Drew, I was recently in the same situation you were, seeing this film: no previous von trier experience, etc. Basically, free of a lot of bias.
Sometimes the film struck me as a little indulgent (in terms of form) for my taste, but other times I found myself absolutely stunned (the final scene, reminiscent of Camus’ L’etranger. Wow, I can’t even…)
This film unsettled me though. I found myself angry at Bjork’s character—why couldn’t she just tell them everything, why did she have to refuse help, why, why, why. she was simulatneously weak and strong, frustrated me to the point of rage, I wanted to scream, I wanted her to get the worst, she deserved to die!—But then she would win my sympathies back.
but it scared me how cruel I was in my opinions of her, I questioned myself, even now, three weeks later, I get the occasionally flash.
I don’t know if I want to watch it again, in an attempt to exorcise the demons or if that will only make it worse. I haven’t had such a visceral reaction to a film before (Do the Right Thing hit me pretty hard though).
With all that said, I realize that this film also makes me question what it is that makes me like a film. This film seems as though it has worked its way to my core, but at the same time I don’t know if I would put it on my list of favorites, but then why are my favorite films on that list?
Damn it, why do I watch movies, I should just sit outside and observe and feel instead.
I really loved this movie, an amazing endeavor. Kaufman got lots of great performances, the script lived up to me expectations—well, beyond my expectations.
I just really liked this movie a lot. My one problem with it: to telling. By that I mean he didn’t show things to the degree that I had wished he had, more, he explained them, or told them to us. More specifically, I wanted more camera movement. Movement of the camera, for me, is the essence of cinema; it can build emotion so powerfully, show things subtley.
I also wanted long takes. His quick shots very effective at giving the impression of the fragmented and restless existence of the main character, but I think some long takes would have really helped him get at the some of the truths he was hoping to impart on the audience.
For me, a very profound film, but could have had a lot more impact if it had exploited the camera better, integrating the audience a little better, instead of telling all this wonderfully, edge-of-enlightenment profundity at us.
Well, music, like film, is certainly not all crap these days. There are tons of great artists out there. I think we would be offended and as a group pretty pissed off if people started claiming cinema was junk these days—of course it isn’t, the good stuff just isn’t a mainstream as it used to be. Same with music.
God there are so many greats right now, actually probably more than ever with the digital age. If you want some suggestions I can give you some—I love everything really, but I tend to be more of a jazzhead, funk, neo-soul guy.
Well, music, like film, is certainly not all crap these days. There are tons of great artists out there. I think we would be offended and as a group pretty pissed off if people started claiming cinema was junk these days—of course it isn’t, the good stuff just isn’t a mainstream as it used to be. Same with music.
God there are so many greats right now, actually probably more than ever with the digital age. If you want some suggestions I can give you some—I love everything really, but I tend to be more of a jazzhead, funk, neo-soul guy.
I’m all for cutting Bay’s comment to pieces, but what’s always bothered me is when a film is called “art.” Firstly it sounds pretentious, but that’s just my personal opinion, what I think is really wrong with calling a film “art” is that decisions go into every film—Michael Bay’s included. Those decisions can be questioned by us, their merit judged, but there’s always the question in the director (or whoever’s head) of “what am I trying to show.”
So I guess you could say movies that are “art” are movies whose cinematic decisions we enjoy for one reason or another, but calling a movie “artsy” is just stupid machismo bullshit. Everyone is trying to do the same thing, and that is make a good movie (whatever that means) so when Michael Bay says the word artsy I feel like he’s completely misunderstood all of cinema. The movie about a winery in France is choosing to show the owners son as someone who’s undermining tradition by starting up a cheap wine company that doesn’t treat it’s workers well, and doesn’t care about quality, only money, while Michael Bay is choosing to show a massive robot that is compassionate, seeking to champion the values of courage and sacrifice.
So yes, in this instance, Michael Bay in my opinion was not thinking.
Yeah, they’re not art—they’re life. Maybe I’m just hung up over the implications of superficial nomenclature, but I feel like everything that’s classified as art is really just life and its decisions in another medium…and okay, that medium is called art. But I still can’t get over it.
A recent one that manipulates time a lot is Synecdoche.
Also, somewhat of a tangent—An american, recently (past couple of decades) spent his entire life trying to build a time travel machine so he could see his dead father again. To do so he needed to get PHDs and other high degrees in multiple forms of math, physics, and engineering. He literally dedicated his life to this almost ridiculous quest. Of course he didn’t suceed, though along the way did become a pre-eminence among all those subjects, contributing many new theories etc.
I heard this on the radio, thought it was a good story. For a better telling of than I did, go to the NPR website, select “This American Life” and find it.
For me it was somewhat of an allegory on the nature of cinema. But I think that’s pretty dumb sounding though. I prefer to think of it just as a moving representation of the emotions comprising the experiences of deja vu, memory loss, nostlagia, and the meeting of a beautiful woman.
Yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about this…for me the book was really cinematic, so perhaps making a film of it might be and insult to the book. I almost picture the movie as something with the pace and feel of Malick’s Thin Red Line.
It seems like there is a bit of dislike for Cormac McCarthy’s work. Just remember how many great movies were made out of clumsy second rate literature.
I agree with what everyone has said about rewatching, but I also feel like you shouldn’t push yourself to like films just because they’re part of the canon. It sounds like you registered intellectually why it was a good film, which is a good thing, it just didn’t filter through on an emotional level.
Please, don’t force yourself to like the movie just because “it’s good,” which most people say it is (I love it too). I think forcing yourself to like it would be a huge disservice to your film career (whatever that may be, critic, hobbyist, director, writer, etc).
I just finished beauty and the beast, blood of a poet, and orpheus. I don’t really like him all that much. I get the sense I’m watching a dabbler in film when I see his movies, which he described himself as being. By “dabbler” I mean good movies made by someone who wasn’t really immersed in the field.
Blood of a Poet I thought was enlivening, I could feel Cocteau’s excitement, but overall it felt a little juvenile to me. Orpheus more mature, but stuck on the same themes. Testament of Orpheus I hear is basically Cocteau walking through a rehash of all his work.
His ideas didn’t really seem grow or change throughout his career. And also he seems to only be interested in commenting about art, which I, being a miserable git, don’t find interesting at all.
Wow. Puerto Rico—for the moment, makes me thank my lucky stars I’m living in Boston.
Anyway, I’m bringing us back to the Hurt Locker if you guys don’t mind—I saw it about an hour ago.
Personally, I’m sick of hand held camera war movies. I think it’s a short cut for “realism.” And I know people are very adamant about this movie being about something that is happening NOW—well, you guys are right, it isn’t entertainment, its a war. Which is why I don’t want to be a part of it. And so, hand held camera, well, personally I don’t want any realism, thank you (even though I don’t think the hand held necessarily does the best job of realism, perhaps lazy…).
And just as I was thinking this in the movie, they had one of those beautiful slow motion shots. To think that amidst all the chaos of the war, and the hand held camera, that there is a moment as slow, and precise, and willful as those slomo shots, was wonderful for me.
Something else that didn’t work for me was the script, which though lacked any interesting character development. There was no one character I felt connected, and as a result of the dispersion of my sympathies…no emotional attachment. I just felt on the outside of the movie, as opposed to really inside it.
Moment of ecstatic truth: This isn’t really a moment of ecstatic truth since it’s just a line of dialogue but…when in James’ final speech when he says that as you get older you love things less and less, until you only love one or two things—that moment brought me to tears. It made me so scared. I’m 19, I really hope this isn’t how my life will play out, but I can see it happening already.
Bunch of other things in the film I really like, some imagery, performances, little insights into a conflict happening on the other side of the earth, etc.
I haven’t done much formal study of film in school, and I like figuring stuff out on my own—that’s how began my cinematic journey, but here’s one that I’m stuck on:
In editing, you will occasionally have a scene that cuts to the next scene with no trimmings or trappings—just a simple cut into a completely different scene. I’m trying to figure out why filmmakers do this. I guess the obvious reason is that it leaves you in a kind of shocked, disoriented state, stuck between the two scenes, carrying the previous over into the next, but why else? And of course I there are probably hundreds of reasons why this technique has been used.
I can’t really think of any off the top of my head, but I’m sure you guys will help me out with all this…cheers.
Well, I kind of think of each character in any film to be a manifestation of the main character. so I don’t think that alone makes The Silence profound, seeing as for me that is true in every movie.
This is something I’ve been struggling with for a while: how do you find a good balance between audience comprehension and satisfying your own personal vision—obviously all directors (and people in life) have had this dilemma, pleasing others versus pleasing themselves, so I guess the answer would be a mix of both, but I’m just curious to hear some people’s own opinions and justifications for the two sides.
I’ve actually got a question (well many, but one that has been nagging at me for a while: why that particular sound-scape during the shower scene? Crows/birds calling?
Never. Ever. The foremost reason I love film is that I love thinking. And when someone talks about the movie for me I can’t think myself. I love coming up with little theories, insights, quirks, that may not at all have to do with what the movie is about, but as long as I thought long and hard about it I feel so good.
Watching all the extras is cheating.
Though production documentaries are sometimes very interesting, I’ll watch those on rare occasion, but even so, I just feel like it starts giving away too much and then I get someone’s voice stuck in my head, and I can never watch the movie purely again.
In fact, I don’t even read reviews, critiques, analysis breakdowns.
Really any Gustave le Grey—the light and sometimes the distortion of the image (due to the lens, the glass, I don’t know) give these pictures such a nostalgia.
These images are so powerful to me—I hope the picture posted.
I saw Mike Leigh’s “Naked” today. Usually I don’t do this because I like to figure things out myself, but I’m going to ask a question:
The opening shot of the film is handheld—seemingly deliberately shaky—and consists of the camera almost running up to Johnny raping a women in an alley.
The final shot of the film is a smooth dolly shot tracking away from Johny, who is limping very badly.
First and last shots are very often connnected—in this case the camera is moving toward Johnny and shaking a lot in the first shot, whereas in the final shot the camera is pulling away and Johnny himself is shaky (he is limping, as if mimicking the handheld camera in the first shot).
So my question is what is the intent of this correlation.
Or is the appropriate question, “Drew, are you nuts?” Did I make that all up?
I’m a huge jazz head (among many other types of music).
Some jazz that hasn’t been mentioned yet on this forum that I think people should merely because it sent me into such a bliss:
JOSHUA REDMAN:
Live at the Village Vanguard
Momentum
Elastic
(really any of his stuff)
LEE MORGAN
Cornbread
Sidewinder
OSCAR PETERSON
Oscar Peterson Plays the Count Basie Songbook
LARRY GOLDINGS
Moonbird
The Intimacy of the Blues
AVISHAI COHEN
Continuo
Lyla
Gently Disturbed
ESPERANZA SPALDING
Esperanza
LETTUCE
(anything)
NICHOLAS PAYTON
Payton’s Place
SOULLIVE
(anything)
And then of course any Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Charlie Parker—AH HELL! I wish I could just list my whole library—no one talks about jazz on forums like this miracle that is The Auteurs!
Yes, I think we can all agree that there are some that brilliant that we can take them for granted and not even mention them.
Unfortunately there are more than “some” that are brilliant, today the masters are arguably even more brilliant than the old masters, yet their audience is painfully diminished.
Dancer in the Dark about 3 years ago
Drew, I was recently in the same situation you were, seeing this film: no previous von trier experience, etc. Basically, free of a lot of bias.
Sometimes the film struck me as a little indulgent (in terms of form) for my taste, but other times I found myself absolutely stunned (the final scene, reminiscent of Camus’ L’etranger. Wow, I can’t even…)
This film unsettled me though. I found myself angry at Bjork’s character—why couldn’t she just tell them everything, why did she have to refuse help, why, why, why. she was simulatneously weak and strong, frustrated me to the point of rage, I wanted to scream, I wanted her to get the worst, she deserved to die!—But then she would win my sympathies back.
but it scared me how cruel I was in my opinions of her, I questioned myself, even now, three weeks later, I get the occasionally flash.
I don’t know if I want to watch it again, in an attempt to exorcise the demons or if that will only make it worse. I haven’t had such a visceral reaction to a film before (Do the Right Thing hit me pretty hard though).
With all that said, I realize that this film also makes me question what it is that makes me like a film. This film seems as though it has worked its way to my core, but at the same time I don’t know if I would put it on my list of favorites, but then why are my favorite films on that list?
Damn it, why do I watch movies, I should just sit outside and observe and feel instead.
Go to Comment
Does someone else think that Synecdoche, New York was flawed? almost 3 years ago
I really loved this movie, an amazing endeavor. Kaufman got lots of great performances, the script lived up to me expectations—well, beyond my expectations.
I just really liked this movie a lot. My one problem with it: to telling. By that I mean he didn’t show things to the degree that I had wished he had, more, he explained them, or told them to us. More specifically, I wanted more camera movement. Movement of the camera, for me, is the essence of cinema; it can build emotion so powerfully, show things subtley.
I also wanted long takes. His quick shots very effective at giving the impression of the fragmented and restless existence of the main character, but I think some long takes would have really helped him get at the some of the truths he was hoping to impart on the audience.
For me, a very profound film, but could have had a lot more impact if it had exploited the camera better, integrating the audience a little better, instead of telling all this wonderfully, edge-of-enlightenment profundity at us.
Go to Comment
Best modern day cinematographers? almost 3 years ago
How about Nestor Almendros—for Days of Heaven? I enjoyed his work in it.
Go to Comment
Do you think that before digital recording, that analog recording created better muscians/music? almost 3 years ago
Well, music, like film, is certainly not all crap these days. There are tons of great artists out there. I think we would be offended and as a group pretty pissed off if people started claiming cinema was junk these days—of course it isn’t, the good stuff just isn’t a mainstream as it used to be. Same with music.
God there are so many greats right now, actually probably more than ever with the digital age. If you want some suggestions I can give you some—I love everything really, but I tend to be more of a jazzhead, funk, neo-soul guy.
It lives!
Go to Comment
Do you think that before digital recording, that analog recording created better muscians/music? almost 3 years ago
Well, music, like film, is certainly not all crap these days. There are tons of great artists out there. I think we would be offended and as a group pretty pissed off if people started claiming cinema was junk these days—of course it isn’t, the good stuff just isn’t a mainstream as it used to be. Same with music.
God there are so many greats right now, actually probably more than ever with the digital age. If you want some suggestions I can give you some—I love everything really, but I tend to be more of a jazzhead, funk, neo-soul guy.
It lives!
Go to Comment
Michael Bay says creating an "Art" movie is easy almost 3 years ago
I’m all for cutting Bay’s comment to pieces, but what’s always bothered me is when a film is called “art.” Firstly it sounds pretentious, but that’s just my personal opinion, what I think is really wrong with calling a film “art” is that decisions go into every film—Michael Bay’s included. Those decisions can be questioned by us, their merit judged, but there’s always the question in the director (or whoever’s head) of “what am I trying to show.”
So I guess you could say movies that are “art” are movies whose cinematic decisions we enjoy for one reason or another, but calling a movie “artsy” is just stupid machismo bullshit. Everyone is trying to do the same thing, and that is make a good movie (whatever that means) so when Michael Bay says the word artsy I feel like he’s completely misunderstood all of cinema. The movie about a winery in France is choosing to show the owners son as someone who’s undermining tradition by starting up a cheap wine company that doesn’t treat it’s workers well, and doesn’t care about quality, only money, while Michael Bay is choosing to show a massive robot that is compassionate, seeking to champion the values of courage and sacrifice.
So yes, in this instance, Michael Bay in my opinion was not thinking.
Go to Comment
Michael Bay says creating an "Art" movie is easy almost 3 years ago
Yeah, they’re not art—they’re life. Maybe I’m just hung up over the implications of superficial nomenclature, but I feel like everything that’s classified as art is really just life and its decisions in another medium…and okay, that medium is called art. But I still can’t get over it.
Go to Comment
Time Travel almost 3 years ago
A recent one that manipulates time a lot is Synecdoche.
Also, somewhat of a tangent—An american, recently (past couple of decades) spent his entire life trying to build a time travel machine so he could see his dead father again. To do so he needed to get PHDs and other high degrees in multiple forms of math, physics, and engineering. He literally dedicated his life to this almost ridiculous quest. Of course he didn’t suceed, though along the way did become a pre-eminence among all those subjects, contributing many new theories etc.
I heard this on the radio, thought it was a good story. For a better telling of than I did, go to the NPR website, select “This American Life” and find it.
Go to Comment
Could someone please explain Last Year At Marienbad to me? almost 3 years ago
For me it was somewhat of an allegory on the nature of cinema. But I think that’s pretty dumb sounding though. I prefer to think of it just as a moving representation of the emotions comprising the experiences of deja vu, memory loss, nostlagia, and the meeting of a beautiful woman.
Go to Comment
Blood Meridian - Can it be filmed? almost 3 years ago
Yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about this…for me the book was really cinematic, so perhaps making a film of it might be and insult to the book. I almost picture the movie as something with the pace and feel of Malick’s Thin Red Line.
Go to Comment
Blood Meridian - Can it be filmed? almost 3 years ago
It seems like there is a bit of dislike for Cormac McCarthy’s work. Just remember how many great movies were made out of clumsy second rate literature.
I’m just saying, there’s a possibility.
Go to Comment
I Didn't Like Raging Bull... almost 3 years ago
I agree with what everyone has said about rewatching, but I also feel like you shouldn’t push yourself to like films just because they’re part of the canon. It sounds like you registered intellectually why it was a good film, which is a good thing, it just didn’t filter through on an emotional level.
Please, don’t force yourself to like the movie just because “it’s good,” which most people say it is (I love it too). I think forcing yourself to like it would be a huge disservice to your film career (whatever that may be, critic, hobbyist, director, writer, etc).
Go to Comment
a quick question about luis bunuel almost 3 years ago
Box set. But also see Viridiana, L’age D’Or, the Exterminating Angel, and Simon of the Desert—all Bunuel greats.
Go to Comment
Is anyone interested in Cocteau as filmmaker? almost 3 years ago
I just finished beauty and the beast, blood of a poet, and orpheus. I don’t really like him all that much. I get the sense I’m watching a dabbler in film when I see his movies, which he described himself as being. By “dabbler” I mean good movies made by someone who wasn’t really immersed in the field.
Blood of a Poet I thought was enlivening, I could feel Cocteau’s excitement, but overall it felt a little juvenile to me. Orpheus more mature, but stuck on the same themes. Testament of Orpheus I hear is basically Cocteau walking through a rehash of all his work.
His ideas didn’t really seem grow or change throughout his career. And also he seems to only be interested in commenting about art, which I, being a miserable git, don’t find interesting at all.
Go to Comment
Am I the only one who didn't like "The Hurt Locker"? almost 3 years ago
Wow. Puerto Rico—for the moment, makes me thank my lucky stars I’m living in Boston.
Anyway, I’m bringing us back to the Hurt Locker if you guys don’t mind—I saw it about an hour ago.
Personally, I’m sick of hand held camera war movies. I think it’s a short cut for “realism.” And I know people are very adamant about this movie being about something that is happening NOW—well, you guys are right, it isn’t entertainment, its a war. Which is why I don’t want to be a part of it. And so, hand held camera, well, personally I don’t want any realism, thank you (even though I don’t think the hand held necessarily does the best job of realism, perhaps lazy…).
And just as I was thinking this in the movie, they had one of those beautiful slow motion shots. To think that amidst all the chaos of the war, and the hand held camera, that there is a moment as slow, and precise, and willful as those slomo shots, was wonderful for me.
Something else that didn’t work for me was the script, which though lacked any interesting character development. There was no one character I felt connected, and as a result of the dispersion of my sympathies…no emotional attachment. I just felt on the outside of the movie, as opposed to really inside it.
Moment of ecstatic truth: This isn’t really a moment of ecstatic truth since it’s just a line of dialogue but…when in James’ final speech when he says that as you get older you love things less and less, until you only love one or two things—that moment brought me to tears. It made me so scared. I’m 19, I really hope this isn’t how my life will play out, but I can see it happening already.
Bunch of other things in the film I really like, some imagery, performances, little insights into a conflict happening on the other side of the earth, etc.
Go to Comment
A Little Question about Editing almost 3 years ago
I haven’t done much formal study of film in school, and I like figuring stuff out on my own—that’s how began my cinematic journey, but here’s one that I’m stuck on:
In editing, you will occasionally have a scene that cuts to the next scene with no trimmings or trappings—just a simple cut into a completely different scene. I’m trying to figure out why filmmakers do this. I guess the obvious reason is that it leaves you in a kind of shocked, disoriented state, stuck between the two scenes, carrying the previous over into the next, but why else? And of course I there are probably hundreds of reasons why this technique has been used.
I can’t really think of any off the top of my head, but I’m sure you guys will help me out with all this…cheers.
Go to Comment
THE SILENCE 2.0 almost 3 years ago
Well, I kind of think of each character in any film to be a manifestation of the main character. so I don’t think that alone makes The Silence profound, seeing as for me that is true in every movie.
Go to Comment
Have your film watched by Herzog almost 3 years ago
I always got the impression that Herzog was a grumpy git, but he’s hilarious in Korrine’s Mister Lonely, I was pissing myself.
Go to Comment
Finding a Good Balance over 2 years ago
This is something I’ve been struggling with for a while: how do you find a good balance between audience comprehension and satisfying your own personal vision—obviously all directors (and people in life) have had this dilemma, pleasing others versus pleasing themselves, so I guess the answer would be a mix of both, but I’m just curious to hear some people’s own opinions and justifications for the two sides.
Cheers.
Go to Comment
For Haters and Lovers of Herzog... over 2 years ago
Here’s a mildly entertaining link to a Werner Herzog cooking show(!?): http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/31441
Go to Comment
PARANOID PARK over 2 years ago
I’ve actually got a question (well many, but one that has been nagging at me for a while: why that particular sound-scape during the shower scene? Crows/birds calling?
Go to Comment
Do you watch the interview & other materials before or after the film? over 2 years ago
Never. Ever. The foremost reason I love film is that I love thinking. And when someone talks about the movie for me I can’t think myself. I love coming up with little theories, insights, quirks, that may not at all have to do with what the movie is about, but as long as I thought long and hard about it I feel so good.
Watching all the extras is cheating.
Though production documentaries are sometimes very interesting, I’ll watch those on rare occasion, but even so, I just feel like it starts giving away too much and then I get someone’s voice stuck in my head, and I can never watch the movie purely again.
In fact, I don’t even read reviews, critiques, analysis breakdowns.
I’m here to learn, not be taught.
Go to Comment
Our Photography Gallery over 2 years ago
Really any Gustave le Grey—the light and sometimes the distortion of the image (due to the lens, the glass, I don’t know) give these pictures such a nostalgia.
These images are so powerful to me—I hope the picture posted.
Go to Comment
Our Photography Gallery over 2 years ago
Again, le Gray.
Go to Comment
Our Photography Gallery over 2 years ago
Look at this!
Go to Comment
Our Photography Gallery over 2 years ago
Arthur Felig, aka Weegee, a great documenter of the city. There is not a good selection of his work online, unfortunately.
Another great city photographer, Robert Doisneau.
Go to Comment
What's this all About!? over 2 years ago
I saw Mike Leigh’s “Naked” today. Usually I don’t do this because I like to figure things out myself, but I’m going to ask a question:
The opening shot of the film is handheld—seemingly deliberately shaky—and consists of the camera almost running up to Johnny raping a women in an alley.
The final shot of the film is a smooth dolly shot tracking away from Johny, who is limping very badly.
First and last shots are very often connnected—in this case the camera is moving toward Johnny and shaking a lot in the first shot, whereas in the final shot the camera is pulling away and Johnny himself is shaky (he is limping, as if mimicking the handheld camera in the first shot).
So my question is what is the intent of this correlation.
Or is the appropriate question, “Drew, are you nuts?” Did I make that all up?
Appreciate the help!
Go to Comment
Jazz Anyone? over 2 years ago
Jazz…!
I’m a huge jazz head (among many other types of music).
Some jazz that hasn’t been mentioned yet on this forum that I think people should merely because it sent me into such a bliss:
JOSHUA REDMAN:
Live at the Village Vanguard
Momentum
Elastic
(really any of his stuff)
LEE MORGAN
Cornbread
Sidewinder
OSCAR PETERSON
Oscar Peterson Plays the Count Basie Songbook
LARRY GOLDINGS
Moonbird
The Intimacy of the Blues
AVISHAI COHEN
Continuo
Lyla
Gently Disturbed
ESPERANZA SPALDING
Esperanza
LETTUCE
(anything)
NICHOLAS PAYTON
Payton’s Place
SOULLIVE
(anything)
And then of course any Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Charlie Parker—AH HELL! I wish I could just list my whole library—no one talks about jazz on forums like this miracle that is The Auteurs!
Cheers, listen up.
Go to Comment
Between Hammer and Sickle: A personal list of favorite Russian films over 2 years ago
@ Spartak—what are your opinions of Aleksandr Sokurov? I’m conflicted over “Russian Ark.”
Go to Comment
Jazz Anyone? over 2 years ago
Yes, I think we can all agree that there are some that brilliant that we can take them for granted and not even mention them.
Unfortunately there are more than “some” that are brilliant, today the masters are arguably even more brilliant than the old masters, yet their audience is painfully diminished.
Go to Comment