Hmm, I think there are hundreds of classics I Haven’t seen yet.
Off the top of my head:
The Very Eye of Night (Maya Deren)
Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill! (Russ Meyer)
Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman)
8 1/2 (Federico Fellini)
Ivan the Terrible (Sergei Eisenstein)
Man with the Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov)
The End of Saint Petersburg (Vsevolod Pudovkin)
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestor (Sergei Parajanov)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (John Ford)
The Idiot (Akira Kurosawa)
The Great Silence (Sergio Corbucci)
Sweet Movie (Dusan Makavejev)
etc.
etc.
Sarunas Bartas – Three Days
Goran Markovic – National Class Category Up to 785 ccm
Mamoru Oshii – Angel’s Egg
Walerian Borowczyk – Goto, Island of Love
Shunya Ito – Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable
Bo Widerberg – Elvira Madigan
King Hu – The Fate of Lee Khan
Chang Cheh – Have Sword, Will Travel
Carmine Gallone – Carthage in Flames
Angela Schanelec – Marseille
Fortunately I have seen only few genuinely bad films in my life, and most are forgotten by now.
But from what I’ve seen in recent years:
1. Glitter (Vondie Curtis-Hall / USA / 2001)
2. Yuanli “Distance” (Tie Wei / China / 2006)
3. Youth Without Youth (Francis Ford Coppola / USA, Germany, Italy, France, Romania / 2007)
4. Wu ji “The Promise” (Chen Kaige / China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea / 2005)
5. Kargaran mashghoole karand “Men at Work” (2006 / Iran / Mani Haghighi)
6. La masseria delle allodole “The Lark Farm” (Paolo Taviani, Vittorio Taviani / Italy, Spain, France, Bulgaria / 2007)
7. Untersuchung an Mädeln “Girls Under Investigation” (Peter Payer / Austria / 1999)
8. Hostel: Part II (Eli Roth / USA / 2007)
9. Der Himmel über Berlin “Wings of Desire” (Wim Wenders / West Germany, France / 1987)
Looks like I can only think of 9 right now. I guess that’s a good sign. :-)
Hmm don’t know. Both are not exactly personal favorites, but from the few films I’ve seen by both I enjoy Fellini more than Bergman (though I loooove Nykvist).
But If I had to choose one, I’d also pick Sam Fuller.
Yep, Library is the best thing, if you don’t have the time or money to build up your own collection, and if you don’t know many movie freaks to rent films from. Forget the video store!!! Go to the library. And yes, guess what? They also have books about film there!!
I think the library is responsible for 50% of my knowledge and enthusiasm in films.
I pretty much don’t know shit about Polish cinema, but from what’s been written, it seems I can add something useful.
Three of my faorite filmmakers started working in Poland, and their (polish) films are well worth checking out:
the already mentioned Jerzy Skolimowski (try his “Rysopis” from 1964)
Andrzej Zulawski (all of his films can be found on the net),
and Walerian Borowczyk (“Story of a Sin” is probably the best Polish film I’ve seen so far).
Films by King Hu, Lau Kar-leung and Chang Cheh.
Heat (Michael Mann / 1995)
As Tears Goy By (Wong Kar Wai / 1988)
Flying Wheels (Stanley Siu Wing / 1973)
First two Mad Max films
A couple of 80s productions from “Cannon”
We live in a world divided by aesthetics. Popular culture, art, entertainment, trash, auterism, etc., etc. everything has to be labeled and categorized, and the old standardization of genres (and ‘good’ or ‘bad’ films inside the limiatins of a genre), have vanished in our post (post) modern world. Nowadays with a lot of cineastes, it’s usually not a question of “Do you like westerns?” “Do you like Crime movies?” or “Who is your favorite director?”, but more and more it’s about Hollywood vs. Independent Cinema, Bollywood vs. Indian Auteurs, Arthouse vs. Mainstream, ‘Serious’ vs. ‘Trash’, – there are transgressive films, body-horror, experimental cinema, documentary, different schools and movements, different decades and countries. And most of the time the delineation between preference and disapproval seems based on aesthetic biases.
I’d like to start a discussion, on why these distinctions between dedicated filmfans nowadays exist in such a large amount, and question if they are really grounded on purely aesthetic (and – implied – political) terms?
One question for example could look like this:
This website calls itself “the auteurs” which (for me) displays an inherent bias towards auteur-driven cinema. But why do we usually think of Ingmar Bergman as an auteur, but not Michael Bay? The auteur theory as it was initially constructed by the French cinephiles in the 50s, tried to recognize specific stylistic trademarks of Hollywood directors working in an industry with material they often didn’t choose themselves, even in their worst movies. So how can an argument that was initially stylistic be used against directors like Spielberg, Lucas, Howard or Bay, whose aesthetics (or inherent politics) many auteur-driven cinephiles despise? Does a general disliking (or liking – see European arthouse) of certain stylistics automatically disqualify directors from being recognised as auteurs?
Well, to define noir is in some way related to a definition of neo noir. But there are many viewpoints on this matter. My own usually comes from my gut reaction after I’ve seen a film.
I adore neo noir.
Some of my favorite examples:
Blade Runner (Ridley Scott / 1982)
Moon in the Gutter (Jean-Jacques Beineix / 1983)
Bue Velvet (David Lynch / 1986)
Frantic (Roman Polanski / 1987)
RoboCop (Paul Verhoeven / 1987)
Total Recall (Paul Verhoeven / 1990)
Basic Instnct (Paul Verhoeven / 1992)
Batman Returns (Tim Burton / 192)
Bitter Moon (Roman Polanski / 1992)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (David Lynch / 1992)
Guilty as Sin (Sidney Lumet / 1993)
Ghost in the Shell (Mamoru Oshii / 1995)
Heat (Michael Mann / 1995)
Seven (David Fincher / 1995)
Twelve Monkeys (Terry Gilliam / 1995)
L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson / 1997)
Lost Highway (David Lynch / 1997)
The Ninth Gate (Roman Polanski / 1999)
Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch / 2001)
Innocence (Mamoru Oshii / 2004)
Miami Vice (Michael Mann / 2006)
We Own the Night (James Gray / 2007)
@Justin
Do you think only american films should count?
So what do you do with something like Sunset Boulevard? Big Budget, self conscious as artistic statement and/or genre revitalization, and some would probably also say that the mood is not unrelentingly oppressive and claustrophobic. Yet, many people consider it a classic noir…
@Justin
Do you think only american films should count?
So what do you do with something like Sunset Boulevard? Big Budget, self conscious as artistic statement and/or genre revitalization, and some would probably also say that the mood is not unrelentingly oppressive and claustrophobic. Yet, many people consider it a classic noir…
“I don’t understand this thread. It starts with Adam pointing to an interview with Sasha Grey where she cites Godard (amongst others) as a filmmaker she admires, and then it appears that a bunch of random people dispute her veracity in the naming of these creators, philosophers and films, making disparaging and belittling assumptions about her intelligence, life and motivations— based it would appear, entirely upon their own failure to imagine a porn star as anything other than brainless sexual object, and not a human being living in a society. Does it make sense to start questioning your right to state your ‘favorite auteurs’ based on the fact that you’re just a white collar information tech worker, or a student, or you still live at home with your mom and she washes the skidmarks out of your underpants, etc ? no. You’re human, you have made life choices based on the opportunities (or absence thereof) presented you to earn money and get an education, and to bond with others. You have the right to cite whatever art affects you, and presumably in each case the films/auteurs/books/music you name actually mean something unique to you, to your psyche. To judge Sasha Grey for her choices (both in life and in her cinephilia) is to fail to recognize either the economic system which created her (in so far as it presented the opportunity to earn easy money getting fucked in the ass a lot, which as metaphor alone for an existence under capitalism is something I’m sure many of you can relate to) or the limits of a society which has entrenched certain ideas about women and sexuality for centuries now. A society in which you presumably take part, at the very least in so far as you buy DVDs and sit at home stroking the spine numbers lovingly. many of you admit to consuming porn, and yet here we are with a double standard. You’ll watch and get off, but you will also instinctively dehumanize, objectify and ultimately, it would seem, condemn those who perform for your viewing pleasure.
The ‘discussion’ then cascades into tiny boxes of opinion about whether Sasha Grey’s cineaste proclamations are a PR stunt, the value of pornography to society, and various references to shit. The whole thread makes me think of Salo, and Pasolini’s comments that “language is in fact their comportment (exactly like the Sade protagonists) and the language of their comportment obeys rules which are much more complex and profound than those of an ideology… anarchy of power, inexistence of history, circularity between executioners and victims, an institution anterior to a reality which can only be economic (the rest, that is, the superstructure, being a dream or a nightmare).”
2cents."
Best post on this thread so far. Thanks T – made my day.
1. My opening thread is too long, too boring, or not comprehensible enough
2. There is no aestetic bias (at least not on this forum)
3. There is an aesthetic bias (at least on this forum)
I think there are no definite rules that define a genre or a style. So it’s not which movie fits the genre – it’s the other way around. The movies make the genre. Anyway, I don’t see noir exactly as a genre. For me it’s more a bunch of characteristics that describe an ATMOSPHERE. Most important for me: fatalistic mood!!!
FIRST were the movies, THEN came the genre. This means genre can always change.
I think classic noir is in b/w and neo-noir ads color photography. That’s it.
Batman Returns is for me classic noir, if it weren’t for the color. That’s why I call it neo-noir. ;-)
For the purists: Batman Returns has an antihero (you could say an amoral villain as its protagonist – Though he cooperates with the police he has his own set of rules), there is a femme fatale, there is night, there is crime, there is betrayal, etc. etc. A tragic (or open) ending…
I like Armageddon more than some other Criterion films, and I think there is no denying Bay is an “auteur” in the classic sense. He puts his style on everything he does. Whether you like his films or not. You have to at least admit that.
So, wha’s the fuss!? Because it has a big budget? Because it has no brains? Because it made millions of dollars? Because it is a Hollywood film? Because most cineastes don’t like it?
Those ARE NOT VALID REASONS. Many classic US films fall into this category. So either be subjective about it, or don’t post stupid postings.
Well I disagree. And I think it can never be ridiculous to make an attempt to justify a film.
Anyway, a clear statement like “I enjoyed Armageddon and think it is a good film” doesn’t need much justification. It’s a personal (if not very insightful) opinion.
But I’d be glad, if you could point me to a specific 80s film Bay copied.
Yup, Orpheus is on the point. As much as I’d love to have a Criterion Edition of Barry Lyndon, I cannot ever see this happening. Ever.
So all hopes are for WB to release all of Stanleys films as Special Editions… But I don’t think this is ever going to happen. At least not the way his films deserve it…
Sorry, wasn’t quoting myself with the opinion stuff. I was just thinking that if you say that it’s ridiculous to try to justify one of his films, what do you do when someone simply states his opinion? You can’t deny that, can you?
Of course, I MYSELF was saying I think you can describe Bay as an auteur in the classical (!!) sense. With nowadays opinions of what an auteur is supposed to be, it’s a bit ridiculous to make the claim for Bay. But not with the definiton from the 50s, early 60s.
Your 3 points you list are regular film staples of thousands of films. But thats not a stylistic. What i meant is the formal side: camera angles, movement, color, acting style, editing, etc. And you can see a very specific use of those in Bay’s films, meaning that in my opinion he definitely has a somewhat unique style, which I haven’t seen in previous films, but which has influenced a lot of modern cinema (mostly big-budget Hollywood blockbusters).
Sorry, but your argument sounds awfully biased to me. I have a feeling that you don’t particularly like “brainless” films, action films, big budgets, special F/X, etc., and Michael Bay is the epitome of all those negative things in Hollywood for you. That’s ok with me, but it doesn’t look like you’ve studied his film style per se when you talk about him not being an auteur.
Some of the reasons I think he is an auteur: he has a very interesting way of always moving the camera throughout most scenes, his editing is very specific (heavily influenced by music videos from the 90s one could say), many scenes in themselves feel like small advertisement vignettes to me, often to the point that I get the feeling I’m watching extremely long commercials, though without a specific brand to sell.
The argument when talking of an auteur is in my opinion not about whether one likes a filmmaker, or thinks he has important things to say about humanity, but about a specific personal style. And i think it’s quite obvious that Bay does have one.
I like him, and currently think Batman is the best out of a dozen Burtons I’ve seen. Still the best Superhero movie AND comic adaptation on film, imo. Even better than I thought it was when I was a child (and I grew up with this film"). The last two Batmans, though interesting in themselves, don’t come even close to Burtons mastery.
But I have the feeling that Burton is best (or I like him best), when working with the right people, and with proper studio supervision. I fear he is no more a director who can function on his own, because he has somehow run out of ideas/ is retreating his own clichees. Sweeney Todd was an indicator that he desperately needs either a new outlook on the world, or fresh ideas. If he keeps copying himself I fear for the worst…
And for a little list making: My Burtons in order of preferment ;-)
1. Batman (‘89)
2. Edward Scissorhands (’90)
3. Ed Wood (‘94)
4. Frankenweenie (’84)
5. Vincent (‘82)
6. Sleepy Hollow (’99)
7. Big Fish (‘03)
8. Batman Returns (’92)
9. Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (‘85)
10. Beetle Juice (’88)
11. Sweeney Todd (‘07)
12. Mars Attacks! (’96)
13. Planet of the Apes (’01)
Yes, maybe that’s it. We sure have differing opinions of what makes an auteur. ;-)
I don’t know exactly why this goes for me, but somehow the three films I’ve seen by him so far (Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon) all had something unique to them. And watching Armageddon was a pure accident, as I was totally absorbed in my “art”-films by that time (Makhmalbaf, Kiarostami, Doillon, Eustache, Starewycz, Dasgupta and dozens of other obscure directors) and I had always avoided the film since its initial theatrical run because I thought I would hate it. But when I finally saw it, I enjoyed it immensly.
That reminds me I need to see more of Bays films!
But first i have to decide what to watch this evening: 300 or Brokeback Mountain – two acclaimed films with hopefully unique stylistics (though I’ve so far only been impressed by Lee’s “Ice Storm” and have heard awful things about Snyder).
Definitely a master. Like many great American filmmakers his reputation has either sunk or never been restored. I think the problem is simply that people who don’t like him or don’t care about him haven’t seen many of his films.
Look at other maligned American filmmakers who get put in small categories: Elia Kazan (actor’s director), Roger Corman (Z-film producer), John Huston (no specific style of his own), John Ford (conservative westerns with John Wayne), Robert Flaherty (made a fake docu about “Eskimos”)…
These are usually judgments based on a few works, with a specific ideal of cinema in mind. Opinions get thrown around easily. To discover a director for yourself is in reality a loooong project.
I am glad so many people on this thread support Preminger, and cite many different films for reference. :-)
I think he’s a genius, and one of the most accomplished film scholars.
I don’t always agree with him, or completely back his methods, because imo the most effective way of “illuminating the subtleties of film as an art form” is in a diversity of methods. But as far as Bordwell specific methods go, they are very useful, as long as you don’t take them to extremes and don’t consider other possibilities.
Yep I agree with Owen. When Burton tries for actual content it can be difficult for him to accomplish the task. But usually he extracts content from his “visual” tropes, so that’s ok with me. He’s also quite good with archetypes.
Probably none. All of his films have so many followers. If anything I’d say Kubricks oevre as a whole is underappreciated, because not everyone kneels down in front of this cinematic god! But that’s of course only my opinion. ;-)
If you take away Kubrick from the history of cinema you have an incredible loss. Besides Chaplin and Hitchcock I can’t think of another director who so much defines what cinema is all about.
Different mediums (TV, Video, 35mm, HD, PC, etc., etc.) make for different experiences.
In the end, the ideal thing in our world would be to watch a film in as many ways as possible.
I mean, if you think about it, even watching a film at the cinema from the first row or the last can make an incredible difference. In the end each film experience is unique and has certain value in itself.
But would I like to see films only on the big screen (on their original material!)? hell yeah!!!!
The problem is only: bad prints, DVDs on the big screen, wrong masking (aspect ratio), musical accompaniment, etc., etc.
So in reality nowadays it can be much better to see a film at home on TV in a good quality, than a digital restoration at the cinema.
Because I’m new to this message board and I’d like to know the tastes of other posters I’ve thought about an exercise I immensly enjoy doing myself: Posting lists.
I’d like to see your top ten from a random year I’ll pick in this post, and after some time has elapsed (when no one is regularly posting on this thread anymore), I’ll count the votes, and have a somewhat (hopefully) representative list of the members tastes.
Don’t know if it will help you, but for me it’s useful information.
I’ll start with my own.
The year for this thread is 1968.
Oh, I forgot to mention, that the first film gets ten points, the last 1.
Only complete lists (with ten candidates in a certain order) will be counted (so no 9 films, or not ordering your ten choices!).
And the most important thing: PLEASE LIST ONLY PERSONAL FAVORITES. Not films you think an intelligent cineaste is obligated to list, but what you think is best/ dearest for you.
01. Goto, l’île d’amour “Goto, Island of Love” (Walerian Borowczyk / France)
02. Sayat Nova “The Color of Pomgranates” (Sergej Parajanov / Soviet Union)
03. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick / USA, UK)
04. Vixen! (Russ Meyer / USA)
05. Eltavozott nap “The Girl” (Marta Meszaros / Hungary)
06. Teorema “Theorem” (Pier Paolo Pasolini / Italy)
07. Rosemary’s Baby (Roman Polanski / USA)
08. Chronik der Anna Magdalena Bach “The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach” (Danièle Huillet, Jean-Marie Straub / West Germany, Italy)
09. Yabu no naka no kuroneko “Kuroneko” / “Black Cat from the Grave” (Kaneto Shindô / Japan)
10. Bullitt (Peter Yates / USA)
PS: to determine the year for a specific film, I try to go by the copyright (usually listed at the end of a print).
PPS: I know the whole thing of listing your (ten) favorite films in any kind or order is ridiculous. Nevertheless, that’s the point of the thread.
CONFESSIONS--FILMS YOU ARE ASHAMED TO SAY YOU HAVE NOT SEEN (YET) about 3 years ago
Hmm, I think there are hundreds of classics I Haven’t seen yet.
Off the top of my head:
The Very Eye of Night (Maya Deren)
Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill! (Russ Meyer)
Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman)
8 1/2 (Federico Fellini)
Ivan the Terrible (Sergei Eisenstein)
Man with the Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov)
The End of Saint Petersburg (Vsevolod Pudovkin)
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestor (Sergei Parajanov)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (John Ford)
The Idiot (Akira Kurosawa)
The Great Silence (Sergio Corbucci)
Sweet Movie (Dusan Makavejev)
etc.
etc.
Go to Comment
10 directors 1 movie about 3 years ago
Sarunas Bartas – Three Days
Goran Markovic – National Class Category Up to 785 ccm
Mamoru Oshii – Angel’s Egg
Walerian Borowczyk – Goto, Island of Love
Shunya Ito – Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable
Bo Widerberg – Elvira Madigan
King Hu – The Fate of Lee Khan
Chang Cheh – Have Sword, Will Travel
Carmine Gallone – Carthage in Flames
Angela Schanelec – Marseille
Go to Comment
Ten Worst Movies You've Ever Seen? about 3 years ago
Fortunately I have seen only few genuinely bad films in my life, and most are forgotten by now.
But from what I’ve seen in recent years:
1. Glitter (Vondie Curtis-Hall / USA / 2001)
2. Yuanli “Distance” (Tie Wei / China / 2006)
3. Youth Without Youth (Francis Ford Coppola / USA, Germany, Italy, France, Romania / 2007)
4. Wu ji “The Promise” (Chen Kaige / China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea / 2005)
5. Kargaran mashghoole karand “Men at Work” (2006 / Iran / Mani Haghighi)
6. La masseria delle allodole “The Lark Farm” (Paolo Taviani, Vittorio Taviani / Italy, Spain, France, Bulgaria / 2007)
7. Untersuchung an Mädeln “Girls Under Investigation” (Peter Payer / Austria / 1999)
8. Hostel: Part II (Eli Roth / USA / 2007)
9. Der Himmel über Berlin “Wings of Desire” (Wim Wenders / West Germany, France / 1987)
Looks like I can only think of 9 right now. I guess that’s a good sign. :-)
Go to Comment
which one?? about 3 years ago
Hmm don’t know. Both are not exactly personal favorites, but from the few films I’ve seen by both I enjoy Fellini more than Bergman (though I loooove Nykvist).
But If I had to choose one, I’d also pick Sam Fuller.
Go to Comment
GO TO YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY about 3 years ago
Yep, Library is the best thing, if you don’t have the time or money to build up your own collection, and if you don’t know many movie freaks to rent films from. Forget the video store!!! Go to the library. And yes, guess what? They also have books about film there!!
I think the library is responsible for 50% of my knowledge and enthusiasm in films.
Go to Comment
ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT POLISH CINEMA? about 3 years ago
I pretty much don’t know shit about Polish cinema, but from what’s been written, it seems I can add something useful.
Three of my faorite filmmakers started working in Poland, and their (polish) films are well worth checking out:
the already mentioned Jerzy Skolimowski (try his “Rysopis” from 1964)
Andrzej Zulawski (all of his films can be found on the net),
and Walerian Borowczyk (“Story of a Sin” is probably the best Polish film I’ve seen so far).
Go to Comment
Astounding Debuts about 3 years ago
Three Days (Bartas / 1991)
Identification Marks: None (Skolimowski / 1964)
Diva (Beineix / 1981)
Buffalo ’66 (Gallo / 1998)
Un chien andalou (Bunuel / 1928)
Maboroshi (Koreeda / 1995) – he had made some documentaries before, though
Moe no suzaku (Kawase / 1996)
Reconstruction (Angelopoulos / 1970)
The 400 Blows (Truffaut / 1959)
Dangan Ranna (Sabu / 1996)
Permanent Vacation (Jarmusch / 1980)
Eraserhead (Lynch / 1977)
As Tears Goy By (Wong Kar Wai / 1988)
Red Sorghum (Zhang Yimou / 1987)
Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze / 1999)
Detektive (Rudolf Thome / 1968)
Bungalow (Ulrich Kohler / 2002)
48 Hours to Acapulco (Klaus Lemke / 1967)
Pather Panchali (Ray / 1955)
Rebels of the Neon God (Tsai Ming-liang / 1992)
The Needle (Rashid Nugmanov / 1988)
Konkurs (Forman / 1964)
The Fabulous Baker Boys (Kloves / 1988)
Chocolat (Denis / 1988)
A Charlie Brown Christmas (Melendez / 1965)
Basquiat (Schnabel / 1995)
The Apple (Samira Makhmalbaf / 1998)
Night of the Hunter (Laughton / 1955)
Beyond Hatred (Olivier Meyrou / 2006)
Go to Comment
Action movies that deserve to be in the Criterion Collection about 3 years ago
From the top f my head:
Films by King Hu, Lau Kar-leung and Chang Cheh.
Heat (Michael Mann / 1995)
As Tears Goy By (Wong Kar Wai / 1988)
Flying Wheels (Stanley Siu Wing / 1973)
First two Mad Max films
A couple of 80s productions from “Cannon”
Go to Comment
Is there an aesthetic bias in the film community? about 3 years ago
We live in a world divided by aesthetics. Popular culture, art, entertainment, trash, auterism, etc., etc. everything has to be labeled and categorized, and the old standardization of genres (and ‘good’ or ‘bad’ films inside the limiatins of a genre), have vanished in our post (post) modern world. Nowadays with a lot of cineastes, it’s usually not a question of “Do you like westerns?” “Do you like Crime movies?” or “Who is your favorite director?”, but more and more it’s about Hollywood vs. Independent Cinema, Bollywood vs. Indian Auteurs, Arthouse vs. Mainstream, ‘Serious’ vs. ‘Trash’, – there are transgressive films, body-horror, experimental cinema, documentary, different schools and movements, different decades and countries. And most of the time the delineation between preference and disapproval seems based on aesthetic biases.
I’d like to start a discussion, on why these distinctions between dedicated filmfans nowadays exist in such a large amount, and question if they are really grounded on purely aesthetic (and – implied – political) terms?
One question for example could look like this:
This website calls itself “the auteurs” which (for me) displays an inherent bias towards auteur-driven cinema. But why do we usually think of Ingmar Bergman as an auteur, but not Michael Bay? The auteur theory as it was initially constructed by the French cinephiles in the 50s, tried to recognize specific stylistic trademarks of Hollywood directors working in an industry with material they often didn’t choose themselves, even in their worst movies. So how can an argument that was initially stylistic be used against directors like Spielberg, Lucas, Howard or Bay, whose aesthetics (or inherent politics) many auteur-driven cinephiles despise? Does a general disliking (or liking – see European arthouse) of certain stylistics automatically disqualify directors from being recognised as auteurs?
What do you think?
Go to Comment
Neo Noir about 3 years ago
Well, to define noir is in some way related to a definition of neo noir. But there are many viewpoints on this matter. My own usually comes from my gut reaction after I’ve seen a film.
I adore neo noir.
Some of my favorite examples:
Blade Runner (Ridley Scott / 1982)
Moon in the Gutter (Jean-Jacques Beineix / 1983)
Bue Velvet (David Lynch / 1986)
Frantic (Roman Polanski / 1987)
RoboCop (Paul Verhoeven / 1987)
Total Recall (Paul Verhoeven / 1990)
Basic Instnct (Paul Verhoeven / 1992)
Batman Returns (Tim Burton / 192)
Bitter Moon (Roman Polanski / 1992)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (David Lynch / 1992)
Guilty as Sin (Sidney Lumet / 1993)
Ghost in the Shell (Mamoru Oshii / 1995)
Heat (Michael Mann / 1995)
Seven (David Fincher / 1995)
Twelve Monkeys (Terry Gilliam / 1995)
L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson / 1997)
Lost Highway (David Lynch / 1997)
The Ninth Gate (Roman Polanski / 1999)
Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch / 2001)
Innocence (Mamoru Oshii / 2004)
Miami Vice (Michael Mann / 2006)
We Own the Night (James Gray / 2007)
Go to Comment
Neo Noir about 3 years ago
@Justin
Do you think only american films should count?
So what do you do with something like Sunset Boulevard? Big Budget, self conscious as artistic statement and/or genre revitalization, and some would probably also say that the mood is not unrelentingly oppressive and claustrophobic. Yet, many people consider it a classic noir…
Haven’t seen Union City, yet.
Go to Comment
Neo Noir about 3 years ago
@Justin
Do you think only american films should count?
So what do you do with something like Sunset Boulevard? Big Budget, self conscious as artistic statement and/or genre revitalization, and some would probably also say that the mood is not unrelentingly oppressive and claustrophobic. Yet, many people consider it a classic noir…
Haven’t seen Union City, yet.
Go to Comment
Sasha Grey has refined cinematic taste about 3 years ago
“I don’t understand this thread. It starts with Adam pointing to an interview with Sasha Grey where she cites Godard (amongst others) as a filmmaker she admires, and then it appears that a bunch of random people dispute her veracity in the naming of these creators, philosophers and films, making disparaging and belittling assumptions about her intelligence, life and motivations— based it would appear, entirely upon their own failure to imagine a porn star as anything other than brainless sexual object, and not a human being living in a society. Does it make sense to start questioning your right to state your ‘favorite auteurs’ based on the fact that you’re just a white collar information tech worker, or a student, or you still live at home with your mom and she washes the skidmarks out of your underpants, etc ? no. You’re human, you have made life choices based on the opportunities (or absence thereof) presented you to earn money and get an education, and to bond with others. You have the right to cite whatever art affects you, and presumably in each case the films/auteurs/books/music you name actually mean something unique to you, to your psyche. To judge Sasha Grey for her choices (both in life and in her cinephilia) is to fail to recognize either the economic system which created her (in so far as it presented the opportunity to earn easy money getting fucked in the ass a lot, which as metaphor alone for an existence under capitalism is something I’m sure many of you can relate to) or the limits of a society which has entrenched certain ideas about women and sexuality for centuries now. A society in which you presumably take part, at the very least in so far as you buy DVDs and sit at home stroking the spine numbers lovingly. many of you admit to consuming porn, and yet here we are with a double standard. You’ll watch and get off, but you will also instinctively dehumanize, objectify and ultimately, it would seem, condemn those who perform for your viewing pleasure.
The ‘discussion’ then cascades into tiny boxes of opinion about whether Sasha Grey’s cineaste proclamations are a PR stunt, the value of pornography to society, and various references to shit. The whole thread makes me think of Salo, and Pasolini’s comments that “language is in fact their comportment (exactly like the Sade protagonists) and the language of their comportment obeys rules which are much more complex and profound than those of an ideology… anarchy of power, inexistence of history, circularity between executioners and victims, an institution anterior to a reality which can only be economic (the rest, that is, the superstructure, being a dream or a nightmare).”
2cents."
Best post on this thread so far. Thanks T – made my day.
Go to Comment
Is there an aesthetic bias in the film community? about 3 years ago
No one else?
Seems that
1. My opening thread is too long, too boring, or not comprehensible enough
2. There is no aestetic bias (at least not on this forum)
3. There is an aesthetic bias (at least on this forum)
My personal guess is 1. ;-)
Go to Comment
Neo Noir about 3 years ago
I think there are no definite rules that define a genre or a style. So it’s not which movie fits the genre – it’s the other way around. The movies make the genre. Anyway, I don’t see noir exactly as a genre. For me it’s more a bunch of characteristics that describe an ATMOSPHERE. Most important for me: fatalistic mood!!!
FIRST were the movies, THEN came the genre. This means genre can always change.
I think classic noir is in b/w and neo-noir ads color photography. That’s it.
Batman Returns is for me classic noir, if it weren’t for the color. That’s why I call it neo-noir. ;-)
For the purists: Batman Returns has an antihero (you could say an amoral villain as its protagonist – Though he cooperates with the police he has his own set of rules), there is a femme fatale, there is night, there is crime, there is betrayal, etc. etc. A tragic (or open) ending…
Go to Comment
The Mother and The Whore about 3 years ago
Actually my favorite film. Yes, definitely Criterion!
Go to Comment
I have a new favorite film. about 3 years ago
I love the music, but so far remain uninterested by the film. Mediocre postmodern pastiche.
Go to Comment
WHY!!! about 3 years ago
I like Armageddon more than some other Criterion films, and I think there is no denying Bay is an “auteur” in the classic sense. He puts his style on everything he does. Whether you like his films or not. You have to at least admit that.
So, wha’s the fuss!? Because it has a big budget? Because it has no brains? Because it made millions of dollars? Because it is a Hollywood film? Because most cineastes don’t like it?
Those ARE NOT VALID REASONS. Many classic US films fall into this category. So either be subjective about it, or don’t post stupid postings.
Go to Comment
Terrance Mallicks Influence on Carlos Reygada's Silent Light about 3 years ago
Yes Terrence Malick certainly is an influence. You also have a lot of Malick in his previous movie “Battle in Heaven”.
But I must say I’m not a huge fan of Silent Light. Still prefer Malick or “Ordet”. ;-)
Go to Comment
WHY!!! about 3 years ago
Well I disagree. And I think it can never be ridiculous to make an attempt to justify a film.
Anyway, a clear statement like “I enjoyed Armageddon and think it is a good film” doesn’t need much justification. It’s a personal (if not very insightful) opinion.
But I’d be glad, if you could point me to a specific 80s film Bay copied.
Go to Comment
Sign my petition to have Barry Lyndon released on Criterion!!!!! about 3 years ago
Yup, Orpheus is on the point. As much as I’d love to have a Criterion Edition of Barry Lyndon, I cannot ever see this happening. Ever.
So all hopes are for WB to release all of Stanleys films as Special Editions… But I don’t think this is ever going to happen. At least not the way his films deserve it…
Go to Comment
WHY!!! about 3 years ago
Sorry, wasn’t quoting myself with the opinion stuff. I was just thinking that if you say that it’s ridiculous to try to justify one of his films, what do you do when someone simply states his opinion? You can’t deny that, can you?
Of course, I MYSELF was saying I think you can describe Bay as an auteur in the classical (!!) sense. With nowadays opinions of what an auteur is supposed to be, it’s a bit ridiculous to make the claim for Bay. But not with the definiton from the 50s, early 60s.
Your 3 points you list are regular film staples of thousands of films. But thats not a stylistic. What i meant is the formal side: camera angles, movement, color, acting style, editing, etc. And you can see a very specific use of those in Bay’s films, meaning that in my opinion he definitely has a somewhat unique style, which I haven’t seen in previous films, but which has influenced a lot of modern cinema (mostly big-budget Hollywood blockbusters).
Sorry, but your argument sounds awfully biased to me. I have a feeling that you don’t particularly like “brainless” films, action films, big budgets, special F/X, etc., and Michael Bay is the epitome of all those negative things in Hollywood for you. That’s ok with me, but it doesn’t look like you’ve studied his film style per se when you talk about him not being an auteur.
Some of the reasons I think he is an auteur: he has a very interesting way of always moving the camera throughout most scenes, his editing is very specific (heavily influenced by music videos from the 90s one could say), many scenes in themselves feel like small advertisement vignettes to me, often to the point that I get the feeling I’m watching extremely long commercials, though without a specific brand to sell.
The argument when talking of an auteur is in my opinion not about whether one likes a filmmaker, or thinks he has important things to say about humanity, but about a specific personal style. And i think it’s quite obvious that Bay does have one.
Go to Comment
Who likes Tim Burton? I don't see much mention of him in here. about 3 years ago
I like him, and currently think Batman is the best out of a dozen Burtons I’ve seen. Still the best Superhero movie AND comic adaptation on film, imo. Even better than I thought it was when I was a child (and I grew up with this film"). The last two Batmans, though interesting in themselves, don’t come even close to Burtons mastery.
But I have the feeling that Burton is best (or I like him best), when working with the right people, and with proper studio supervision. I fear he is no more a director who can function on his own, because he has somehow run out of ideas/ is retreating his own clichees. Sweeney Todd was an indicator that he desperately needs either a new outlook on the world, or fresh ideas. If he keeps copying himself I fear for the worst…
And for a little list making: My Burtons in order of preferment ;-)
1. Batman (‘89)
2. Edward Scissorhands (’90)
3. Ed Wood (‘94)
4. Frankenweenie (’84)
5. Vincent (‘82)
6. Sleepy Hollow (’99)
7. Big Fish (‘03)
8. Batman Returns (’92)
9. Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (‘85)
10. Beetle Juice (’88)
11. Sweeney Todd (‘07)
12. Mars Attacks! (’96)
13. Planet of the Apes (’01)
Go to Comment
WHY!!! about 3 years ago
Yes, maybe that’s it. We sure have differing opinions of what makes an auteur. ;-)
I don’t know exactly why this goes for me, but somehow the three films I’ve seen by him so far (Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon) all had something unique to them. And watching Armageddon was a pure accident, as I was totally absorbed in my “art”-films by that time (Makhmalbaf, Kiarostami, Doillon, Eustache, Starewycz, Dasgupta and dozens of other obscure directors) and I had always avoided the film since its initial theatrical run because I thought I would hate it. But when I finally saw it, I enjoyed it immensly.
That reminds me I need to see more of Bays films!
But first i have to decide what to watch this evening: 300 or Brokeback Mountain – two acclaimed films with hopefully unique stylistics (though I’ve so far only been impressed by Lee’s “Ice Storm” and have heard awful things about Snyder).
Go to Comment
Otto Preminger: maligned master or misguided hack? about 3 years ago
Definitely a master. Like many great American filmmakers his reputation has either sunk or never been restored. I think the problem is simply that people who don’t like him or don’t care about him haven’t seen many of his films.
Look at other maligned American filmmakers who get put in small categories: Elia Kazan (actor’s director), Roger Corman (Z-film producer), John Huston (no specific style of his own), John Ford (conservative westerns with John Wayne), Robert Flaherty (made a fake docu about “Eskimos”)…
These are usually judgments based on a few works, with a specific ideal of cinema in mind. Opinions get thrown around easily. To discover a director for yourself is in reality a loooong project.
I am glad so many people on this thread support Preminger, and cite many different films for reference. :-)
Go to Comment
BORDWELL about 3 years ago
Yes, very interested in discussing Bordwell!!
I think he’s a genius, and one of the most accomplished film scholars.
I don’t always agree with him, or completely back his methods, because imo the most effective way of “illuminating the subtleties of film as an art form” is in a diversity of methods. But as far as Bordwell specific methods go, they are very useful, as long as you don’t take them to extremes and don’t consider other possibilities.
Go to Comment
Who likes Tim Burton? I don't see much mention of him in here. about 3 years ago
Yep I agree with Owen. When Burton tries for actual content it can be difficult for him to accomplish the task. But usually he extracts content from his “visual” tropes, so that’s ok with me. He’s also quite good with archetypes.
Go to Comment
What is Kubrick's Most Under-Appreciated Film? about 3 years ago
Probably none. All of his films have so many followers. If anything I’d say Kubricks oevre as a whole is underappreciated, because not everyone kneels down in front of this cinematic god! But that’s of course only my opinion. ;-)
If you take away Kubrick from the history of cinema you have an incredible loss. Besides Chaplin and Hitchcock I can’t think of another director who so much defines what cinema is all about.
Go to Comment
Should films only be watched from a large screen in a theatre? about 3 years ago
In a perfect world? Yes.
In our world? Hell no!!!
Different mediums (TV, Video, 35mm, HD, PC, etc., etc.) make for different experiences.
In the end, the ideal thing in our world would be to watch a film in as many ways as possible.
I mean, if you think about it, even watching a film at the cinema from the first row or the last can make an incredible difference. In the end each film experience is unique and has certain value in itself.
But would I like to see films only on the big screen (on their original material!)? hell yeah!!!!
The problem is only: bad prints, DVDs on the big screen, wrong masking (aspect ratio), musical accompaniment, etc., etc.
So in reality nowadays it can be much better to see a film at home on TV in a good quality, than a digital restoration at the cinema.
Go to Comment
An experiment (sort of) about 3 years ago
Because I’m new to this message board and I’d like to know the tastes of other posters I’ve thought about an exercise I immensly enjoy doing myself: Posting lists.
I’d like to see your top ten from a random year I’ll pick in this post, and after some time has elapsed (when no one is regularly posting on this thread anymore), I’ll count the votes, and have a somewhat (hopefully) representative list of the members tastes.
Don’t know if it will help you, but for me it’s useful information.
I’ll start with my own.
The year for this thread is 1968.
Oh, I forgot to mention, that the first film gets ten points, the last 1.
Only complete lists (with ten candidates in a certain order) will be counted (so no 9 films, or not ordering your ten choices!).
And the most important thing: PLEASE LIST ONLY PERSONAL FAVORITES. Not films you think an intelligent cineaste is obligated to list, but what you think is best/ dearest for you.
01. Goto, l’île d’amour “Goto, Island of Love” (Walerian Borowczyk / France)
02. Sayat Nova “The Color of Pomgranates” (Sergej Parajanov / Soviet Union)
03. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick / USA, UK)
04. Vixen! (Russ Meyer / USA)
05. Eltavozott nap “The Girl” (Marta Meszaros / Hungary)
06. Teorema “Theorem” (Pier Paolo Pasolini / Italy)
07. Rosemary’s Baby (Roman Polanski / USA)
08. Chronik der Anna Magdalena Bach “The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach” (Danièle Huillet, Jean-Marie Straub / West Germany, Italy)
09. Yabu no naka no kuroneko “Kuroneko” / “Black Cat from the Grave” (Kaneto Shindô / Japan)
10. Bullitt (Peter Yates / USA)
PS: to determine the year for a specific film, I try to go by the copyright (usually listed at the end of a print).
PPS: I know the whole thing of listing your (ten) favorite films in any kind or order is ridiculous. Nevertheless, that’s the point of the thread.
Go to Comment