Structures over 3 years ago
In response to the above:
Even though Brakhage and Un Chien Andalou are non-narrative driven (it’s a good point), that is not to say they are devoid of narrative.
They are in fact even more interesting (to me at least) because a narrative still emerges from their experimental modes of expression. Brakhage’s film titles are evidence of this.
Narrative is not simply a character or plot conveyance. The images themselves arranged in a certain order can tell a highly effective story without dialogue or characters.
Go to Comment
Opinions on Wong Kar-Wai over 3 years ago
I think Wong Kar-Wai is of a rare filmmaker breed. The comparisons to Godard undermine what he really brings to cinema. Sure, they both experiment quite a bit and might have some similar techniques, but I think they are actually quite different.
WKW is a sensual filmmaker. His lighting, motion effects, color palette, and camera angles are all innovative and additive to his atmospheres. Almodovar could learn a thing or two from him. Along with his style, his narrative technique and content are broadening cinema’s horizons.
-Days of Being Wild displays film music and rich, lush cinematography at their finest.
-Happy Together was Brokeback Mountain ten years prior and I’d be seriously suprised if Ang Lee hasn’t seen it.
-2046’s use of inter-titles and special effects (though maybe cheesy) could be a discussion topic of its own.
-Fallen Angels is a whirlwind of experiments.
-In the Mood for Love may be one of the most melancholy films I’ve ever seen (which is a compliment). The music here rivals Scorsese in its enhancing effect; the slow motion and rhythm are matched by maybe only Gus Van Sant among contemporary filmmakers.
-I think My Blueberry Nights suffered from the acting. (Norah Jones?) The technique and risks were there, but without Maggie Cheung or Tony Leung to anchor the film, it just kind of floated away.
Definitely worth watching and exploring the body of work.
Go to Comment
Defining films of the deacade over 3 years ago
I think Lost in Translation has heralded in a new breed of quasi-independent filmmaking that like-it-or-not may be considered the most influential film movement of the decade, for better or worse. The hip soundtrack, the minimal dialogue, the young adult in crisis, etc.
In my opinion, the reason Lost in Translation was so successful (aside from the pitch-perfect performance by Bill Murray), was its identification with a generation. Intentionally or not (it’s widely said the film’s story is highly autobiographical), the urban malaise, the ennui and social isolation encapsulated our increasingly technological (and some would say, cold) culture.
Although maybe not the best film of the decade (a common misunderstanding for “Defining”), I think it is for the 2000s what Slacker was to the 90s and what Raging Bull was to the 80s and so on.
Go to Comment
Television... a query. over 3 years ago
Television for me is the great untapped resource in all of technology. The power of this box (or more appropriately recently, this flat screen) has been harnessed and manipulated by the cable conglomerates and the only venues that really use television’s broad reach and full capabilities are the news/media machines and sports.
I think if films and other art forms begin the move to television in more depth (beyond the already excellent IFC channel and HBO, etc.), it would revolutionize how we see movies. Alas, if only the cable companies allowed a la carte channel ordering or something less package-deal-oriented than they do now so that people could pick and choose what they see. Even further, the studios could move away from physical items (DVDs) and cut packaging/warehouse/shipping costs to invest in broadcasting the latest films, which could then be recorded and stored on a hard drive by the viewer (i.e. the move of the music industry over the past decade).
I don’t see a reason that all films shouldn’t be accessible to all people because of price or expensive distribution or overhead. A lower income person might not be able to afford Criterion DVDs or Netflix, so where can they see all of these cinematic gems? The library remains the sole source. If I am missing some sources, please post them here. I want to see Robert Bresson on CBS or Kurosawa on ABC when I’m home on a Sunday!
Museums offer often-free or low admissions to view the greatest paintings in the world. Music is relatively low cost in comparison to films. Books can be found in cheap paperback editions or even cheaper (and sometimes free) electronic copies. I think it’s time for film as an art form all its own to finally break through the economic bubble encompassing it. $12 to view a movie once in a theater? $20+ to own a newly-released non-Criterion DVD? Why?
Television can be the way out!
Go to Comment
Best film of the 80's? over 3 years ago
I would say Raging Bull, if not for the broad-reaching effects its had since (its use of sound effects, narrative structure, mixture of black&white with color film, and as always the music in Scorsese films), but also for the trends that it sat in direct opposition to: namely, the feel-good happy ending, the straight-forward chronological narrative, the sports movie being directly about the sport, the biopic being strictly a story about the person chosen. More specifically, Raging Bull is the anti-Rocky and for good reason.
Scorsese has been quoted as saying that his approach to Raging Bull was that of kamikaze filmmaking, in that he threw all he had into that film with the uncertainty if he would ever make a film again. Let’s be thankful it was not his last film (several greats were to come), but also appreciate the boundaries of cinema that Marty stretched and the cliches he obliterated (even if they continue to be overused today, they are painfully obvious after seeing Raging Bull; one needs look only as far as Cinderella Man).
And for these reasons, it is my pick for best film of the 80s.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky over 3 years ago
Tarkovsky, like Bresson (of whom Andrei was a great admirer), completed very few films, but with both it is quality over quantity. Each was consistently excellent, and I don’t use the word lightly.
Their small repertoires might be misleading though, as their films get richer on multiple viewings almost seeming like something entirely new.
I recommend seeing each and every film in his body of work. Several times.
Go to Comment
How Many Movies Do You Watch in a Year? over 3 years ago
Now that we’ve got the quantity numbers out there, how many QUALITY films do you see per year?
I’m sure the numbers will be much lower (unless your project for this year was to watch each Criterion release).
:)
Go to Comment
Your favorite title sequence over 3 years ago
First off, I want to say this is a great topic. I think the forum needs more interesting conversations like this that really convey a true love for cinema.
Okay, my favorite title sequences are the plain ones: Bresson, Ozu, Woody Allen, etc. but some interesting ones are:
Truffaut’s Jules et Jim
Fassbinder’s Marriage of Maria Braun
Lots of Hitchcock
Scorsese’s Raging Bull
Go to Comment
Best Online Film Resources over 3 years ago
http://www.movingimagesource.us/
This is a great resource.
Go to Comment
Favorite Kurosawa flicks? over 3 years ago
Kurosawa is just one of those filmmakers that listing a favorite for is really just pointless. He is almost beyond analysis or film critique. Really.
This is a filmmaker I almost feel ashamed to judge or rank or write about intellectually. Just simply see them all.
He’s such a human and compassionate director, whose films hit you in the gut, on an emotional level. They get wiser and age very well. Everyone will have different favorites and even the same people will have different favorites at different times in their lives.
This is a guy that if you really love film, you should have no excuse for not going to IMDB (if you haven’t already), and methodically finding each and every film of his that you can get your hands on to watch. Then, watch each one several times.
Go to Comment
What Do You Think is So Great About "City Lights"? over 3 years ago
City Lights is like a flower opening before your eyes.
Honest and pure.
A dream.
Go to Comment
Who do you think had it and lost it? When? and Why? over 3 years ago
Brian De Palma
…or maybe he just never really had “it”.
Go to Comment
Jarmusch over 3 years ago
I would put Jarmusch up there, but along with Van Sant and Linklater and Lynch. For me, they’re the only ones doing things interesting enough (and on a consistent basis) cinematically to be considered as leaders of an American movement or generation.
My argument against the rest:
Wes Anderson needs to grow.
PT Anderson took his first leap out of his comfort zone (the Scorsese/Altman style) with There Will Be Blood. He’ll get there.
Tarantino “borrows” too much to be considered a filmmaker of his own.
Go to Comment
INTELLIGENCE IS THE NEW BLACK over 3 years ago
I find Robert Bresson to be as revolutionary to cinema as Sergei Eisenstein; he just hasn’t been paraded around for his impact yet.
Bresson’s impact can be felt in such diverse works as those of Martin Scorsese, Jim Jarmusch, Abbas Kiarostami, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Jean-Luc Godard.
He is the other end of the spectrum for me from what was described in the original post.
Very few filmmakers reach this level of excellence today. So, though Bresson is long dead and gone, I recommend starting with him and then seeing if anyone can measure up.
Go to Comment
I Hate David O. F***ing Selznick! over 3 years ago
I saw The Third Man this weekend and I would love to see the non-Selznick version.
Everything I hear about Selznick is that he mettled with production, or that he changed things around, or compromised the director’s work for the sake of commercial value.
Unfortunately, I think Hollywood has caught a case of Selznick-itis.
He is the epitome of the producer Kirk Douglas plays in The Bad and the Beautiful (though not sure if it was a direct representation). Great film, by the way.
Go to Comment
George Clooney over 3 years ago
I think the fact that George Clooney is even considered by some to be a good director illustrates the degradation of cinema.
Are his politically-driven, quieter films the best American film has to offer? Of course, his competition are Ron Howard and Michael Moore, but come on.
Taken in the history of film, Clooney is nothing more than a Mel Gibson. Forgettable.
Ouch.
Go to Comment
I Hate David O. F***ing Selznick! over 3 years ago
Right, it’s an unbelievable film.
The version you saw though (presumably the Criterion release) was edited down from Reed’s version. 11 minutes were cut by Mr. Selznick.
Go to Comment
favorite funniest movie over 3 years ago
Woody Allen’s Sleeper
Go to Comment