I think Woody Allen’s films are on the whole rather downers, but Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters I found to be excellent exceptions. My personal favorite Allen film is Manhattan, which is rather bleak, but in watching Annie Hall again recently, I found it to be quite creative in technique with a healthy dose of optimism.
I could also name some Fellini films that I would not consider depressing: 8 1/2 (watching it is equivilent to stepping into my shoes, being autistic, and the ending is open to interpretation), Fellini Roma and Amarcord.
I also thought Scenes From A Marriage had a rather optimistic ending for Bergman. The TV version, anyway; I didn’t see the US version.
Lost in Translation I found to be a somewhat feel-good movie, even though the characters were melancholy. Speaking of which, how about Wes Anderson? Of the four of five of his I’ve seen, I thought The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore, while having their sad moments, achieved comedy greatness.
But my number one favorite feel-good movie is Junet’s Amelie. I think four European Film Awards and five Oscar nominations, as well as overwhelming public response, 8.6 on IMDB and 90% on RT should speak for its greatness. I just leaves me feeling great!
I don’t remember what exactly the first title was, but I know for sure the first Criterion I bought was Ran. That movie just has staggering power. I first saw it when I was 12 on the Fox-Lorber edition a friend had, and it blew me away. When I turned 14 or 15, I bought the Criterion.
I guess, “.”, this would explain why my copy of Down By Law doesn’t have a reigon symbol on the jacket. That was a 2002 CC release, so I guess it’s old enough to be reigon-free.
Despite my handle, one Godard movie I don’t like at all (so much so that I turned it off 1/3 of the way through it) was Le Gai Savoir. A noble concept, but executed beyond the point of mental masturbation.
I hated Bonnie and Clyde. Horrible acting.
I thought Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was trite and naive.
Viven Leigh’s melodramatic acting ruined A Streetcar Named Desire.
(I know I’m going to take a lot of heat for this, but…) I didn’t really care for Amarcord. I know it has quite a following. I didn’t think it was bad, but it just didn’t do anything for me. I do like some other Fellini, though, especially 8 1/2 and the way it portrays anxiety. I virtually have to live 8 1/2.
Jeez! You’re 12 and your parents let you watch A Clockwork Orange? I’m almost 17 and my parents still won’t let me watch it! I read the book, though.
Let’s see… when I was your age, I watched Kurosawa’s Ran, the first movie with subtitles I had ever watched. I was at my uncle’s house and he had borrowed the fox-lorber edition from a friend. I never went back to dubbed. I loved it so much that when I was 15, I bought the CC edition. And now it’s out of print!
If your parents let you watch A Clockwork Orange, they’ll let you watch Ran.
While we’re on Kubrick, my favorite one of his is Barry Lyndon. Very slow. Very understated. Very beautiful. Killer soundtrack (if you’re into classical). Very long, too. It helps to break it up into two days. When I was your age, I didn’t know how to truly appreciate the majesty of period epics. Hopefully, you’ll do me one better. Also note that Warner Brothers has not released an anamorphic copy to date (are you listening, Criterion?).
It is exciting that someone else started appreciating cinema at a such young age. Right on, brother!
Ran, Stranger Than Paradise/Down By Law, Raging Bull, Tootsie, Das Boot, Mishima, Purple Rose of Cairo/Hannah and Her Sisters… you guys have pretty much named many of mine.
Bergman Fest tonight on TCM at 6 (that’s pacific time, folks, I live on the west coast). Starting with “The Seventh Seal”, “Wild Strawberries”, “Persona”, “Hour of the Wolf”, and God knows what else.
I’ve noticed some movies say that they are shot in “Techniscope”. I thought it was like any other anamorphic widescreen process, and then I read on DVD Talk’s review of the Blu-ray disc of “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” that it is actually not an anamorphic process, and just uses a portion of the negative. Could someone shed some light on this, please?
I got to watch Amarcord again, recently. I liked it much more than I did the first time. I was also impressed by Roma. I didn’t care for La Strada. Too melodramatic for me and it lacked the fun of Fellini. But of what I’ve seen, 8 1/2 trumphs all. No other film I’ve seen captures the feel of being under stress. A masterpiece, along with aforementioned Amarcord.
When I had Netflix last summer, I rented Pierrot le Fou and Amarcord. Both I didn’t like initially, but grew to love. Now I associate both with summertime. Oh, yes, and Bridge on the River Kwai makes me think of summer.
Metropolitan used at Hastings for $5.99. Elevator to the Gallows used for $9.99. Grey Gardens used $19.99. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button blu-ray used $19.99 (say what you want to about that movie, I’ve yet to see it). Life of Brian (Immaculate Edition, not CC) $8.99 Best Buy.
You’re effin’-A right they’re worth it! If there’s an alternative, nine times out of ten Criterion’s the best. Do copious research and try to catch them on sale. Various retailers (Deep Discount, Barnes and Noble, Amazon) have sales at least once a year. DD’s was in January of this year. B&N’s is typically in November. Keep your eyes peeled. If you need help deciding, you can peruse the top tens of critics and filmmakers under “explore”.
If you had to get one, Seven Samurai should be it. Second: The Third Man. Days of Heaven is also great as a disc. Paris, Texas, 400 Blows and Mishima should be next.
Note that all titles with the thick black bar at the top of the front cover are NOT anamorphic. Other than this, picture and sound quality are superior to anything else 9/10. Like Truefaux warns, just don’t get addicted. Or do.
Sorry to bring this up again, but to brag, I got the Criterion Rules of the Game for $0.99, legit from Hastings. And all I had to do extra was print the jacket art off the internet.
Another video store in town went out of business lately and I picked up a few for $0.48 each:
Mystery Train (x2)
The Limits of Control
Blue Velvet
Deconstructing Harry
Mean Streets
Observe and Report
Abre los Ojos
Paradise Now
Salaam Bombay!
Tell No One
Wendy and Lucy
Wheel of Time
Many of these had the dreaded rental security cases, and they were selling good cases 10 for $1.00, but I picked up a few and they told me to walk right out with them.
I might be wrong, but I believe the scene late in The Pianist where Brody is escaping the safe house in the attack, tracked down the stairs, into the street, plays dead, enters the hospital across the street and escapes over a wall is a single, unbroken take. If I recall correctly.
Since seeing There Will Be Blood in January of 2008, I have been slowly working my way backward through Paul Thomas Anderson’s oeurve, the second one being Punch-Drunk Love. Having autism myself, I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that Adam Sandler’s character, Barry Egan, is clearly “on the spectrum”, though it is never said.
Case in point:
1) Almost completely socially inept and afraid of people
2) Fails to make eye contact or makes contact and then immediately breaks it
3) Paces while on the phone
4) Paces and “dances” and walks funny while in public
5) Stumbles over speech, mumbles, fumbles words
6) Sudden, violent outbursts of anger
7) Obsesses over interests (in this case, the pudding coupons)
8) Meek and passive in personality, but betrays great physical strength (you’d know if you’ve ever had to restrain an autistic child during fits)
9) Sensitivity to light and sound (reflected in cinematography and on the soundtrack)
10) Gullible
Convinced?
I have personally exhibited at one time or another (and still do, most of them) all of these traits. In the film, Barry’s stress during the first half of the picture is manifested on the soundtrack by music (by Jon Brion) not dissimilar to Toru Takemitsu compositions, which are designed to steadily increase the viewer’s stress level, thus making his escape to Hawaii that much more relieving. If this turned you off of the film, I’ll state that this is how it’s really like for me and others like me.
Similarly, the cinematographer (Robert Elswit) playing with exposure reflects an autistic person’s sensitivity to bright light and preference to dark spaces.
I also will defend the “romantic comedy” formula in this film, which is downplayed. I may be rationalizing, but I don’t believe Anderson’s message is “True Love Conquers All”. I think he knows better. Barry is stronger because he found someone who understands him and his challenges. He obviously wasn’t getting that from his family. This is exemplified by the final “track-in” and the final line Emily Watson utters, “so here we go…” It’s a new adventure.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Does anyone know what P.T. Anderson thinks of the personality of Barry Egan, how he formed the character in the writing process?
Further reading:
“Thinking in Pictures” and “The Way I See It” (Temple Grandin)
When I hear about how great “A Clockwork Orange” is, I really get the feeling people are seeing something that isn’t there. I’m not a moralist, but I think it’s irresponsible for Kubrick to try to make us feel more sympathy for a serial rapist and murderer than for his victims. The violence has no tension to make us sympathize for anyone he hurts, but boy, when he is wronged, we’re supposed to feel mighty sorry for him. It dumbs down the central “moral debate” everyone hypes about: freedom to choose. Interestingly enough, Kubrick makes the choice for us as to which side to take. I admittedly have never been able to sit through rape scenes, but I think the film would have benifieted from not flinching from the violence, instead of cutting away. Think about it: if Kubrick had made Alex’s violence horrific instead of comic and stylized, wouldn’t that have juxtaposed one evil against another and thus made it a challenging, thought-provoking debate? The moral debate is invalidated in my mind.
I read the book in three days. It’s a masterpiece. It doesn’t flinch when Alex gets two ten-year-old girls drunk and rapes them. We are privy to his thoughts and the evil within him. But he’s charming. And evil. The moral debate is more valid in the book, although in the text, Alex quickly signs away his sanity with the flick of a pen without a thought, whereas in Kubrick’s film, he’s forced into not reading it, thus making him the only “victim” in the mess. Aside from this, the prose is masterful.
The trailer is, however, one of the best of all time.
I’d see “Catcher in the Rye” directed by Sidney Lumet. New York. Alienated youth. Cynicism. No music. It fits perfectly into his calalogue! He’d know that it would be a bad idea to have any background score.
Loved (in order):
1) Barry Lyndon
2) Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
3) & 4) (tie) 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining
5) The Killing
6) Paths of Glory
7) Killer’s Kiss
8) Lolita
comme si, comme ca:
9) Full Metal Jacket
hated:
10) A Clockwork Orange
11) Spartacus
Haven’t seen Eyes Wide Shut nor Fear and Desire (yet), but Kubrick is my favorite director.
Aside from Shadow of a Doubt and The Birds (possibly Frenzy as well, I haven’t seen it), there’s nothing worth keeping that you won’t be getting a better edition of. I’d instantly swap.
(By the way, I own the 2-Disc Legacy Edition of Psycho (great) and the 50th Anniversary North by Northwest blu-ray (revalatory! You won’t believe what you’re seeing!)
I put this to you: can you tell a person’s entire life story in 90 minutes and still get the gist of what they lived for? (Okay: Citizen Kane (1h, 59m), but what others?)
A real life can last millions of hours and isn’t always thrilling. Life is full of dull spots! Just think of how long you wait at red lights!
Maybe it’s just me. I sit through “Seven Samurai” (3h, 27m) without any trouble at all. I recently rented “Che” from the library and sat through all 4 hours and 31 minutes in one day. I sat through “Jeanne Dielman” (3h, 21m) twice without much trouble. “Lawrence of Arabia” (3h, 47m) I saw on TCM in one sitting (haven’t been able to do that since). I love the director’s cut restoration of Das Boot (3h, 29m). My all-time favorite film is Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” (3h, 5m)!
Whenever I ask my Mom if she wants to watch something, she asks how long it is. If it’s over two hours, she treats it like “The Cure for Insomnia”. If you have that short an attention span, watch a TV commercial!
But then why do I have trouble sitting through two-hour silent films?
Dont Look Back. Easily. I’m not even that much of a Bob Dylan fan, but something about this movie makes me watch it over and over again. I think it’s the bracing honesty. Anyone who doubts that a documentary can be objective should see this.
Also:
The Fog of War
Man on Wire
Would very much like to see Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera
Can’t be objective? Maybe not. I see your point and have deliberated it long before. It comes close. Pennebaker had to choose what was shown in the editing process and narrow the runtime down to 96 minutes, thus eliminating a good deal more footage. But watch it and tell me if what Pennebaker captured and assembled didn’t judge his subject and leave the viewer to decide what they think of Dylan. It popularized the “verite” documentary style and revolutionized the concert film. There is no narrator, no camera-subject interviews and no title cards (aside from obligitory credits). You’re left to decipher everything yourself. The access Pennebaker had to capure his subject in such a complex way is amazing: Dylan can be asshole, playing mind games with reporters, letting his groupies loose upon themselves and enjoying it, being intolerant to other people (get a load of how much of a prick Albert Grossman was). He is also shown socializing with fans, stressed out by fame and in some great music performances. I kind of like to define a good documentary as capturing the complexity and feeling of a subject, because no real truth is objective anyway.
@ Deckard: What exactly makes A Clockwork Orange “one of Kubrick’s best work”? Why and how is it “an incredible work of art”?
Some people like to try to tell me how “visually innovative” it is. How hard is it to get close to something with a wide-angle lens to make things look “weird”? Pick up a camera with a 24mm and see. What did the wide-angle lenses do for the story? Read the book and tell me if the form (Kubrick used) matched the content of the book. I kind of like to think every choice by a filmmaker should reflect what he or she is trying to convey. I could see someone saying that the barrel distortion of the lenses (what were they, 9.8mm? [Source: The Shining interviews with Garret Brown on the Two-Disc edition]) emphasises the distorted moral values of Alex and his world. But I think Roger Ebert nailed it on the head: then why is Alex in the center of the frame, where he isn’t distorted but everyone else is?
Kubrick went through great efforts to make Alex likeable. All right: if the story is told from his point of view, to what end? What was Kubrick trying to accomplish? What was the purpose of showing violence and condemning it if you’re not really condemning it? Let’s see: he made the fight with Billy Boy’s droogs Chaplin-y comic (is real-world violence funny? Have you ever been a victim of it?), cut away before the gang-rape in Mr. Alexander’s home, changed the record-store girls rape to consentual sex, shot the canal-side attack in tension-killing slow-motion, cut away before he pummeled the Cat Lady to death and stylized it all to Holy Hell! But everything that was done to him was depicted in great, naturalistic detail! It’s a ploy Kubrick used for sympathy.
Here is an example of a better film: Fritz Lang’s M. It doesn’t show us any violence, (but doesn’t need to) presents both sides of the story: a city gripped in fear and blind rage, the mysterious psychopath who is a victim of his own demons, the innocent children who are the greater victims. Each element is given weight. Lang takes no sides. In the kangaroo court, Beckert’s confession might be real, or a further manipulative ploy. And the ending seals the drama with no easy answers: whatever the state does to punish Beckert, it won’t bring back the murdered children. M is also ten times more innovative than ACO in its use of cutting away during dialogue to montages of related tableaux (with dialogue still playing, showing a disconnect of sound and image). Name one movie that did that with sound before M.
In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick wants us to side with Alex. Why? Why make a movie condemning violence by wanting us to side with someone who loves it? Why have a moral debate on the freedom to choose if the choice is made for us? There’s no challenge to the moral debate if it’s one-sided. Hello! M just solidifies my stance and shows just how trite ACO is.
Exhibit B: Michael Haneke. Just look at the restrained but unsparing depiction of violence and denial of normal plot catharsis. Funny Games and Cache alone make ACO simplistic by comparison.
A Clockwork Orange isn’t just a minor work – it’s a complete misfire! Not only that, but I don’t think the book should have been adapted at all! So much is reliant on language that it’s impossible to depict it visually.
Do great films have to be depressing and bleak to be great? over 3 years ago
I think Woody Allen’s films are on the whole rather downers, but Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters I found to be excellent exceptions. My personal favorite Allen film is Manhattan, which is rather bleak, but in watching Annie Hall again recently, I found it to be quite creative in technique with a healthy dose of optimism.
I could also name some Fellini films that I would not consider depressing: 8 1/2 (watching it is equivilent to stepping into my shoes, being autistic, and the ending is open to interpretation), Fellini Roma and Amarcord.
I also thought Scenes From A Marriage had a rather optimistic ending for Bergman. The TV version, anyway; I didn’t see the US version.
Lost in Translation I found to be a somewhat feel-good movie, even though the characters were melancholy. Speaking of which, how about Wes Anderson? Of the four of five of his I’ve seen, I thought The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore, while having their sad moments, achieved comedy greatness.
But my number one favorite feel-good movie is Junet’s Amelie. I think four European Film Awards and five Oscar nominations, as well as overwhelming public response, 8.6 on IMDB and 90% on RT should speak for its greatness. I just leaves me feeling great!
Go to Comment
What was the first Criterion movie you watched? over 3 years ago
I don’t remember what exactly the first title was, but I know for sure the first Criterion I bought was Ran. That movie just has staggering power. I first saw it when I was 12 on the Fox-Lorber edition a friend had, and it blew me away. When I turned 14 or 15, I bought the Criterion.
Go to Comment
Region about 3 years ago
I guess, “.”, this would explain why my copy of Down By Law doesn’t have a reigon symbol on the jacket. That was a 2002 CC release, so I guess it’s old enough to be reigon-free.
Go to Comment
Movies you hated that everyone else loves about 3 years ago
Despite my handle, one Godard movie I don’t like at all (so much so that I turned it off 1/3 of the way through it) was Le Gai Savoir. A noble concept, but executed beyond the point of mental masturbation.
I hated Bonnie and Clyde. Horrible acting.
I thought Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was trite and naive.
Viven Leigh’s melodramatic acting ruined A Streetcar Named Desire.
(I know I’m going to take a lot of heat for this, but…) I didn’t really care for Amarcord. I know it has quite a following. I didn’t think it was bad, but it just didn’t do anything for me. I do like some other Fellini, though, especially 8 1/2 and the way it portrays anxiety. I virtually have to live 8 1/2.
Napoleon Dynamite I found to be mediocre.
For the record, I am a fan of Wes Anderson.
Go to Comment
12-year old asking... about 3 years ago
Jeez! You’re 12 and your parents let you watch A Clockwork Orange? I’m almost 17 and my parents still won’t let me watch it! I read the book, though.
Let’s see… when I was your age, I watched Kurosawa’s Ran, the first movie with subtitles I had ever watched. I was at my uncle’s house and he had borrowed the fox-lorber edition from a friend. I never went back to dubbed. I loved it so much that when I was 15, I bought the CC edition. And now it’s out of print!
If your parents let you watch A Clockwork Orange, they’ll let you watch Ran.
While we’re on Kubrick, my favorite one of his is Barry Lyndon. Very slow. Very understated. Very beautiful. Killer soundtrack (if you’re into classical). Very long, too. It helps to break it up into two days. When I was your age, I didn’t know how to truly appreciate the majesty of period epics. Hopefully, you’ll do me one better. Also note that Warner Brothers has not released an anamorphic copy to date (are you listening, Criterion?).
It is exciting that someone else started appreciating cinema at a such young age. Right on, brother!
Go to Comment
Best Films of the 80's? about 3 years ago
Ran, Stranger Than Paradise/Down By Law, Raging Bull, Tootsie, Das Boot, Mishima, Purple Rose of Cairo/Hannah and Her Sisters… you guys have pretty much named many of mine.
Go to Comment
Bergman vs. Godard almost 3 years ago
Bergman Fest tonight on TCM at 6 (that’s pacific time, folks, I live on the west coast). Starting with “The Seventh Seal”, “Wild Strawberries”, “Persona”, “Hour of the Wolf”, and God knows what else.
Go to Comment
What is Techniscope? almost 3 years ago
I’ve noticed some movies say that they are shot in “Techniscope”. I thought it was like any other anamorphic widescreen process, and then I read on DVD Talk’s review of the Blu-ray disc of “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” that it is actually not an anamorphic process, and just uses a portion of the negative. Could someone shed some light on this, please?
Go to Comment
IF WE IGNORE 81/2 AND DOLCE VITA, WHAT'D BE THE BEST FELLINI MOVIE? almost 3 years ago
I got to watch Amarcord again, recently. I liked it much more than I did the first time. I was also impressed by Roma. I didn’t care for La Strada. Too melodramatic for me and it lacked the fun of Fellini. But of what I’ve seen, 8 1/2 trumphs all. No other film I’ve seen captures the feel of being under stress. A masterpiece, along with aforementioned Amarcord.
Go to Comment
Best summer films of all time almost 3 years ago
When I had Netflix last summer, I rented Pierrot le Fou and Amarcord. Both I didn’t like initially, but grew to love. Now I associate both with summertime. Oh, yes, and Bridge on the River Kwai makes me think of summer.
Go to Comment
The best deals (purchase wise) you've come across almost 3 years ago
Metropolitan used at Hastings for $5.99. Elevator to the Gallows used for $9.99. Grey Gardens used $19.99. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button blu-ray used $19.99 (say what you want to about that movie, I’ve yet to see it). Life of Brian (Immaculate Edition, not CC) $8.99 Best Buy.
Go to Comment
Just discoverd the Criterion site and very tempted with what it has to offer. Are they as good as the appear? about 2 years ago
Is the Pope Catholic?
Garry:
You’re effin’-A right they’re worth it! If there’s an alternative, nine times out of ten Criterion’s the best. Do copious research and try to catch them on sale. Various retailers (Deep Discount, Barnes and Noble, Amazon) have sales at least once a year. DD’s was in January of this year. B&N’s is typically in November. Keep your eyes peeled. If you need help deciding, you can peruse the top tens of critics and filmmakers under “explore”.
If you had to get one, Seven Samurai should be it. Second: The Third Man. Days of Heaven is also great as a disc. Paris, Texas, 400 Blows and Mishima should be next.
Note that all titles with the thick black bar at the top of the front cover are NOT anamorphic. Other than this, picture and sound quality are superior to anything else 9/10. Like Truefaux warns, just don’t get addicted. Or do.
Go to Comment
If You Could Have a Criterion Title Tattooed on Your Penis, Which Would It Be and Why? about 2 years ago
The Rock
Go to Comment
If You Could Have a Criterion Title Tattooed on Your Penis, Which Would It Be and Why? about 2 years ago
Green for Danger
Hard Boiled
The Magic Flute
Go to Comment
Most Common Short Films Cliches about 2 years ago
Short films/student films without dialogue
In can work, but it’s still cliche
Go to Comment
The best deals (purchase wise) you've come across about 2 years ago
Sorry to bring this up again, but to brag, I got the Criterion Rules of the Game for $0.99, legit from Hastings. And all I had to do extra was print the jacket art off the internet.
Another video store in town went out of business lately and I picked up a few for $0.48 each:
Mystery Train (x2)
The Limits of Control
Blue Velvet
Deconstructing Harry
Mean Streets
Observe and Report
Abre los Ojos
Paradise Now
Salaam Bombay!
Tell No One
Wendy and Lucy
Wheel of Time
Many of these had the dreaded rental security cases, and they were selling good cases 10 for $1.00, but I picked up a few and they told me to walk right out with them.
Go to Comment
Most impressive one-take tracking shot? about 2 years ago
I might be wrong, but I believe the scene late in The Pianist where Brody is escaping the safe house in the attack, tracked down the stairs, into the street, plays dead, enters the hospital across the street and escapes over a wall is a single, unbroken take. If I recall correctly.
Go to Comment
Punch Drunk Love and Autism Spectrum DIsorder about 2 years ago
Since seeing There Will Be Blood in January of 2008, I have been slowly working my way backward through Paul Thomas Anderson’s oeurve, the second one being Punch-Drunk Love. Having autism myself, I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that Adam Sandler’s character, Barry Egan, is clearly “on the spectrum”, though it is never said.
Case in point:
1) Almost completely socially inept and afraid of people
2) Fails to make eye contact or makes contact and then immediately breaks it
3) Paces while on the phone
4) Paces and “dances” and walks funny while in public
5) Stumbles over speech, mumbles, fumbles words
6) Sudden, violent outbursts of anger
7) Obsesses over interests (in this case, the pudding coupons)
8) Meek and passive in personality, but betrays great physical strength (you’d know if you’ve ever had to restrain an autistic child during fits)
9) Sensitivity to light and sound (reflected in cinematography and on the soundtrack)
10) Gullible
Convinced?
I have personally exhibited at one time or another (and still do, most of them) all of these traits. In the film, Barry’s stress during the first half of the picture is manifested on the soundtrack by music (by Jon Brion) not dissimilar to Toru Takemitsu compositions, which are designed to steadily increase the viewer’s stress level, thus making his escape to Hawaii that much more relieving. If this turned you off of the film, I’ll state that this is how it’s really like for me and others like me.
Similarly, the cinematographer (Robert Elswit) playing with exposure reflects an autistic person’s sensitivity to bright light and preference to dark spaces.
I also will defend the “romantic comedy” formula in this film, which is downplayed. I may be rationalizing, but I don’t believe Anderson’s message is “True Love Conquers All”. I think he knows better. Barry is stronger because he found someone who understands him and his challenges. He obviously wasn’t getting that from his family. This is exemplified by the final “track-in” and the final line Emily Watson utters, “so here we go…” It’s a new adventure.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Does anyone know what P.T. Anderson thinks of the personality of Barry Egan, how he formed the character in the writing process?
Further reading:
“Thinking in Pictures” and “The Way I See It” (Temple Grandin)
Go to Comment
what's all the fuss about? about 2 years ago
When I hear about how great “A Clockwork Orange” is, I really get the feeling people are seeing something that isn’t there. I’m not a moralist, but I think it’s irresponsible for Kubrick to try to make us feel more sympathy for a serial rapist and murderer than for his victims. The violence has no tension to make us sympathize for anyone he hurts, but boy, when he is wronged, we’re supposed to feel mighty sorry for him. It dumbs down the central “moral debate” everyone hypes about: freedom to choose. Interestingly enough, Kubrick makes the choice for us as to which side to take. I admittedly have never been able to sit through rape scenes, but I think the film would have benifieted from not flinching from the violence, instead of cutting away. Think about it: if Kubrick had made Alex’s violence horrific instead of comic and stylized, wouldn’t that have juxtaposed one evil against another and thus made it a challenging, thought-provoking debate? The moral debate is invalidated in my mind.
I read the book in three days. It’s a masterpiece. It doesn’t flinch when Alex gets two ten-year-old girls drunk and rapes them. We are privy to his thoughts and the evil within him. But he’s charming. And evil. The moral debate is more valid in the book, although in the text, Alex quickly signs away his sanity with the flick of a pen without a thought, whereas in Kubrick’s film, he’s forced into not reading it, thus making him the only “victim” in the mess. Aside from this, the prose is masterful.
The trailer is, however, one of the best of all time.
Go to Comment
Greatest Films You'll Never See about 2 years ago
I’d see “Catcher in the Rye” directed by Sidney Lumet. New York. Alienated youth. Cynicism. No music. It fits perfectly into his calalogue! He’d know that it would be a bad idea to have any background score.
Gotta respect Salinger, though.
Go to Comment
Ranking Kubrick about 2 years ago
From what I’ve seen…
Loved (in order):
1) Barry Lyndon
2) Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
3) & 4) (tie) 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining
5) The Killing
6) Paths of Glory
7) Killer’s Kiss
8) Lolita
comme si, comme ca:
9) Full Metal Jacket
hated:
10) A Clockwork Orange
11) Spartacus
Haven’t seen Eyes Wide Shut nor Fear and Desire (yet), but Kubrick is my favorite director.
Go to Comment
Is this worth it? about 2 years ago
Aside from Shadow of a Doubt and The Birds (possibly Frenzy as well, I haven’t seen it), there’s nothing worth keeping that you won’t be getting a better edition of. I’d instantly swap.
(By the way, I own the 2-Disc Legacy Edition of Psycho (great) and the 50th Anniversary North by Northwest blu-ray (revalatory! You won’t believe what you’re seeing!)
Go to Comment
Should any movie be three hours long? almost 2 years ago
I put this to you: can you tell a person’s entire life story in 90 minutes and still get the gist of what they lived for? (Okay: Citizen Kane (1h, 59m), but what others?)
A real life can last millions of hours and isn’t always thrilling. Life is full of dull spots! Just think of how long you wait at red lights!
Maybe it’s just me. I sit through “Seven Samurai” (3h, 27m) without any trouble at all. I recently rented “Che” from the library and sat through all 4 hours and 31 minutes in one day. I sat through “Jeanne Dielman” (3h, 21m) twice without much trouble. “Lawrence of Arabia” (3h, 47m) I saw on TCM in one sitting (haven’t been able to do that since). I love the director’s cut restoration of Das Boot (3h, 29m). My all-time favorite film is Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” (3h, 5m)!
Whenever I ask my Mom if she wants to watch something, she asks how long it is. If it’s over two hours, she treats it like “The Cure for Insomnia”. If you have that short an attention span, watch a TV commercial!
But then why do I have trouble sitting through two-hour silent films?
Go to Comment
Favourite Score almost 2 years ago
Nino Rota – Amarcord
Vangelis – Chariots of Fire
Bernard Hermann – Vertigo
Philip Glass – Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
Go to Comment
Favorite Documentaries almost 2 years ago
Dont Look Back. Easily. I’m not even that much of a Bob Dylan fan, but something about this movie makes me watch it over and over again. I think it’s the bracing honesty. Anyone who doubts that a documentary can be objective should see this.
Also:
The Fog of War
Man on Wire
Would very much like to see Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera
Go to Comment
Film Titles that would make a Good McDonalds Product almost 2 years ago
BrokeBig&Tasty
Go to Comment
Favorite Documentaries almost 2 years ago
I SURRENDER, DEAR,
Can’t be objective? Maybe not. I see your point and have deliberated it long before. It comes close. Pennebaker had to choose what was shown in the editing process and narrow the runtime down to 96 minutes, thus eliminating a good deal more footage. But watch it and tell me if what Pennebaker captured and assembled didn’t judge his subject and leave the viewer to decide what they think of Dylan. It popularized the “verite” documentary style and revolutionized the concert film. There is no narrator, no camera-subject interviews and no title cards (aside from obligitory credits). You’re left to decipher everything yourself. The access Pennebaker had to capure his subject in such a complex way is amazing: Dylan can be asshole, playing mind games with reporters, letting his groupies loose upon themselves and enjoying it, being intolerant to other people (get a load of how much of a prick Albert Grossman was). He is also shown socializing with fans, stressed out by fame and in some great music performances. I kind of like to define a good documentary as capturing the complexity and feeling of a subject, because no real truth is objective anyway.
Go to Comment
Most erotic films you've seen. almost 2 years ago
My Dinner with Andre
Go to Comment
Most erotic films you've seen. almost 2 years ago
Just kidding.
Go to Comment
what's all the fuss about? almost 2 years ago
@ Deckard: What exactly makes A Clockwork Orange “one of Kubrick’s best work”? Why and how is it “an incredible work of art”?
Some people like to try to tell me how “visually innovative” it is. How hard is it to get close to something with a wide-angle lens to make things look “weird”? Pick up a camera with a 24mm and see. What did the wide-angle lenses do for the story? Read the book and tell me if the form (Kubrick used) matched the content of the book. I kind of like to think every choice by a filmmaker should reflect what he or she is trying to convey. I could see someone saying that the barrel distortion of the lenses (what were they, 9.8mm? [Source: The Shining interviews with Garret Brown on the Two-Disc edition]) emphasises the distorted moral values of Alex and his world. But I think Roger Ebert nailed it on the head: then why is Alex in the center of the frame, where he isn’t distorted but everyone else is?
Kubrick went through great efforts to make Alex likeable. All right: if the story is told from his point of view, to what end? What was Kubrick trying to accomplish? What was the purpose of showing violence and condemning it if you’re not really condemning it? Let’s see: he made the fight with Billy Boy’s droogs Chaplin-y comic (is real-world violence funny? Have you ever been a victim of it?), cut away before the gang-rape in Mr. Alexander’s home, changed the record-store girls rape to consentual sex, shot the canal-side attack in tension-killing slow-motion, cut away before he pummeled the Cat Lady to death and stylized it all to Holy Hell! But everything that was done to him was depicted in great, naturalistic detail! It’s a ploy Kubrick used for sympathy.
Here is an example of a better film: Fritz Lang’s M. It doesn’t show us any violence, (but doesn’t need to) presents both sides of the story: a city gripped in fear and blind rage, the mysterious psychopath who is a victim of his own demons, the innocent children who are the greater victims. Each element is given weight. Lang takes no sides. In the kangaroo court, Beckert’s confession might be real, or a further manipulative ploy. And the ending seals the drama with no easy answers: whatever the state does to punish Beckert, it won’t bring back the murdered children. M is also ten times more innovative than ACO in its use of cutting away during dialogue to montages of related tableaux (with dialogue still playing, showing a disconnect of sound and image). Name one movie that did that with sound before M.
In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick wants us to side with Alex. Why? Why make a movie condemning violence by wanting us to side with someone who loves it? Why have a moral debate on the freedom to choose if the choice is made for us? There’s no challenge to the moral debate if it’s one-sided. Hello! M just solidifies my stance and shows just how trite ACO is.
Exhibit B: Michael Haneke. Just look at the restrained but unsparing depiction of violence and denial of normal plot catharsis. Funny Games and Cache alone make ACO simplistic by comparison.
A Clockwork Orange isn’t just a minor work – it’s a complete misfire! Not only that, but I don’t think the book should have been adapted at all! So much is reliant on language that it’s impossible to depict it visually.
Go to Comment