Foreign Favorites [Archive] - FilmLeaf

docraven

10-27-2002, 12:27 AM

Have you noticed how few top ten lists on this forum include more than one or two foreign films? It seems to me that every year there are fewer foreign films released in the U.S. What a shame. The practice seems to be that if a foreign film is very successful, American movie moguls will remake it with American box office favorites. A recent example is INSOMNIA. One of the biggest disappointments was a wonderful little French film released in 1987. LE GRAND CHEMIN [The Grand Highway] is a great French film about a young boy coming of age in a provincial country town, and his impact on a childless couple. For American consumption and box office appeal, Hollywood relocated the story to a small town on the American coast. Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson (while they were married to each other) were cast in the remake called PARADISE. The remake was not a bad film, but it completely lost the magic of the original. Anyway, here’s a list of foreign films:
My Favorite Foreign Films:
1. THE SEVEN SAMURAI -- Japan
2. CARMEN (Saura) -- Spain
3. J U-DOU -- China
4. LE GRAND CHEMIN -- France
5. RUN LOLA RUN -- Germany
6. AU REVOIR, LES ENFANTS -- France
7. JEAN de FLORETTE & MANON OF THE SPRING -- France
8. THREE COLORS: BLUE, WHITE, & RED -- France/Poland
9. LE GRAND ILLUSION -- France
10. THE BICYCLE THIEF -- Italy
While thinking of foreign films, it seems clear that there is a great deal of appreciation for Kurosawa here. I have been able to see most of them, including AFTER THE RAIN, which was produced posthumously by his son, and included Toshiro Mifune’s son in a central role. There is amazing versatility here. Here’s my top ten list of Kurosawa films:
My Favorite Kurosawa Films:
1. THE SEVEN SAMURAI -- 1954
2. Akira Kurosawa’s DREAMS -- 1990
3. YOJIMBO -- 1961
4. KAGEMUSHA -- 1980
5. RAN -- 1985
6. RASHOMON -- 1950
7. HIDDEN FORTRESS -- 1958
8. IKIRU -- 1952
9. THRONE OF BLOOD -- 1957
10. RED BEARD -- 1965

Johann

10-27-2002, 01:15 AM

Ah, foreign films. I've seen over a thousand, I estimate. Being biased toward Kurosawa is hardly a bad thing. I think I've seen all of his films- 30 I think. While Dreams is my favorite, Red Beard really impressed me. I don't know if it was because Mifune gave his last performance, or what, but that one was REALLY powerful. (And I hear Criterion is giving it the "treatment")
Objectively, I think Rashomon is his masterpiece.

I think it's a travesty that so many films go unseen because of ignorance. I can't count how many times I've recommended a flick to someone and they said:

1. That's got subtitles. I hate subtitled movies. 2. Black and white? Too old!
3. I can't concentrate listening to a foreign language- yes someone actually said this.

and I'm the only one in my circle who watches silents fairly regularly. You can lead a horse...

oscar jubis

10-28-2002, 02:40 AM

Hi Johann and docraven...I'm afraid that the audience for subtitled films is limited because reading comprehension at high school level is required.Also, our cultural reach and sheer size makes it easy to resist what is foreign. Critic Jonathan Rosenbaum also blames the poor marketing and distribution of foreign films in the U.S. Notice Disney releasing Spirited Away in too few theaters and without TV spots. Notice how only the feel good, funny and/or sexy f. films are widely shown.

mmm best ever...It seems that most of the films on folks' lists are the ones available on DVD since repertory theatres disappeared . somewhere in the 80s. I love Kurosawa-my faves:Rashomon+Kagemusha-but nobody mentions Mizoguchi and Ozu. I probably prefer Ugetsu and Life of Oharu, Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds, than any of Kurosawa. There are hundreds of great films. My very favorites are those whose images refuse to leave my brain and those whose emotional impact refuses to dim. Docraven mentioned 3:Illusion,Bicycle,Au revoir. Ophuls'Earrings of Madame de...,Herzog's Aguirre. Saura's Cria and Erice's Spirit of the Beehive are best about childhood. Renoir may be my fave director-Rules of the Game is as accomplished as Illusion and Boudu saved from drowning +French Cancan make me giddy. Passion of Joan of Arc(Dreyer) is devastating. Films that may pass the test of time:Kieslowski's 3 Colors and The Decalogue, Kar-Wai's Mood and Ashes of Time, Hou-Hsien's The Puppetmaster, Stanley Kwan's Actress AKA Center Stage, Angelopoulos' Landscape in the Mist(warning:slow), Van Dormael's Toto the hero, Von Trier's Breaking the Waves, and Before the Rain.
Docraven:have u seen Shoeshine and My life as a Dog?
Johann:fave silents? which do u recommend on DVD?
Goal:to catch up on Dreyer and Tarkovsky.

Johann

10-29-2002, 01:06 AM

Greetings oscar jubis! So true about Ozu & Mizoguchi. The way things seem, it's like people are only aware of one Japanese filmmaker.

I loved Sansho the Bailiff. btw, have you seen Fires on the Plain? A different movie, but very compelling. Funny you mention Saura. I just watched Blood Wedding- amazing. I'll have to see his other stuff. I immediately liked his style. And I treat The Earrings of Madame De like a silent film (Was Napoleon right when he said..)
The camera work in that film is probably the best I've ever seen. Seriously. Ophuls' DP must have the midas touch.
And, what can you say about Renoir? The Rules of the Game is a landmark, Grand Illusion literally DEFINES greatness in cinema, and considering his pedigree, by all accounts he qualifies as the premiere director. Hell, even Orson Welles called Renoir the greatest director of all-time.

As for silents on DVD, there's not a whole lot on the shelves now, but I know that will change as time goes on. Stroheim's Foolish Wives has been released restored, I have the "German Horror" box set (Golem, The Cabinet of Dr, Caligari, Nosferatu) and 2 sets of Keaton & Chaplin films. They are on fairly heavy rotation in my crib (ha)

Gregster

10-30-2002, 03:59 AM

Best foriegn films for different reasons

Hard Boiled (John Woo) - It may not be a classic but I think it is an action masterpiece!

Seven Samaurai (Akira Kurosawa) - A western masterpiece remade Hollywood styleseveral times

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee) - Beautiful cinematography and a superb emotional storyline.

Das Boot (Wolfgang Peterson) - Great German submarine flick. Nerve-wracking and thrilling.

Nikita (Luc Besson) - Great French thriller that paved theway for Leon.

The Virgin Spring (Ingmar Bergman) - Its a while since I'veseen it but it remaines beautiful yet haunting.

Russ

10-31-2002, 07:38 PM

I actually have 7 foreign films in my top 10, namely

Reservoir Dogs,Raising Arizona,It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World,2001:A Space Odyssey,Dial M For Murder,Casablanca,Trainspotting,

However, by foreign, I think you mean non American, don't you - or you may even mean non English speaking.

What is the definition of a foreign film?

Realistically, I think it means simply Non english speaking. Is this right?

docraven

10-31-2002, 08:02 PM

Russ: Of course, if we talked about foreign films as being anything produced in another country, the category would be different in England, Canada, Brazil, etc. So most Americans, I think, consider foreign films to be films made in some language other than English. Otherwise, I would have put an Australian film on my list -- John Duigan's "Flirting."

The language thing can be confining, too. Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is in English, but was filmed in India and purports being about middle class Indian life. She was born in India but became a Canadian as an adult. But aside from a few problems like that, foreign language is the determining factor.

American film awards generally have a category for Best Picture in a Foreign Language.

My experience has been that the American audience as a whole is quite content with English language films. Too bad. From the people I met on both my visits to Canberra (a gem of a city) my impression is that Australians are a bit less provincial. What do you think?

oscar jubis

11-01-2002, 03:56 PM

I plan to rent Fires on the Plain and Foolish Wives soon. I think watching silents helps develop observation skills. Just saw What time is it there? from Taiwan which felt like a silent given how rarely characters interacted verbally. So Golem is finally available...don't know much about it...Nosferatu and Caligari are immortal.
Recommended for Gregster: Yimou's Ju-dou and Clouzot's The Wages of Fear.

Russ

11-02-2002, 06:02 AM

Docraven

Dunno if Americans are provincial or not. Trouble is, I'm pretty provincial myself. I know a few Americans through work, and the ones I know strike me as good humoured intelligent folks (seriously).

I guess I was being abit trite about the foreign films - although i knw the Australian Film Awards always give a proze to the best foreign (ie non Australian) film - normally some huge budget American performance - ironically.

I think the last truly foreign film I saw was Run Lola Run, which I thought was pretty good.

docraven

11-02-2002, 03:19 PM

Russ:

If you liked RUN LOLA, RUN, I suggest you check out THE PRINCESS AND THE WARRIOR -- same director and lead actress. Another excellent recent foreign film you might like is AMELIE. Like RUN LOLA, RUN, it is a one of a kind (unique in quite a different way).

The reason I looked at Australians as being more aware of the rest of the world than Americans is that it seemed like everyone I met down there had travelled abroad not just once, but several times. I know, since much of Canberra is white collar, that may not be typical. I really enjoyed the National Film Museum there.

docraven

11-02-2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Docraven:have u seen Shoeshine and My life as a Dog?

Yes. The DeSica film is excellent, and I know many people really liked My Life as a Dog, including many people who don't see many foreign films. It did not appeal to me, but I suspect I'm in the minority.

The films you mention are all good films. You mention Saura's Cria and Erice's Spirit of the Beehive, both wonderful films that I've seen both on the big screen and on TV. Saura is one of my favorite directors, but many of his films are not available. His most recent really good film is Tango. Carmen, which I think is stunning and quite memorable (The flamenco interpretation of the tobacco facory sequence is mesmerizing.), is very difficult to find since it is out of print. It was part of a great flamenco trilogy. The first, Blood Wedding, was based on Lorca's play. The last one, El Amor Brujo, was based on a major Spanish prose work. All three are currently hard to find. I hope that changes.

Another Spanish film that deals with a child is Butterfly (La Lengua de las mariposas,1999). Have you seen the Iranian film, Children of Heaven?

I like the Japanese films you mention. Have you seen Kobayashi's epic trilogy, The Human Condition? I believe it is available on DVD.

Renoir's works are amazing. I agree about Rules of the Game, but prefer Grand Illusion as more significant and with a much broader appeal. Another favorite is The Crime of Monsieur Lange.

I suspect we could go on and on. There's Mizoguchi, Bergman, and Bunuel for example.

oscar jubis

11-04-2002, 11:36 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by docraven
[B]. Saura is one of my favorite directors, but many of his films are not available.
Absolutely right. His THE HUNT was voted best Spanish film ever by Spanish critics but few have seen it here. COUSIN ANGELICA won at Cannes and was never released. Available: AY CARMELA! and GOYA, both recommended-although some found Goya "slow". The writer of these, as well as BELLE EPOQUE and Cuerda's BUTTERFLY , is the genius Mr. Rafael Azcona.
I've seen Majidi's CHILDREN OF HEAVEN and COLOR OF PARADISE but not BARAN or FATHER(available cheap on DVD from Asia).
Thanx Docraven for THE HUMAN CONDITION, which I knew nothing about. Having just been blown away by the WW II anime The GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES, I am particularly interested in the period from the Japanese point of view. I hope I can rent it somewhere.
FLIRTING is fine, but have you seen Duigan's LAWN DOGS? The way Duigan toys with our paranoic expectations about the relationship between a 10 year-old middle-class girl and a working class man is brilliant. The scene in which they compare wounds is both tense and tender. Few seem to have seen it.

Johann

11-05-2002, 01:03 AM

Well docraven, I didn't find "My Life as a Dog" to be that great either, so don't feel bad!

Yes, Saura's films are difficult to locate. It appears Blood Wedding is the only title of his in my city..Just like Stan Brakhage's stuff- hard to track down without paying exorbitant rates....Also,

I'm curious what people here think of Peter Greenaway. The man makes my jaw drop with every new film. He has slowly gotten under my skin to the point where I'm spending a small fortune on materials relating to his art. Dare I say that he is one of the most important "image-makers" in the history of cinema?

Oh yeah, and The Wages of Fear is incredible. If you haven't seen this hulking nail-biter, RENT IT TONIGHT. The tension on screen should drive you starkers...

oscar jubis

11-05-2002, 01:45 AM

re:Greenaway
His films can only be properly appreciated in a theatre because he crams the frame with visual info.
I like his films more the second or third viewing.
"The Cook,the thief..." is his better known film. That fluid camera gliding inside the restaurant...back and forth.
His masterpiece: PROSPERO'S BOOKS.

docraven

11-05-2002, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
[QUOTE]Originally posted by docraven
[B].
Thanx Docraven for THE HUMAN CONDITION … I am particularly interested in the period from the Japanese point of view. I hope I can rent it somewhere.
THE HUMAN CONDITION, as you probably know by now, is an epic trilogy that is over 9 1/2 hours long in total. I rented it from Netflix, and they are still listing it. It reminds me in overall tone of FIRES ON THE PLAINS and THE BURMESE HARP. The central actor is Tatsuya Nakadai, who was in many ways a competitor of Toshiro Mifune (and the lead actor in Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA and RAN).

I'm glad you mentioned COUSIN ANGELICA. I loved the film and have been trying to find it for about the last 15 years.

I have not seen LAWN DOGS, but will try to find it.

docraven

11-05-2002, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Johann
I'm curious what people here think of Peter Greenaway. The man makes my jaw drop with every new film.
I like Greenaway's audacious approach to film. On Easter Sunday back in 1990 my wife and I indulged in a huge brunch, then decided to check out a film at an art house in Kansas City. We knew nothing about Greenaway, but the title was enticing. So we saw THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE, AND HER LOVER. That has to be the most bizarre Easter we ever spent. Who can forget the tracking camera, the castrata dishwasher, the white bathroom, and especially the final meal.

I also like PROSPERO'S books. Where else could you see John Gielgud in the buff? Thank God, nowhere!

Johann

11-05-2002, 04:21 AM

Greenaway says that his "films have no sell-by date"- meaning they stand outside of time. I buy into that fully. Every time I see one of his movies I get something new out of it. Usually by the fourth viewing I've qualified the whole thing a masterpiece. If I was an actor, I would be moving mountains to be in one of his pictures.

He doesn't appeal to mainstream audiences at all, and at first glance you may be bowled over by seemingly unending pretention. Don't be fooled! Peter is up to something very profound. Like Kubrick, he has a singular vision, and with near-perfect filmmaking/media manipulation he creates films that are by turns fascinating and disturbing.
Nobody has a style like Greenaway, and I don't think anybody can emulate him, either.
I was very happy to hear Vincent Gallo is in his next film. (Buffalo 66 is one of my favorite films- killer photography)

docraven

11-05-2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Johann
Yes, Saura's films are difficult to locate. It appears Blood Wedding is the only title of his in my city…
It's interesting that some films so readily available in the U.S. aren't available in Canada … and vice-versa. I have been able to buy a number of videos and DVDs from Canadian eBay sources when they were not sold in the regular U.S. markets. However, I would think, besides the two films mentioned by oscar jubis (AY, CARMELA and GOYA IN BORDEAU) you might be able to find TANGO. TANGO is a really imaginative work that Saura made in Argentina -- wonderful concept, stunning cinematography, powerful, but complex story.

I was able to get BLOOD WEDDING on laserdisc through eBay. Later I saw a chance to get the entire trilogy on VHS, so I bid and won. However, what I got was clearly duped. The copies were good, but the seller soon disappeared. CARMEN is the best of the three, and well worth buying even at higher prices. If you watch eBay auctions, you may be able to get a copy without taking out a bank loan. It's worth checking the seller's feedback.

stevetseitz

11-06-2002, 03:14 AM

"Come and See" was the most powerful anti-war film I have ever seen in any language.

Most of Tarkovsky's and Eisenstien's films are worthwhile. I love "Alexander Nevsky" with the Prokofiev score.

Bunuel: "Death in the Garden" "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" "The Phantom of Liberty" "Belle de Jour"

What I have seen of Fellini is great, but I have yet to delve too deeply.

Johann

11-07-2002, 05:03 AM

No doubt about it, Russia has given us some amazing movies. Eisenstein's Nevsky is bombastic.
Kubrick said Eisenstein's films are all style & no content (with wooden actors), while Chaplin's films are all content and no style. I don't know if I agree with that.
Part of what gives Sergei's movies their power IS the stiff players. And when you consider how much he loved Disney, the films seem that much more poetic. Pudovkin (the first pontiff of editing)is the flip side- he's got a documentary feel with real emotion... Dovzhenko is another innovator who should be getting more notice. Anyone see "Earth"?

oscar jubis

12-01-2002, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by docraven
You mention Saura's Cria and Erice's Spirit of the Beehive, both wonderful films that I've seen both on the big screen and on TV. Saura is one of my favorite directors, but many of his films are not available.

I'd like to call your attention to Carlos Saura's BUNUEL AND KING SOLOMON'S TABLE, which I just rented on vhs(eng. subs). Luis Bunuel, near death, is doing pre-production on his final film: Bunuel, Salvador Dali and poet Garcia Lorca meet in Toledo in the 30s to search for a mythical object that confers upon its owner the power to look into the past and into the future. A highly entertaining tale that cleverly incorporates the artistic output of these three masters.

docraven

12-15-2002, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I'd like to call your attention to Carlos Saura's BUNUEL AND KING SOLOMON'S …
Thanks for the reference … and for your assessment. According to the imdb this has not yet been released in the U.S. I'll be waiting for that, as I'd far rather see it on the big screen in the dark.

We don't get many foreign films here unless they grab a lot of attention. So I've been trying to find it on video, but have been unable to find any information on a commercial VHS or DVD. Do you have any idea who put it out? Is this possibly a Canadian edition?

I read Chris Knipp's review of TALK TO HER, and then talked with a local film house about booking. They are interested in bringing the Almodovar film.

Are you familiar with Lorca? Have you seen any of his stage plays?

oscar jubis

12-17-2002, 12:09 AM

I assumed I rented an American release of Saura's Bunuel because of the nice english subs. Turns out, video store owner bought a PAL dvd from Spain(released with eng. subs there) and transfered it to NTSC vhs. I hope it gets released here. He did same with TALK TO HER, further evidence of Almodovar at the peak of his powers. It just destroyed the competition at the European Academy awards last week. I'm glad you'll get to see it the way it was meant to be seen. Cinematographer Aguirresarobe(The Others, All about my mother) is a key collaborator.
I saw a theatre production of Lorca's La Casa de Bernarda Alba in spanish and Saura's adaptation of Blood Wedding. I have not read his poetry though.

Raging Bull

01-05-2003, 06:20 AM

>The practice seems to be that if a foreign film is very successful, American movie moguls will remake it with American box office favorites.

And unfortunately they almost always give it the Soderberg treatment (totally dumb it down and hip it up for mass appeal).

>The remake was not a bad film, but it completely lost the magic of the original.

More often they seem in the vein of the Breathless or Diaboliques remake, bad films that not only lose the magic of the original but don't even seem to understand the film they are remaking or why anyone wanted to see it in the first place.

>Objectively, I think Rashomon is his masterpiece.

It should be a great film, but the message is just too simplistic. It seems out to prove everyone doesn't tell the truth, duh, and only concludes with everyone lies.

>That's got subtitles. I hate subtitled movies

My parents crack me up. Neither of them will watch a subtitled movie because then you have to read it, but they won't watch anything but sports without closed captioning so they don't miss any of the lines.

>Critic Jonathan Rosenbaum also blames the poor marketing and distribution of foreign films in the U.S.

The amount of money spent promoting the films generally goes hand in hand with the reciepts because the media is too willing to take money and celeb guests for bestowing false hype and importance and the audience is sucker enough to buy into the you aren't cool unless you've seen this movie bit. Most of the foreign films have get little to no advertising budget (maybe if it's a wider distribution a couple spots will be purchased on Bravo, which seems to get worse by the day) and only play in a few theatres, so they are doomed to make next to nothing theatrically unless they get amazing word of mouth and perform so well in their few theatres that others decide they might be able to make some money off this film.

>It seems that most of the films on folks' lists are the ones available on DVD since repertory theatres disappeared . somewhere in the 80s.

Here are some great ones that aren't on DVD (at least R1)
La Ceremonie
Un coeur en Hiver (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/hiver.html)
Double Vie de Véronique, La (The Double Life of Veronique)
Hitlerjunge Salomon (Europa Europa)
Monsieur Hire (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/monsieurhire.html)
Ete meurtrier, L' (One Deadly Summer)
Maman et la putain, La (The Mother and the Whore)
Les Biches (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/lesbiches.html)
Ivanovo Detstvo (Ivan's Childhood)
Noz w wodzie (Knife in the Water)
Jeux interdits (Forbidden Games)
Umberto D
Stromboli
Paisa (Paisan) (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/paisan.html)
Napoleon

>Passion of Joan of Arc(Dreyer) is devastating

I prefer Dreyer's Vampyr (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/vampyr.html) & Day of Wrath because they are far less clear cut. Joan has better imagery than Wrath, but Dreyer's understanding of the persecution is far greater and more multifaceted. In Joan he basically says she spiritual they dumb, but in Wrath he doesn't settle for an easiliy interpretted situation or simple notions of good and evil. It's not so much about right and wrong, but about all the characters having their reasons for acting as they do. It's much more terrifying when you can understand why characters could or do act in negative/selfish ways than just seeing a faceless mass torment an angel.

>Van Dormael's Toto the hero

I don't remember hearing much good about this film, but unlike the mediocre unoriginal predictable sugar coated Amelie which I heard only good things about, I was really impressed by it's originality, verve, and narrative structure. I thought the end was kinda lacking though. Leolo is a great film that is somewhat similar to this one IMO.

>The way things seem, it's like people are only aware of one Japanese filmmaker

I'm beginning to wonder if the average 12-year-old even knows other countries make films.

>Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee) - Beautiful cinematography and a superb emotional storyline.

This is a good film, but it just seems so overrated like people are under the delusion it's the first martial arts fantasy film or something equally ludicrous. Woo-ping is an amazing choreographer, but other than his work and the cinematography I find this rather lacking. Lee's films always get these reviews like they are so emotional and telling and I just find them to be closer to flat and empty. I think Woo-ping's Twin Warriors is better, it just kills Crouching Tiger in the crazy fight scenes. As far as a Crouching Tiger type film goes, I prefer the Bride with White Hair films because they are more artistic and tell a deeper more emotional story.

>If you liked RUN LOLA, RUN, I suggest you check out THE PRINCESS AND THE WARRIOR -- same director and lead actress.

I prefer Tykwer's Winter Sleepers. It's so beatifully photographed that I can forgive it's problems with character development and direction. The only thing is the film shares some similarity with Egoyan's great Sweet Hereafter and it generally doesn't match up well to it. Medem's Lovers of the Artic Circle is another good one that goes overboard when it comes to chance deciding everyone's fate.

>I'm curious what people here think of Peter Greenaway. The man makes my jaw drop with every new film. He has slowly gotten under my skin to the point where I'm spending a small fortune on materials relating to his art. Dare I say that he is one of the most important "image-makers" in the history of cinema?

Anyone that always takes chances, pushes the envelope, and doesn't require to be liked is likely to be worth watching, but Greenaway's films are about the most interesting contradictions out there. The thing is there's less and less people like Greenaway around because the ratings board is totally clueless and the distributors (outside of some minor labels) are afraid of offending anyone (which is why we never saw Baby of Macon). It's bad enough that the foreign films don't get a fair shake, if any at all, but hell Abel Ferrara can't even get his last 3 films into US theatres.

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull)

stevetseitz

01-06-2003, 01:42 PM

Sorry, In my opinion Greenaway is a pretentious hack. It's the old story of making films for the audience (since after all movies are viewed by others) vs. making a movie for yourself. In any other artistic medium the artist hopes for a positive response from his audience. I have never understood why it was acceptable for far too many "art house directors" to make unwatchable pretentious garbage and pass it off as film. By that standard, Tom Green's "Freddie Got Fingered" is a masterpiece. Greenaway elevates himself above Green only by keeping a straight face .

>>the mediocre unoriginal predictable sugar coated Amelie<<

I thought Amelie was good. A film need not be a negative, depressing drama about the suffering of the human condition to be a good film.

oscar jubis

01-06-2003, 06:06 PM

My favorite films are usually by directors whose primary concern is to adhere to a personal vision. They create images based on subjective aesthetic principles. Films calculated to satisfy an audience are often entertaining and nothing more. I value films that take stabs at greatness and strive for originality, even when they fail. Greenaway's art direction and cinematography are consistent sources of pleasure. I agree that Amelie is a good film. The amount of attention and praise bestowed upon it was undeserved though. Amelie is an entertaining,superbly edited feel-gooder predicated on romanticizing a Paris that no longer exists. A perfect introduction to European film for the novice and reluctant. I just wish CODE UNKNOWN or THE DREAMLIFE OF ANGELS or LA PROMESSE had had half of Amelie's advertising budget.

"RASHOMON seems out to prove everyone doesn't tell the truth, duh, and only concludes with everyone lies." (Raging Bull)
Your statement implies that cinema deserves to be taken seriously. What a film says or means is one of the important questions. The answers will be subjective and varied. I propose that RASHOMON has two primary ideas.
The portion of reality we actually perceive is "filtered" through memory, cognition, language, personality, etc. Of course we lie to others, and to ourselves. What Kurosawa shows is that we cannot avoid "lies" or "untruths" because Truth is beyond our grasp and ability. When Priest says "I have seen hundreds die like animals but this is terrible" he is referring to this uncertainty, this inherent "ignorance". The legal and theological implications are obvious.
There is a second event open to interpretation in Rashomon: the motivation of the person who abandons a baby. The film proposes that human suffering, which is a given, can only be abated through love and sacrifice. The wood dealer decides to adopt the baby, he walks away from Rashomon gate, baby in arms, looking up, a slight but honest smile on his face.End.

Thanks R.B. for your insights, particularly the detailed, thoughtful analysis of MONSIEUR HIRE.

Johann

01-07-2003, 01:21 AM

Steve! You've broken my heart!

I understand what you're saying completely about Greenaway. But if I may, I'll try to explain why he ain't a hack. (Prtentious is another story-a newcomer to his films will almost instinctively believe this- I certainly did)

I've read 5 of his screenplays as well as the university texts "Being Naked Playing Dead" and "Museums and Moving Images". From this, I learned that he has very specific aims with the films he makes. He is bored with modern cinema, and he does NOT set out to make films for himself (another thing that's difficult for me to try to explain) I'll give it a stab all in point form.

-almost all of Greenaway's influence can be traced to his education in painting and the films Last Year at Marienbad and The Seventh Seal. He also feels that the greatest filmmaker ever is Eisenstein.

-He is almost pathologically obsessed with lists, maps, organizing schemes, logic-based theories, and numbers. His filmography displays this in abundance.

-His interviews read like university lectures. (Ebert was in awe when he met/talked to him) they are as entertaining as his films to me- He goes off on huge tangents about everything from darwin to Lynch's Blue Velvet.

-He made a short film called "revolution" in the 60's showing riots that were set to The Beatles' song "Revolution". To call him "unhip" would be wrong...

-All I can say to those who "can't watch" a Greenaway is "Look CLOSER" a la American Beauty.

stevetseitz

01-07-2003, 07:33 PM

I have tried and tried. I have seen all his stuff (except "The Draughtman's Contract") I just don't care for his work. I would agree with him that Eisenstien was great (for his era) and quite influential but all time? I would have to give the nod to Kurosawa or David Lean.

>>He is almost pathologically obsessed with lists, maps, organizing schemes, logic-based theories, and numbers. His filmography displays this in abundance.<<

Interesting from a biographic point of view, but hardly conducive to storytelling which is after all what movies are about.

>> (Ebert was in awe when he met/talked to him)<<

Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and listed "Babe II; Pig in the City" on his top ten list for 1998 so impressing him isn't going to cut it!

>>-All I can say to those who "can't watch" a Greenaway is "Look CLOSER" a la American Beauty.<<

Even under the closest scrutiny I find Greenaway's film to be overdone, pretentious and long-winded. I'll admit his compositions are usually exceptional.

oscar jubis

01-07-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by stevetseitz
storytelling which is after all what movies are about.

"I want to try to make a kind of film that doesn't carry the idea of a story like a novel. In my opinion, film has to be freed from literary moments. Literature is literature and that's okay, but film is not film yet. It is still a mixture of different arts, and generally has a story, and that is a mistake."
R.W. Fassbinder

Greenaway films are often lacking in drama, with shallow, perverse characters in grotesque situations. At his best though, in collaboration with Sacha Vierny, he's taken me closer to that "pure cinema" R.W. was talking about. On a sad note, Greenaway will never find a cinematographer like Vierny(R.I.P. 2001), a veteran of Resnais and Bunuel films, among others.

Johann

01-08-2003, 12:32 AM

Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and listed "Babe II; Pig in the City" on his top ten list for 1998 so impressing him isn't going to cut it!

I'll give you that one. Sometimes Ebert can be a little young in the head...

Finally someone who disagrees with me and doesn't lose his mind. I won't mention Greenaway in your presence again dear sir.

Johann

01-08-2003, 12:44 AM

On a sad note, Greenaway will never find a cinematographer like Vierny(R.I.P. 2001), a veteran of Resnais and Bunuel films, among others.

Amen on that oscar jubis. I nearly choked on my beer while watching the oscars last year during the tribute to those who passed. I couldn't believe Peter lost his eyes.

Sacha said to Greenaway one day on set:

"Je ne pas un realisiteur; je c'est un Greenaway"

docraven

01-08-2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and listed "Babe II; Pig in the City" on his top ten list for 1998 so impressing him isn't going to cut it! I didn’t remember Ebert’s list for that year, but I do remember that BABE II:PIG IN THE CITY was number one on Gene Siskel’s list, and I tended to like his judgement more than Ebert’s. This was, of course, the year Siskel died. I looked it up on Ebert’s site and do note that he gave the film four stars. I suspect we all have our little admiration peculiarities that make our friends wonder. Anyway, Steve’s point is well taken.

As far as Greenaway is concerned, I enjoyed THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE, AND HER LOVER on the big screen—less so when watching from my laserdisc copy. Now that was a creative, fascinating piece—with the panning of the camera from the street, to the kitchen, and to the dining room, and with those wonderful color switches when moving in and out of the bathroom—all like some giant stage set, complete with a singing castrata diswasher. On the other hand, for me PROSPERO’S BOOKS seemed incredibly pretentious. I kept sitting there wondering what it was that was supposed to be fascinating—a mass of unshapley bodies accompanied by Shakespeare’s poetry gets old after awhile. And I love the bard in many kinds of interpretation. What makes him great is the vast variety of ways each play can be done.

stevetseitz

01-08-2003, 02:57 AM

>>"I want to try to make a kind of film that doesn't carry the idea of a story like a novel. In my opinion, film has to be freed from literary moments. Literature is literature and that's okay, but film is not film yet. It is still a mixture of different arts, and generally has a story, and that is a mistake."
R.W. Fassbinder<<

There are many ways to tell a story, a novel is only one of them. I think Fassbinder, who eschewed common cinematic tools opting for static shots and lengthy conversation, is saying he doesn't like ponderous melodrama. "Akira Kurosawa's Dreams" certainly wasn't a "novel" (it was more like a cinematic poem) but it was still basic human story-telling. "Pure cinema" (cinema for it's own sake) is rare and almost strictly non-commercial. It seems that very few films we discuss here are NOT traditional narrative film. I wonder if we could come up with an example from our various top ten lists that isn't a narrative film?

Johann

01-08-2003, 03:36 AM

[i]Originally posted by docraven for me PROSPERO’S BOOKS seemed incredibly pretentious. I kept sitting there wondering what it was that was supposed to be fascinating—a mass of unshapley bodies accompanied by Shakespeare’s poetry gets old after awhile. And I love the bard in many kinds of interpretation.

I think what fascinates me so much about Greenaway is his total inscrutable nature. Esoteric to almost a fault, I relish his films because they are so difficult to penetrate. You have to prepare for a Greenaway. You can't just pop some microwave popcorn, fix yourself a coca-cola and "throw on" 8 1/2 Women. You have to be analytical in mindset- I usually do a New York Times crossword to get me in the proper "mood".

And Steve, seeing "The Draughtsman's Contract" WILL NOT change your mind. Petrified actors in what appears to be the ultimate excercise in boredom... I love it.

As for Shakespeare, many kinds of interpretation is right, Doc. (As you may know I'm kind of partial to Titus.) The Kevin Kline/Michelle Pfieffer version of a Midsummer's Night Dream was an enjoyable rental.

Speaking of Foreign favorites- anybody see LUMIERE & COMPANY?
40 filmmakers try to make a 50 second film with the first motion picture camera invented by the Lumiere brothers. (Greenaway did one!) The camera is a wooden box with a hand crank to advance the film. David Lynch will blow you away with his 50 second barn-burner.

oscar jubis

01-08-2003, 03:05 PM

My appreciation of a given film changes over the years. Narrative pleasures seem to recede while images-for-their-own-sake hold their value. That is why revelation of a plot twist is called a "spoiler". Images don't seem to spoil easily. I hail THE THIRD MAN as much as you do, but primarily due to b&w scenes of empty post-war Vienna at night and harshly lit faces suddenly appearing in dark alleys. I don't love plot-dependent films like LONE STAR, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and THE USUAL SUSPECTS as much as after first viewing. As far as narrative, I prefer films that appear incomplete, able to absorb several interpretations, have a vague ending, or violate narrative conventions. On the other hand, I am deeply grateful to narrative-dependent films that illuminate a dark corner of the human experience or say something I think is important. That's why RABBIT-PROOF FENCE and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE are likely to make my English Language Top 10 for 2002.(Many films showing in NYC have not opened here yet). Sokurov's MOTHER AND SON and Godard's IN PRAISE OF LOVE are two recent examples of "pure cinema" I treasure. Wife called them a bore though.

stevetseitz

01-08-2003, 07:33 PM

Yeah I love that movie! Haven't seen it in a while though. It's a perfect example of limitations spawning creativity. If I remember correctly, the best short films were by directors that suprised me.

Johann

01-09-2003, 01:02 AM

If you love film DEEPLY, then you have to see Lumiere & Co. before you buy the farm. This collection of 50 second films demonstrates why Jim Morrison's quote "Cinema is the most totalitarian of the arts- there are no experts" is accurate.
The rules were hard, man: 3 takes only, no synchronized sound, and 52 seconds to do it in. It's freaking miraculous what these directors were able to come up with.

Spike Lee was almost disqualified, they cheated with the south american director-giving him 4 takes because he ALMOST had it!, and David Lynch made a fucking (pardon my french) feature film in 50 seconds!!!! And it might be the scariest bit of film I've ever seen if I really think about it.....

*in my worst Crocodile Hunter voice* CRIKEY, see this little beauty

stevetseitz

01-09-2003, 02:10 AM

I think it's now available on DVD at the video store I go to! I saw the tape. Are there any extras on the DVD?

docraven

01-09-2003, 02:41 AM

I bought a laserdisc copy about two years ago and I note that there is a DVD available through a number of sources. Apparently the only extras on the DVD are production notes (format unspecified) and a trailer.

Johann

01-09-2003, 06:44 AM

As far as narrative, I prefer films that appear incomplete, able to absorb several interpretations, have a vague ending, or violate narrative conventions.

Oscar, you just summed up beautifully my predilections as well. You should love About Schmidt. The ending is open to a few interpretations, and I don't know if any of them would be wrong.

I could watch Jack as Warren Schmidt forever. Hey Jack, this could be a sitcom smash....

Raging Bull

01-09-2003, 08:42 AM

>Sorry, In my opinion Greenaway is a pretentious hack. It's the old story of making films for the audience (since after all movies are viewed by others) vs. making a movie for yourself.

I always find this to be a silly argument because there is an audience for absolutely everything, it's just the amount of people who will watch it that differs.

>In any other artistic medium the artist hopes for a positive response from his audience.

Please. No matter the artistic medium it always depends upon the goals of the specific artist.

>I have never understood why it was acceptable for far too many "art house directors" to make unwatchable pretentious garbage and pass it off as film. By that standard, Tom Green's "Freddie Got Fingered" is a masterpiece. Greenaway elevates himself above Green only by keeping a straight face.

There's a lot of truth in Greenaway's films about social and human condition. There's also a tremendous level of artistry. In Green's stuff there's just a bunch of gross out material.

>My favorite films are usually by directors whose primary concern is to adhere to a personal vision. They create images based on subjective aesthetic principles.

Nod. Greenaway is unique because his vision is something like transforming film into a series of cinematic paintings rather than just illustrated text.

>Films calculated to satisfy an audience are often entertaining and nothing more.

They usually aren't even entertaining because the are generally the same old thing done the same old way.

>I value films that take stabs at greatness and strive for originality, even when they fail.

I agree. An interesting failure is better than a lot of good films, generally because these good films only strive to be good.

>A perfect introduction to European film for the novice and reluctant. I just wish CODE UNKNOWN or THE DREAMLIFE OF ANGELS or LA PROMESSE had had half of Amelie's advertising budget.

Nod. I still haven't decided if Dreamlife is a great film. I thought it was very powerful and moving, but I guess the stumbling block is that it reminds me a lot of Vagabond (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/vagabond.html) and that's such an amazing film. As good as Bouchez is, Bonnaire is on another level.

>Your statement implies that cinema deserves to be taken seriously.

Cinema that tries to say something deserves to be taken seriously unless what it has to say is juvenile like say I Am Sam.

>What a film says or means is one of the important questions.

Absolutely!

>The answers will be subjective and varied.

Yeah, if it's a good film rather than a sermon from the mount Hollywood.:)

>I propose that RASHOMON has two primary ideas.
The portion of reality we actually perceive is "filtered" through memory, cognition, language, personality, etc. Of course we lie to others, and to ourselves.

This part I agree with.

>What Kurosawa shows is that we cannot avoid "lies" or "untruths" because Truth is beyond our grasp and ability.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think the film as it stands mirrors reality and I think Kurosawa's take is too black and white. People can't avoid putting their slant on a story would be much truer than what he had to say. Kurosawa could have made a movie showing virtually the same story each time to show the subtle differences caused by positioning, perspective, point of view, beliefs, etc, to show that what we believe is the truth isn't exactly true. It isn't necessarily a lie either. Regardless, rather that focusing on what's beyond us even when we are doing are best not to "lie", his film is about the motivation behind lies. All the characters are telling a quite different story with some similarities because they are "gaining" something from the way other people see it, and subsequently see them them. Thus, there's something very much in their grasp and ability. What might be beyond their grasp and ability is the consequences that come from the way they are altering other's perceptions.

>There is a second event open to interpretation in Rashomon: the motivation of the person who abandons a baby. The film proposes that human suffering, which is a given, can only be abated through love and sacrifice. The wood dealer decides to adopt the baby, he walks away from Rashomon gate, baby in arms, looking up, a slight but honest smile on his face.End.

This is just Kurosawa's sentimentality. Universal love and sacrifice is not a possibility and there are a zillion cases where there is a tremendous amount of love and sacrifice on an individual to individual or small group level but these people still suffer tremendously, like everytime there's a war or "conflict", and when isn't there...I'll give you that Kurosawa's plee here is admirable, but what really did this ending have to do with the film it belonged to?

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull)

stevetseitz

01-09-2003, 02:47 PM

Johann

01-11-2003, 08:36 AM

I've laughed at Tom Green a few times, but the guy is bonkers.

If someone felt that what he did in "Freddy" was high-art, I would now be engaged in a frustrating debate....

VAGABOND is a must-see for film buffs. I was profoundly moved by this sad sad film. I can't watch it again. I think everyone here has seen a movie that you only need to see once. (Not that they don't deserve repeated viewings, just that the message was driven home) Agnes still makes great films. And she's no spring chicken, either. Gotta admire that...

stevetseitz

01-11-2003, 12:45 PM

>>If someone felt that what he did in "Freddy" was high-art, I would now be engaged in a frustrating debate....<<

Shhh! They might get ideas around here!

Johann

01-14-2003, 02:54 AM

There has been scant mention of that french pest Jean-Luc Godard.

He's got a few films that have made an impression on me. The first film of his I saw was My Life to Live, which I thought was fantastic. Then I started reading up, and found that the man is highly regarded in all film circles (usually as a non-linear genius) and he's maintained integrity all these years. I saw my first Godard on the big screen last year with his new release. In terms of cinema history, I think he is very important for exposing a lot of people to other ways of editing, telling a story, and social conciousness.

Breathless, Contempt, Band of Outsiders, Pierrot le Fou, Alphaville, Weekend and Le Petit Soldat are all excellent films in my view. The rest seem like monstrous ego trips or excercises in banality. (Just try and watch One Plus One: Sympathy for the Devil and not say to yourself "what the fuck am I watching?") At least Greenaway seems to have a REASON..

oscar jubis

01-14-2003, 07:30 PM

"If you have a big audience, you can't really say you respect them-it's like saying you respect the people in the street-you don't really know who they are. But if only 10 people come to see your film, you begin to wonder who they are" J.L.Godard

Godard makes films for an intellectual elite, films chock-full of literary, historical, and cinema references.For example, in In Praise of Love, a couple converse by the Siene while a 30s tune is heard. The scene makes a lot more sense if you know the tune is from Vigo's L'Atalante and the spot is a famous Resistance site. Like Manny Farber wrote: No other filmmaker has so consistently made me feel like a stupid ass. No other filmmaker has provided me with more pleasure and insight either. Simply I think Godard is ahead of his time. He is still experimenting with form and content for the few who care.
The reason why his 60s films are most popular is because their innovations and conceits have already been incorporated into mainstream film culture. Watching many of his more recent films is comparable to jazz lovers of the 50s listening to Ornette Coleman or Thelonious Monk for the first time. Godard often separates sound from image and plot from dialogue. The viewer has to constantly readjust but the pleasures are still palpable, the images and sounds, and plenty of food for thought.

stevetseitz

01-14-2003, 08:02 PM

OK, I know I'm going to ruffle a few feathers here, but I find Godard to be an utter bore. I haven't seen all his stuff but I own "two or three things I know about her" and you want to know how many times I've watched it? Once.

I couldn't bring myself to view this film another time. My time on this planet is limited and I don't want to spend it in a darkened room watching yet another elitist social satire. If I want a good social satire, I'll be much happier throwing in Chaplin's "Modern Times".

It's not a film I can even recommend to friends and yet Amy Taubin of the Village Voice called it "One of the greatest films ever made!" Yeah, maybe if I subscribed to Godard's belief that consumer society is a whorehouse.

Godard seems like the kind of filmmaker that the "movie-snobs" I used to work with would gush over but at the end of the night they would rarely walk out of the store with a Godard film.

These films are made to sit on the shelves at video stores for urban, hipster women with horn rimmed glasses and berets who keep saying, "Oh, I've always wanted to see this...well maybe next time let's get "Beautiful Girls" with Matt Dillon!"

oscar jubis

01-14-2003, 09:13 PM

You are entitled to your opinions. Godard's films are certainly not for those looking for diversion or for a cure for boredom. However, your comments contain a single glaring inaccuracy. Godard's audience has always been overwhelmingly male. Moreover, males rate his films significantly higher than females(IMDB ratings). You seem to be looking for opportunities to display your misogyny, in my opinion.

Johann

01-15-2003, 01:20 AM

There are a not a few filmmakers out there who "experiment". Few pull it off.
Godard's "tests" seem to have an unsettling cohesion. It all seems to come together (for me at least) when we see the final scenes. Even Alphaville with it's mars dialogue/french Frampton narration works for me. (I want credit for that description!)

Weekend's endless tracking shot of car wrecks is something I've rewound and watched over and over. I wouldn't call Godard a bore- he certainly doesn't bore me, but he confuses me more than Greenaway (and that's an achievement). He knows how to manipulate the screen to sometimes astounding effect, and for that I drop a knee. He also rejuvenated the movies in the 50's/60's. It was VERY uncool to be into film in the 60's. This is a fact. I've talked to film buffs who were in film schools then and they all say it was very "square" to be a film student back then. One guys parents disowned him! Godard (& the new wave) made it cool, made it chic.. Kinda like Top Gun increasing recuiting for pilots in the US Navy-although that is ridiculous:)

tabuno

01-15-2003, 04:16 AM

I haven't seen alot of Foreign movies, many of which I saw when they rapidly played through at the small independent theater in town (now much farther away). But of those I can remember, a few really stood out for me:

• After Life [Wandafuru raifu] (1999 - Japan)
• Run, Lola, Run (Germany)
• Picnic at Hanging Rock (Australia)
• Kieslowski's 3 Colors
• Solaris (Russian)
• Amelie
• Fantastic Planet [Planète sauvage, La] (1973 - Czechoslovakia / France )

stevetseitz

01-15-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
You are entitled to your opinions. Godard's films are certainly not for those looking for diversion or for a cure for boredom. However, your comments contain a single glaring inaccuracy. Godard's audience has always been overwhelmingly male. Moreover, males rate his films significantly higher than females(IMDB ratings). You seem to be looking for opportunities to display your misogyny, in my opinion.

You'll note that I didn't say the stereotypical woman actually RENTED the film, just TALKED about renting it. So if there was any "glaring inaccuracy" it was on the part of the reader of my post not myself.

It doesn't surprise me that males tend to rate Godard's films higher because a male will tend to try and justify their film-watching decision by any means necessary, most of the women I know will simply admit when a film is an utter bore. BTW, watching an elitist social satire is the ultimate diversion and convincing oneself that watching a film is socially redeeming is a sign of a bored person.

miseenscene

01-21-2003, 02:27 PM

"BTW, watching an elitist social satire is the ultimate diversion and convincing oneself that watching a film is socially redeeming is a sign of a bored person."

Having previously admitted that you've only seen a few of Godard's films, and then based the majority of your criticism on one of them, it's possible you may be underexposed to Godard to sufficiently make a broad statement equating him to a social or cultural elitist. However, labeling him as such and then referring to people who've convinced themselves that seeing his work is socially redeeming are "bored" seems as much a reverse-justification of your own opinion as it does an attack on theirs.

Just an observation.

Besides, one could argue that anyone who posts on a film message board instead of actually seeing a film or doing something otherwise constructive is demonstrably "bored." In that case, it's safe to say we're all bored.

stevetseitz

01-21-2003, 05:44 PM

>>Having previously admitted that you've only seen a few of Godard's films, and then based the majority of your criticism on one of them, it's possible you may be underexposed to Godard to sufficiently make a broad statement equating him to a social or cultural elitist.<<

While it's true that I said I hadn't seen all of his stuff, I did NOT say I had seen "only a few" of his films. Don't misquote me. I'm getting so sick of this same old lame argument that happens every time someone disagrees that a filmaker isn't the best thing since sliced bread. I am not quite sure why people some people are so hell-bent on forcing their opinions down other peoples throats. You like Godard? Fine. Enjoy yourself. I ain't buying.

I happen to like the works of Kurosawa and David Lean and I don't really care if you don't. In fact, I don't care if you have never seen their films and decide to shout from the rooftops that they are awful. Suffice it to say, my "exposure" to his Godard is sufficient for me to form my OWN OPINION.

What a novel idea! I form my OWN opinions rather than simply parroting some coffee table book on foreign film.

>>However, labeling him as such and then referring to people who've convinced themselves that seeing his work is socially redeeming are "bored" seems as much a reverse-justification of your own opinion as it does an attack on theirs.<<

It never ceases to amaze me that some think that a difference of opinion is an "attack". In life, one of few absolutes that is undeniable is that people will have different opinions. It takes a mature person to accept this fact and move on.

Just an observation.

oscar jubis

01-21-2003, 10:02 PM

Everything was fine and then "...parroting some coffee table book on foreign film" implying we like Godard because is the correct/hip/cool thing to do. You cannot fanthom that others experience genuine pleasure viewing his films. You imply we have to convince ourselves of their worth. By the way, I think many would agree with your disregard for Godard. His potential audience is smaller than other directors', resulting in lack of distribution in America. Many of his recent films are proudly experimental and obtuse. I understand your opinion. What I don't understand is: you meant to ruffle feathers and then, when misenscene questioned your "credentials", you call it an "attack" from one lacking maturity. I cannot believe all you expected was:"yeah man, that Godard is a bore"!

miseenscene

01-22-2003, 10:25 AM

This is a case of one side stating a strong case and taking umbrage when the opposing side engages in debate. Debating the issues with fact produces different results from debating issues with opinion. Stating an opinion is fine. Stating opinions made to seem like facts, or opinions that are unnecessarily derogatory or insulting to bolster the credibility of one's own statment seems to create the exact opposite effect: name-calling reduces the credibility of the argument.

Just an observation.

And since we're all still harping on this issue, I suppose none of us are mature enough to have accepted the difference in opinion and move on.

For the record, we're all entitled to strong opinions. It's when those opinions are expressed in a snide and insulting manner that they incite a backlash. Not liking Godard is fine -- I couldn't care less about anyone's opinion of any other filmmaker -- but attributing a like of Godard to a social elitism, film snobbery or coffee-table book hipsterism doesn't exactly lend credence to one's opinion from a conversational standpoint. The dislike of Godard isn't ruffling feathers; the pettiness and defensiveness of the argument is.

stevetseitz

01-22-2003, 12:39 PM

I happen to think Godard is a bore and an elitist. You guys apparently like his stuff. No problem.

What IS a problem is making it a personal issue.

Oscar Jubis:

>>"Godard's films are certainly not for those looking for diversion or for a cure for boredom. However, your comments contain a single glaring inaccuracy. Godard's audience has always been overwhelmingly male. Moreover, males rate his films significantly higher than females(IMDB ratings). You seem to be looking for opportunities to display your misogyny, in my opinion."<<

This implies that I watch film for "diversion" and a "cure for boredom". That is clearly an insult. Secondly, you accuse me of misogyny. Do you even know the definition of the word? That's totally insulting and it's sad that you resort to something like that when someone disagrees with you.

Now, to reply to miseenscene:

You chimed in on this thread to apparently ambush me with insults even though prior to your response post I hadn't exchanged word one with you.

>>Having previously admitted that you've only seen a few of Godard's films,<<

There is your first error. You start off on the wrong foot by misquoting me. I clearly said I hadn't seen ALL of his stuff NOT "only a few of Godard's films". Excuse me if getting misquoted bothers me.

>> and then based the majority of your criticism on one of them, it's possible you may be underexposed to Godard to sufficiently make a broad statement equating him to a social or cultural elitist.<<

This implies that I am just casting about an unfounded opinion which is absurd and insulting. It's one thing to say "I don't like the films of director X because of A, B, or C reasons" "I don't have a problem with someone replying "Well. I DO like the films of director X because of A, B, and C reasons" Tabuno, Docraven and I do this quite a bit. We don't take it personally when we disagree. In fact, none of our top 10 film lists are identical.

However, it's entirely another thing to insult or misquote someone in a thread and make implications about that individual.

>>The dislike of Godard isn't ruffling feathers; the pettiness and defensiveness of the argument is.<<

Bull. The only people that are defensive are the ones who are defending Godard. Pettiness is saying something like "you may be underexposed to Godard". If someone insults me, don't be surprised if I come back with equal invective.

I don't wish to turn this into some sort of flame forum but if attacked I will defend myself. I am willing to move on at this point as long as I am not further misquoted or falsely accused of "being underexposed".

>> I suppose none of us are mature enough to have accepted the difference in opinion and move on.<<

The difference of opinion on Godard? I've moved on from that issue a long time ago. The current issue is (and has been for the last few posts) forum etiquette. You hold your own opinions and I'll hold mine and we can exchange viewpoints, but start misquoting people and insulting them and the lack of civility will make this forum pointless.

miseenscene

01-22-2003, 02:05 PM

>>>The dislike of Godard isn't ruffling feathers; the pettiness and defensiveness of the argument is.<<<

>>Bull. The only people that are defensive are the ones who are defending Godard. Pettiness is saying something like "you may be underexposed to Godard". If someone insults me, don't be surprised if I come back with equal invective.<<

Hmm...

Thank you for clarifying the status of what is and isn't considered petty. The "movie-snob" comment previously mentioned is an example of what I'd taken to be petty, as were the defenses of your opinion in which you equated Godard fans with social elitists, attacked anyone who defended their like of said films as bored, presumed to state the audience these films were made for (horn-rimmed glasses-wearing Matt Dillon-loving pseudo-hypocrites), and then dismissed all further argument as the pedantic pandering of coffee table book-quoting film snob intelligentsia. I take it that these are valid examples of non-petty, openminded and justified statements, wholly supported by you and the two other posters on this board who have set the standard for appropriate ways to state one's opinion, or so your defense claims.

Having inferred earlier that you may be underexposed to Godard is an observation based upon your criticism, not an attack. You viewed the challenge to your opinion, or perhaps the wording thereof, as an insult. If I said you were underexposed to the political upheaval in Venezuela, for example, I wouldn't be calling you ignorant, I'd be stating a perception based upon evidence at hand. Dismissing a difference in opinion, particularly one made without overtones of a personal attack (and even lacking the misogyny comment made by another), seems to indicate an unwillingness on your part to engage in a debate of ideas without resorting to harsh, take-it-or-leave-it opinions that will be defended righteously if challenged.

As for the defnesive angle, we both appear to be vigorously defending everything we've said, not just the Godard fans. The difference is, I'm trying to clarify my point at which I thought your argument lost credence; you're trying to debunk everything I have to say as an insult or personal attack. Since we're at cross-purposes at this point in the thread, and have completely moved off-topic in terms of foreign films, I say we leave this issue where it lays since neither of us is going to sway the other to see his point of view anytime soon.

docraven

01-22-2003, 02:50 PM

May I weigh in on both sides here. I find these kinds of arguments interesting, but a bit frustrating. This has been a part of a few other strings on this forum as well. Everyone who has entered into the fray has provided an insight or two, especially regarding their own vision. All seem to agree that everyone of us has different sensitivities and legitimate preferences.

What I’d like to suggest is that all of us read responses to our postings with generosity, and not assume personal attacks. I suspect we all disagree with things we read here, and we all find other things to agree about. Hopefully, we also get some new insights. We also come to get a sense of how various individuals respond.

Stevetseitz, for example, is right up front with his views, and often states them in very strong ways. I rather enjoy this. If he refers to something like “coffee table books,” I think I get the point. And it makes me think a bit. I have to admit having been influenced at times by film books rather than really thinking and responding for myself. I cannot state it as a fact, but I suspect many of us have done the same. But hopefully, these are not long lasting or imbedded influences. Anyway, it doesn’t hurt me to think about such a possibility -- or about “band wagon” responses to film. I could make similar comments about things almost everyone has stated here, but what’s the point?

I just suspect all of us can be a little less thin-skinned about our postings. After all, I assume we come here for exchange. I hope we even come to be challenged a bit. I hate to see personal wars when they are not necessary, and I question their value to any of us. A sense of generosity of spirit wouldn’t hurt any of us when it comes to reading other people’s postings.

stevetseitz

01-22-2003, 02:53 PM

>>Thank you for clarifying the status of what is and isn't considered petty.<<

You're welcome.

>> The "movie-snob" comment previously mentioned is an example of what I'd taken to be petty<<

You mean this statement? : "Godard seems like the kind of filmmaker that the "movie-snobs" I used to work with would gush over"? If you would bother to read what I ACTUALLY said rather than have a "knee-jerk" reaction you would see that it's more a comment about the people I used to work with rather than any specific description of Godard, his fans or his films.

>>You mean , as were the defenses of your opinion in which you equated Godard fans with social elitists<<

Yet another misquote! I said in the original post I didn't want to waste my time watching "yet another elitist social satire". This doesn't apply to Godard fans but specifically "two or three things I know about her..."

>>, attacked anyone who defended their like of said films as bored, <<

Yet another misqoute. I did not attack "anyone who defended their like of said films as bored". The actual statement, in a reply post, was "convincing oneself that watching a film is socially redeeming is a sign of a bored person."
It's not an "attack" it's a belief. If you disagree...fine, no skin off my nose.

>>presumed to state the audience these films were made for (horn-rimmed glasses-wearing Matt Dillon-loving pseudo-hypocrites)<<

Wrong. That isn't what I said. But apparently you didn't bother to read the original post very carefully. From my experience in working at a trendy, alternative video store after high school, I stated that films like these were "made to sit on the shelves at video stores for urban, hipster women with horn rimmed glasses and berets who keep saying, "Oh, I've always wanted to see this...well maybe next time let's get "Beautiful Girls" with Matt Dillon!" This scene was so common it became amusing at the store I worked. Employees would make wagers predicting the actual rentals of people who came in asking for foreign films. If you have no sense of humor you don't have any business interacting with other people on these forums.

>> I take it that these are valid examples of non-petty, openminded and justified statements, wholly supported by you and the two other posters on this board who have set the standard for appropriate ways to state one's opinion, or so your defense claims.<<

It's not "defense". I have no need to "defend" against such an obvious lack of facts. Since you haven't quoted me correctly thus far, I'll assume you are new to the process of message boards or unfamiliar with common etiquette.

>>Having inferred earlier that you may be underexposed to Godard is an observation based upon your criticism, not an attack.<<

Even if it was meant as an "observation", and not an attack, it was based on faulty data. I clearly stated that I had not seen all of Godard's films. Somehow you misquoted me by saying I had seen "only a few". So your "observation" was based on either a lack of comprehension on the part of the reader or an intentional omission.

>>You viewed the challenge to your opinion, or perhaps the wording thereof, as an insult. If I said you were underexposed to the political upheaval in Venezuela, for example, I wouldn't be calling you ignorant, I'd be stating a perception based upon evidence at hand.<<

It wasn't a "challenge" to my "opinion". It was a misquote and furthermore a conclusion based on incorrect data.

>> Dismissing a difference in opinion, particularly one made without overtones of a personal attack (and even lacking the misogyny comment made by another), seems to indicate an unwillingness on your part to engage in a debate of ideas without resorting to harsh, take-it-or-leave-it opinions that will be defended righteously if challenged.<<

Not at all. I am certainly open and accepting of different opinions. Look at my last post: " I happen to think Godard is a bore and an elitist. You guys apparently like his stuff. No problem. " The problem is the misquoting and the implying of "underexposure". This is basic etiquette which must be followed in order for message boards to serve their purpose.

>>As for the defnesive angle, we both appear to be vigorously defending everything we've said, not just the Godard fans.<<

You can't vigorously defend misquoting someone, no matter how hard you try. The proof is in the posts.

>>The difference is, I'm trying to clarify my point at which I thought your argument lost credence; you're trying to debunk everything I have to say as an insult or personal attack.<<

Clarity will never be reached as long as you consistently misquote others. When you make implications about others based on misquotes it only serves to weaken your case.

>> Since we're at cross-purposes at this point in the thread, and have completely moved off-topic in terms of foreign films, I say we leave this issue where it lays since neither of us is going to sway the other to see his point of view anytime soon.<<

Like I said before: " I happen to think Godard is a bore and an elitist. You guys apparently like his stuff. No problem."

oscar jubis

01-22-2003, 09:17 PM

I cannot let this die without saying I was wrong to use the term "your misogyny" in response to Stevetseitz. I do not know you and I don't have enough information to make that judgement. I was reacting to your specifying gender in your comments about customers at a rental store, when gender was irrelevant. This, and terms like "movie-snobs", tick me off. But that's no excuse. I apologize.

stevetseitz

01-23-2003, 01:47 AM

I apologize if I offended anyone. Oscar, you are a class act. I appreciate it. Let's get back to movies!

miseenscene

01-23-2003, 10:09 AM

I'll apologize as well, since offending anyone was never my intent. There's something to be said for an inability to convey sarcasm (or NOT convey sarcasm) on message boards. I imagine that's why emoticons *shudder* were invented...

And since I partially derailed us from foreign film, I'll attempt to get us back on track: what's the going opinion on the Dogme 95 scene? I've only seen two Dogme films thus far, Festen (The Celebration) and Mifune, and I found Festen to be far more engaging than Mifune. Maybe it had something to do with Festen having more sympathetic characters and (to me) a more compelling storyline.

Regardless, whether Dogme 95 is just another stunt or not, I'm a fan of getting away from the Hollywood filmmaking style as long as the means support the story and vice versa. That may also be why I wasn't a big Mifune fan, since it's essentially a Hollywood "ugly duckling romantic comedy" with a twist. (Then again, Festen isn't exactly novel either...)

Johann

01-23-2003, 08:15 PM

I'm glad somebody mentioned Dogme 95- i was going to touch on it at some point, just nobody spoke.

SO

Lars von Trier & his "gang" feel that cinema is lacking excitement, huh? They create a new "manifesto" for film. A new "Magna Carta" if you will... Did it work?
You bet your bibby it worked. Do yourself a favour. Rent Trier's "The Idiots". See a group of performers that are no different from the 60's Living Theatre. They are actors of such high calibre & dedication that they deserve medals of honor.

Then, after you take a shower after THE IDIOTS, dare to rent the 80 min. documentary on the making of the film. After taking yet another long hot shower-involving lots of sobbing & screams of "why?", write yo mama you saw history in the making- a cinematic team of warriors smashing the gates of conventional moviemaking- and doing it so casually you SHOULD be afraid.

Lars von Trier's name should evoke a certain type of respect. The kind of respect given to men of honor like Welles, Lean and Lang.

oscar jubis

01-23-2003, 11:32 PM

I believe that whenever artists face limitations(technical,political,financial) the potential for creativity increases. Dogme 95 films have a unique facility to evoke the texture and rhythm of everyday life. I get a voyeuristic kick out of them. The approach sometimes results in uneven, even indulgent, movies. I have seen 7 out of 25 dogme films so far. My favorite is the above-mentioned Festen, probably because the story is ideally suited to this style. I'd probably pick Julien Donkey-boy second, a spotty film that reaches lofty heights. At worst these are interesting and worth-watching: The Idiots, Mifune, Kira's Reason, The King is Alive and Fuckland (last 2 show up on Sundance and IFC). The Idiots has a mischiveous energy that reminds me of Vigo's Zero in Conduct and Renoir's Boudu saved from drowning. Johann's observation about the 60s Living Theatre is right on. The Idiots feels like a late-60s counterculture movie, with communal living, sex scenes allegedly featuring real penetration, frontal nudity, and mayhem.

Incidentally, there are two films, not designated Dogme but quite similar in approach, which I love and consider superior to Festen. To these eyes, the Dardenne brothers' Rosetta abides by Dogme 95 and Lynn Ramsay's Ratcatcher is minimally stylized. Both are engaging, psychologically detailed portraits of working-class European urban youth.

Johann

02-10-2003, 05:32 PM

Anybody see the astounding shorts by the brothers Quay? I have serious admiration for these two ARTISTS. They make animated stop-motion films that exist in a world all their own. I have the Kino vhs that has all of their shorts on it, and it is an enthralling view. (I find it compliments my Greenaway films)

Their best? Street of Crocodiles- 1986. Each short is a surreal composition that just have to be seen to be believed...

miseenscene

02-10-2003, 06:42 PM

I believe I've seen some Quay works -- I must have, among the many shorts they showed us while I studied animation in college, but I don't recall the names of all the stop-motion folk. There was one, which may or may not be a Quay film, called "Balance" or something similar, in which a bunch of black figures (as I recall) each stood, City of Angels style, on a level platform, and then something occurred that caused an imbalance in the platform, and they began falling off and rushing around to save themselves... Fuzzy memory. Is that a Brothers Quay film?

Incidentally, to trudge up some Godard musings, I rented Band of Outsiders this weekend and couldn't get through it. I like Godard, I admire what he did and the influence he had, but of the films of his I've seen thus far, I've only enjoyed two (Jules et Jim and Alphaville), if you really can "enjoy" a Godard film, I've been underwhelmed by one (Breathless, which probably deserves a second viewing), and two haven't made it past the halfway point before I've ejected them (Band of Outsiders and Pierrout le Fou). He may be a genius and a savior of cinema, but there's a real undercurrent of presumptuous disrespect for his audience that rankles my nerves...

I did see The Girl on the Bridge recently, and liked that much more than much of Godard's work, even though it probably wouldn't be here without Godard.

stevetseitz

02-10-2003, 09:04 PM

Balance was the winner of the 1989 Academy Award for Best animated short. It was made by Christoff and Wolfgang Lauenstein of Germany. It can be found on "The best of the 22nd International Tournee of Animation" LD which I own.

oscar jubis

02-10-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by miseenscene I like Godard, I admire what he did and the influence he had, but of the films of his I've seen thus far, I've only enjoyed two (Jules et Jim and Alphaville), if you really can "enjoy" a Godard film. He may be a genius and a savior of cinema, but there's a real undercurrent of presumptuous disrespect for his audience that rankles my nerves...

I take advantage of your mention of Jules et Jim to contrast the careers of its director, Francois Truffaut, and monsieur Godard. At the start of their careers they shared a common aesthetics and philosophy, then gradually, Truffaut and Godard personified opposing poles within the French New Wave. Truffaut films cultivated a certain continental charm and adhered to certain, primarily literary and audience-friendly, narrative conventions. Godard tweaks and prods narrative to create a "film essay" full of ideas and cultural references. Truffaut became a movie director while Godard conducted his image+sound experiments. Cinema needed them both. Godard never pandered or condescended to his audience. Godard never sold out to the forces of commerce. MUST all art seek a mass audience?

Johann

02-11-2003, 06:36 PM

Wow, oscar. I think that's the best post I've read on these boards.

Girl on the Bridge was an art-house film noir to me. Vanessa Paradis will get me into a theatre any day of the week-I even have her 1992 album-produced by Lenny Kravitz-. BUY IT! (no, I get no royalties)

miseenscene

02-12-2003, 03:36 PM

Hmm... Jules et Jim vs. Godard... Classic non-film school blunder on my part, thinking Godard had done Jules et Jim. But here's the true irony: that means I enjoyed even fewer Godard films than I'd thought...

True, cinema needs both Truffaut and Godard, almost yin vs. yang in the French New Wave... No, all art need not necessarily find a mass audience; in fact, I distrust most art that DOES, since mass audiences are rarely discerning judges of quality and insight. But both of those directors have carved out fairly canonized niches in the film world, and each has influenced modern cimena immensely.

I wonder how much of Godard's seemingly greater influence is due to his actual cinematic genius as opposed to the proliferation of cinephiles that preach his word as gospel. For example, as a somewhat casual foreign film fan, I can name a handful of Godard films off the top of my head, but I know of far fewer Truffaut films. Is this the result of a film-school gang mentality when it comes to Godard, or have his films legitimately earned their status?

Johann

02-12-2003, 05:08 PM

It's a double-edged sword with Godard.
I can see how a "film-school gang mentality" can trumpet him as a genius, but I really feel he's the real deal. It's the way his films are made i think that separates him from the pretentious tag. (If only a few feet).

If anything, the bravery (yes I said bravery) in his projects makes him compelling. As oscar jubis has said, Godard has never sold out. This alone makes him a hero to me. I'm sure he's had Hollywood offers. He knows who he is and what he's done. Jean-Luc ain't no dummy.
As I was watching Alphaville, I couldn't help but think "I love this, but I know people will HATE this movie". People hear about Godard and rent one of his films and then they get indignant when his detached, vacuum-like celluloid has no payoff.

Video stores should have warning signs over the Godard section-

"These films are NON-LINEAR. For a definition, see dictionary at the check-out desk. You will not get sympathy for your ignorance if these films are not to your liking. Thank you for your consideration."

stevetseitz

02-12-2003, 05:24 PM

Michelangelo. Tchaikovsky. David Lean. Frank Capra. The themes and works of these artists carry a universal appeal. Just a point to remember when we are throwing around "genius" labels. If it takes a film school audience to appreciate your films, I would submit that you might be trying too hard as a director. The truly great directors take the best elements from "experimental" cinema and use it to tell human stories. Spielberg is a good example with his use of black & white and handheld in "Schindler's List".

oscar jubis

02-12-2003, 07:33 PM

Cinema need not be limited to "telling human stories". Cinema is not simply a conduit for narrative. Cinema is flexible and open enough to embrace Sergei Paradjanov's dream of translating 18th century Armenian Sayat Nova's poems and musings into images. Incidentally, The Color of Pomegranates cost Paradjanov 4 years and one month in the Soviet Gulag. A film is not a novel. Cinema has a right to exist independent of literature. Cinema needs no shackles, so I 'm not denying that accessible,populist cinema like Lean's and Capra's can also be great art. As far as "proliferation of cinephiles", I can only wish; the 70s are over.Damn!

miseenscene

02-12-2003, 08:02 PM

Interesting to note: I'm not sure there IS a populist cinema when it comes to world cinema. After all, what's mainstream here may be incendiary elsewhere, and vice versa. I'm amazed that any film finds an international audience, since so (comparatively) few people seem to actually be open to ideas from other nations. I think the average moviegoing American can't comprehend the concept that a foreign film may express ideas that are either radically different but still interesting or ironically similar to one's own experience. I wonder if the rest of the world has that stigma attached to ideas from other cultures, or are we just that much more isolationist in our exchange of culture. That's probably a self-answering question...

But for a film to transcend the film school audience and hit the person on the street, I suppose it has to deal with subject matter everyone is interested in, involve us in the characters, and tell its story simply enough to not isolate a viewer through technique alone. Thus, experimentation in film almost necessitates losing a potential audience. I imagine it's the same in film and music, but moreso in film, which is almost a subconsciously basic form of communication that Joe Average doesn't like to see screwed with too wildly... Much less subtitled...

Johann

02-12-2003, 09:32 PM

Great rebuttal. I've never heard the word "cinephiles" before.
I think I know what it means.

Johann

02-13-2003, 12:26 AM

Deepa Mehta is a good example of how "cinema needs no shackles" (oscar jubis). She made a film called "Fire" that just about had her executed in India.
The reaction to it? Theatres were burned to the GROUND.

Let's just say "homosexuality" is not embraced by Hindi people.

AT ALL.

Raging Bull

02-16-2003, 01:40 PM

Sorry for the time warp, but there's a couple of things I've been meaning to get to, and meaning to get to...

>Amelie is an entertaining,superbly edited feel-gooder predicated on romanticizing a Paris that no longer exists.

What Jeunet recreates in Amélie is not a "clean Paris" at all. It's the Paris of Robert Doisneau (famous photographer), the romantic idea of Paris. Jeunet said it himself, it's the Paris people like to romanticise about, a Paris that never existed, but is like a myth.

>A perfect introduction to European film for the novice and reluctant.

I think it would be a poor introduction to European film because thankfully there aren't many similar ones. It's more of a Hollywood romance with much more inspired visuals, which is why it has much more overall appeal than the typical foreign fare and I can't understand why serious film fans think it's any good. I would rather send someone a film that was one of the best examples of a certain type/genre/movement of filmmaking and then if they liked that I could suggest a group of others they might also dig.

Jeunet's stories are so shallow I can't even tell there's water.
Amelie is basically a cartoon that lifts an old fairytale plot (Pollyanna) plus borrows poorly from a few much better films (Leolo, Toto the Hero). It populates it's world with types rather than people. To make it appear different, he tries to shock you, I think, but whatever his intention is it gets old really quick. It might work if there was any context or human element, but without those there's no reason to care. I just sat there, never laughing once, knowing everything would come on que. Still, probably for those who were dozing off, he had a dull and unnecessary voice over narration explaining every last bit so you knew exactly what he was supposed to be going for. Jeunet undoubtedly spent countless hours calculating this thing, but it's a heartless and soulless exercise that's so calculated there's no question or doubt, no failure, no trials, no surprise. The whole thing is so facile and stupid. The films with Caro had some shadows, some ups and downs, some uncertainty and unpredictability. This just had excellent cinematography.

>The specific artist still wants to illicit an emotional response from the viewer of his or her work. The artist wants to use his or her skill in the medium to affect the viewer emotionally.

I've never heard of anyone that didn't react in any way to a Greenaway film. Greenaway's films are some of the most controversial, thus they must illicit a very polar emotional response from the audience. The thing with Greenaway, one of the reasons he's so good, is he isn't forcing a certain response on the audience.

>I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook.

If the point of the film is that we are all liars then why is it wise to be optomistic?

>To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.

Yes, but for the same reason the opposite is also true.

>The film as well as the ending "belong to" the auteur. Kurosawa didn't make Rashomon to confirm what our view of humanity is. It's his story.

Semantics and cookie cutter defenses aside, the point is still whether it's a logical conclusion.

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull)

Raging Bull

02-16-2003, 02:03 PM

>The reason why his 60s films are most popular is because their innovations and conceits have already been incorporated into mainstream film culture.

That's true, but I think it's more because of how quickly they were incorporated. Conversely, I think the problem now is few if any directors are using his current experiments.

>I wouldn't call Godard a bore- he certainly doesn't bore me, but he confuses me more than Greenaway (and that's an achievement). He knows how to manipulate the screen to sometimes astounding effect, and for that I drop a knee.

To me the same old thing, especially when it's really predictability, is the most boring. Godard's films are never that. Sometimes they come together for me and sometimes they don't, but I'm always an active participant when I watch his films because he makes you struggle to find the meaning. I want a film to make me think, work, so that's why I like Godard.

>You imply we have to convince ourselves of their worth. By the way, I think many would agree with your disregard for Godard. His potential audience is smaller than other directors', resulting in lack of distribution in America.

This is why the it's cool to like Godard argument doesn't make sense anymore. Godard has some funny line about being the only guy who makes a living making films no one watches. I don't see many people bragging about his films after the 60s anymore, it's hard to even get a chance to see them. Maybe it's still cool to like Breathless, but there's not enough visibility/awareness of Godard's later works for people to be convinced they "have to" like them.

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews (http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull)

stevetseitz

02-16-2003, 02:47 PM

>>I think (Amelie) would be a poor introduction to European film because thankfully there aren't many similar ones. It's more of a Hollywood romance with much more inspired visuals, which is why it has much more overall appeal than the typical foreign fare and I can't understand why serious film fans think it's any good. I would rather send someone a film that was one of the best examples of a certain type/genre/movement of filmmaking and then if they liked that I could suggest a group of others they might also dig.<<

The key word is INTRODUCTION. You can't simply expect a viewer who is accustomed to general American cinema to appreciate something that has no ties or similarities. Amelie is cute, good natured and clever and it has a nice style and is easy to follow. I think that's the thought process of whoever said "it would be a good introduction for a novice or a reluctant viewer."

>>I've never heard of anyone that didn't react in any way to a Greenaway film. Greenaway's films are some of the most controversial, thus they must illicit a very polar emotional response from the audience. The thing with Greenaway, one of the reasons he's so good, is he isn't forcing a certain response on the audience.<<

From me, they usually illicit a yawn. Unless there is a soul behind the work, no matter how "controversial" you consciously try to make a film, it just comes off as pretentious.

>I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook.

>>If the point of the film is that we are all liars then why is it wise to be optomistic?<<

That "we are all liars" wasn't the point of the film. I think the point was that truth is subjective and even if we wait around until we think we know everything it still isn't going to be accurate. So we shouldn't let the fear of the unknown paralyze us from taking positive action.

>To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.

>>Yes, but for the same reason the opposite is also true. <<

Not really, since we have free will, we can alter our future. My point was that it is wrong to let fear of the unknown paralyze you from taking action. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>>Semantics and cookie cutter defenses aside, the point is still whether it's a logical conclusion.<<

It's neither semantics nor a "cookie-cutter defense" to point out different interpretations. You took your baggage into the film and determined that it SHOULD have "logically" ended a certain way, I say you are full of prunes. It's like pointing out that Mary in Michelangelo's "Pieta" was far too large.

oscar jubis

02-19-2003, 05:34 AM

stevesteitz, you often use words like "pretentious", "hack" or "elitist" in comments about Godard and Greenaway. We often disagree because you believe the greatest art "affects all humanity", "carries a universal appeal" or consists of "basic human story-telling". The best filmmakers, you argue, "make a film for the audience". This is why Jaws, Star Wars, Braveheart, Fellowship and Lawrence of Arabia are amongst your favorite films. Populist Art vs. Elitist Art is an old but still relevant and vibrant debate. (Did you ever read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead?)

What I particularly admire is your cosmopolitan inclusion of films regarding of provenance. Your populist bent incorporates Kurosawa's samurai flicks, Melville's noir films and the occasional Herzog or Bunuel. You've even taught me a thing or two about Russian cinema in previous posts. Refreshing.

stevetseitz

02-19-2003, 12:40 PM

Thanks for the kind words. I've read "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand but not "The Fountainhead" yet. While I can't deny some of the greatest films I've seen were obscure foreign films, my 10 favorite films are probably more mainstream than most film buffs. That wide appeal is certainly one of the reasons I have them on my list. Having worked at a high-end video store (and watching movies every night) I had the chance to see something from every corner of the world and I'm glad I had that chance because you certainly learn to look at film as a tool or an art: something more than just diversion or entertainment. The best films (in my book) can act as both.

Johann

02-21-2003, 05:02 PM

I saw "Satan's Brew" this week. Anyone see this bizarro film?

I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or just admire from a distance.

oscar jubis

02-23-2003, 01:42 PM

I haven't seen it Johann and I'm not sure you think I should. The Fassbinder I want to see but may never get a chance is the longest film ever made: BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ.
By the way, I am sharing my experience attending THE MIAMI INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL in a thread in the General Forum for y'all foreign film fans.

Johann

03-05-2003, 07:47 PM

Actually oscar in retrospect, Satan's Brew was quite enjoyable.

I 've heard of "Berlin A", and I would like to see it. I've seen "The Chelsea Girls" which is an 8 hour flick- 4 if you see it in split-screen (I did not).
Anyone see the 5-hour workprint for Apocalypse Now? I have!!

I had a moment of honor when 16 film nuts & myself were awarded a certificate for sitting thru Andy Warhol's "Sleep"
(which was another 8 hour viewing) in Toronto in 1995. It was just a guy on a mattress sleeping for 6 hours! They tacked on 2 hours of the same footage at the end! It was worth it, though. Ushers stood in the aisles with flashlights scoping for people who were snoozing. It was a packed house when it began- only the brave, insane warriors stood at the end. I'd never do it again...

oscar jubis

03-05-2003, 09:55 PM

Satan's Brew goes into my RENT list.

I am definitely too old to sit through Warhol's Sleep. My wife is an encephalogram tech and she has brought home vhs of patients subjected to a 24-hr EEG so I have an idea of what you've accomplished. Incidentally I attended the Toronto FF in 1995.

Please tell me more about the 5-hr Apocalypse. Will I get a chance?

Johann

03-06-2003, 12:25 PM

Ah, Apocalypse Now. It's on my ten best list of all-time.

The workprint was a copy I got from a collector. (I'll never tell who) It doesn't flow like the original cut or the redux cut. It is extended scenes mainly, and lots more of "going up river".
The original cut was perfect. Only the really curious should seek out the gargantuan version. If you loved the film then it's definitely worth seeing, but you're not missing a whole lot with the studio versions. They are fine.

stevetseitz

03-06-2003, 03:32 PM

I liked Redux best. It fleshed out the original to a degree yet didn't take away from the powerful scenes. I noticed the cinematography more seeing the extended footage, perhaps because I have seen the original so many times.

anniedoa

03-12-2003, 07:15 PM

has anyone seen CENTRAL STATION? i don't know who did it, but it is foreign and has subtitles. it's very beautiful. the look of it. no one famous.... at least not known in U.S. i'm a crybaby, and it did me in! VAGABOND sounds like something i need to see.

i agree about jack in ABOUT SCHMIDT. i think he saved that movie. no one could have pulled that off and made that movie worth sitting thru.

oscar jubis

03-14-2003, 09:45 PM

Central Station was seen by a lot of people, few foreign films get adequate publicity and this one did. I enjoyed watching the protagonist's gradual thawing. But it was the widescreen cinematography that brought me back for seconds.
For a South American film that will bring you to tears guaranteed, rent The Official Story (Oscar winner from Argentina).

Johann

03-15-2003, 01:24 PM

I highly recommend Vagabond,anniedoa.
I warn you that it is INCREDIBLY sad. Very depressing to watch-but so was Ikiru, and that was a masterpiece. It is incredibly interesting to see what happens to the girl. Varda opens it exactly like Kubrick's Lolita, with the climax of the story.
I only watched it once-and so will you- unless you're a sucker for punishment. I cried like a baby. Glad I was alone...

anniedoa

03-15-2003, 02:52 PM

has anyone seen the grande buffet? i think it's italian??? anyway... this one is a must see for all. i saw it in the 70's, and i had purchased a box of junior mints. i was unable to eat even one single piece of candy.... my mouth was agape thru the entire film. i left the theatre in kind of a trance. years later, when i wanted to see it again, it was impossible to find. i looked thru all kinds movie books to find it. it wasnt until a couple of years ago, i finally got to see it again. the quality was so poor, i couln't even watch it. i'm dying to know if anyone has heard of it or seen it. i'd love to hear your comments.

oscar jubis

03-15-2003, 07:15 PM

La Grande Bouffe won at Cannes in '73 then got released here with a rating of "X". Four bourgeois middle aged men meet at a villa to eat until dead. Check out the cast y'all: Ugo Tognazzi, Phillip Noiret, Marcello Mastroianni and Michel Piccoli (don't miss him in 2002's I'm Going Home). The American equivalent at the time would be: Newman, Nicholson, De Niro, Brando. At the time, the film had considerable impact; nowadays I'd rather watch The Mother and The Whore, another Cannes winner that year.

anniedoa, I don't understand what you mean by "quality was so poor", the film or the print/video you watch recently? The dvd version I saw two yrs ago looked fine.

anniedoa

03-15-2003, 09:02 PM

hey oscar!!! i meant the print/video. it was really grainy and blurry. i was so disappointed.

what a movie!!! i couldn't eat my junior mints !!!! i loved that movie and told everyone i could find about it... no one had ever heard of it. you are great!!! i did'nt know that about the cast. that even makes it better. originally i saw it in a theatre in denver. it is really great on the big screen. the awesomeness of all the food... and still alive food... and more food. and the scene with the hookers!!!! when the girls are at first happy to eat. then decide the guys are insane. and of course they have over eaten.so funny.

oscar jubis

03-15-2003, 09:57 PM

A brief word of warning to readers unaware of the high gross-out factor of the film in discussion here. Grand Bouffe is not for the squeamish. It has an anarchic spirit and provides a powerful critique of consumerism. You salivate at the sight of exquisite edibles which are put to such nefarious uses. The film asks us identify with the hookers whom, as you say, go from delight to disgust. The cast was world-famous. Tognazzi was Renato in the original La Cage aux Folles. Noiret was seen in the hit Il Postino playing poet Pablo Neruda. Piccoli and Mastroianni are gods. It's really a shame you had to contend with a bad print annie. I salute your wide-open, big-hearted joy of cinema.

anniedoa

03-16-2003, 10:10 AM

hey oscar!!! you always amaze me!! i was sure that evn tho there were some serious movie buffs in this site, there would be no one who had heard of this movie... let alone seen it!!! that's great. i love to read eveyone's comments. i can't wait for dave durbin to get back from vacation. i need to give him some crap about moulin rouge.

Johann

03-16-2003, 03:15 PM

I loved Moulin Rouge so much I saw it 5 times at the theatre.I worked for 3 years as a part-time stage door person (security)at the Citadel, so I have a soft spot for live theatre. I saw about 25 productions-each with a 3 week run.(I used to come home from work singing songs like Uncle Tom's Cabin & Into The Woods-friends thought I was turning gay).Moulin Rouge captured the essence of the theatre life & performances, No surprise, considering the career of "big gay Baz".

anniedoa

03-16-2003, 03:32 PM

johann!!! yeah, i'm told that dave is someplace really cool like either florida or louisianna. what a dog!!! anyway... i had a great conversation with dave on the phone when moulin rouge came out. we were alternately screaming into the phone. we were nuts over that film!! i've seen it twice in the theatre and twice on video. i also am guilty of listening to the "secret song" on the headphones at the bookstores. i can't resist stealing a listen!!!! i can't even make myself go to see chicago!!! i'm still too scared. i noticed a lot of you say you went to see chicago reluctantly. that would be me, too. only i've got it worse. i havent even seen it!! dave told me he had seen moulin rouge 10 times or something close to that in about the first week it was out!!!! he is too funny. do you know him??? other than in here?? i found this site thru my son who is a very good friend of dave's. my original plan was to get into this site and totally bash moulin rouge to get dave's attention. but alas he is on vacation and the fun idea is losing steam. however, it would be great if everyone would kind of "gang up " on him.... even if we totally agree with any of his comments.

Johann

03-22-2003, 11:55 AM

So long, farewell, auwiiedersein, adieu

sansho

05-10-2003, 07:35 AM

Hello everyone. Glad to arrive. Some very interesting posts and a long thread already. I was delighted to see Mizoguchi mentioned (Oscar, Johann)- yes, Kurosawa is far from the only great Japanese director- and i second Johann's recommendation of the Quays' macabre Street of Crocodiles.

Anyway, in reply to the original question. My (50) favourite films not in English.

1.Sansho Dayu (Mizoguchi)
2.Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky)
3.La Regle du Jeu (Renoir)
4.Alice in the Cities (Wenders)
5.The Green Ray (Rohmer)
6.Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Mizoguchi)
7.Maborosi (Kore-eda)
8.Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
9.Mirror (Tarkovsky)
10 Abraham Valley (Oliveira)

and; Late Spring (Ozu)
A Day in the Country (Renoir)
Celine and Julie go Boating (Rivette)
Tales of the Taira Clan (Mizoguchi)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
The Colour of Pomegranates (Paradjanov)
Pather Panchali (Ray)
Pierrot le Fou (Godard)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
Metropolis (Lang)
Eternity and a Day (Angelopoulos)
Spirit of the Beehive (Erice)
Aguirre Wrath of God (Herzog)
Ugetsu Monogatari (Mizoguchi)
Pakeezah (Amrohi)
8 1/2 (Fellini)
Persona (Bergman)
Orphee (Cocteau)
Ordet (Dreyer)
The Leopard (Visconti)
Alexander Nevsky (Eisenstein)
Hidden Fortress (Kurosawa)
Kings of the Road (Wenders)
Claire's Knee (Rohmer)
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee)
The Double Life of Veronique (Kieslowski)
Hiroshima mon Amour (Resnais)
Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov)
Stalker (Tarkovsky)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
The Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
Rosetta (Dardenne bros)
Les Enfants du Paradis (Carné)
The Loyal 47 Ronin (Mizoguchi)
Senso (Visconti)
Chungking Express (Wong Kar-Wai)
L'Avventura (Antonioni)
Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)
Madame de (Ophuls)
Close Up (Kirostami)

not forgetting some in USA by European directors;
Sunrise (Murnau), Paris Texas (Wenders), Letter from an Unknown Woman (Ophuls).

Obviously, i have a preference for Japanese films and older classics.

Johann

05-10-2003, 11:29 AM

Great to see another champion of fine foreign classics.
Your list is well chosen, sansho-san. Spread the word!

docraven

05-10-2003, 01:47 PM

Great list, Sansho (presumably in homage to the Mizoguchi film at the top). I’m looking forward to more of your postings. As a lover of the classics, what is your take on the latest release of METROPOLIS?

oscar jubis

05-11-2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by sansho
I was delighted to see Mizoguchi mentioned (Oscar, Johann)
When are his films going to be given the deserved high quality restoration and release on dvd???
My (50) favourite films not in English.
And not a single dud!
Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
His most popular. I just happen to prefer Rashomon
10 Abraham Valley (Oliveira)
A lot of film buffs don't know Manoel de Oliveira. The portuguese director is now in his 90s and still directing. He is the only major figure in cinema whose career dates back to the silent era, when Mr. de Oliveira was an actor. Abraham's Valley did not get a U.S release(except for a week in N.Y. years late). The Covent with Malkovich and I'm Going Home got a wider release. Still, most of his best films are unknown to me, such as Inquietude. Regarding Abraham, let me say that the dvd available in North America is not in the original language as claimed in the box, but dubbed in French. Also, it's not presented in the correct aspect ratio. Given that this is a 3 hour period film about portuguese aristocracy, narrated with the idiosyncrasy of a 19th century novel, I find the perhaps inferior I'm Going Home a more suitable first exposure to Oliveira.
Tales of the Taira Clan (Mizoguchi)
It's there on my wish list.
The Colour of Pomegranates (Paradjanov)
This absolutely astonishing visual, heck sensual, experience has gained enormous popularity since the nice dvd came out. A theatrical screening would be sublime.
Eternity and a Day (Angelopoulos)
I prefer Landscape in the Mist and perhaps The Travelling Players. All three shrink at home though.
Spirit of the Beehive (Erice)
Three features=three masterpieces. The Quince Tree Sun and Sur completing the trilogy. But the film Spirit brings to mind is Saura's Cria, also with the best child actress ever Miss Ana Torrent, set in 1940s post-civil war Spain and deep as an ocean.
The Double Life of Veronique (Kieslowski)
This is where I part Sansho, because Decalogue and Three Colours are superior films, if I may be so blunt.
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
That this is the best JoA film, does not mean you can graduate without watching Jacques Rivette's Joan The Maid. Essential Cinema.
Rosetta (Dardenne bros) These former documentarians are superbly talented humanists. My favorite kind.
Senso (Visconti) Pity that the censors in Italy excised scenes required for the film to have maximum impact and meaning. So, my choice here would go to Visconti's final film, his erotic adaptation of D'Annunzio's The Innocent.
Chungking Express (Wong Kar-Wai)
Ashes of Time is not better but I love it more.
Sunrise (Murnau)
Gets my vote for the most poetic film made in America.

sansho

05-11-2003, 03:20 AM

I appreciate the 2 replies above! I've not seen the latest incarnation of Metropolis. I've not been able to get to the cinema (or even rent as often as usual) in the last year.

I did get a Mizoguchi dvd, with English subtitles not long ago; the slow, majestic Loyal 47 Ronin (incredible spatial explorations, an anti-action film), from Fnac internet shopping in France. It was expensive (in 2 parts) but worth every penny. Also some other of his videos, unavailable in Britain, from there- cheap- but with French rather than English subtitles.

Double Life of Veronique is less important than Dekalog and Three Colours but, much as i admire them, i happen to like it more. A Short Film about Love (Dklg 6) is also superb.

Oliveira; yes, I'm Going Home, though i enjoyed its wistful elegance, is less ambitious and distinguished than some. "No or the Vain Glory of Command" (Portuguese soldiers in Angola discuss episodes in their country's history, which are shown) is interesting and well worth seeing, but flawed. Aniki Bobo, his neo-realist classic from 1942, is one i particularly want to see; and Amor de Perdicao (1978).

The Innocent is indeed one of Visconti's best; typically refined, lush and sumptuous and with his sharp sting in the tail. The ending of Senso is almost too cynical, but the film is magnificent.

Spirit of the Beehive; quite right again. Ana Torrent's performance is the finest by a child. It has a lovely intimacy and child's sense of mystery.

oscar jubis

05-11-2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by sansho
I've not seen the latest incarnation of Metropolis.
Metropolis is better than I had concluded after watching the old incarnation.

I did get a Mizoguchi dvd; the slow, majestic Loyal 47 Ronin (incredible spatial explorations, an anti-action film)
My mint copy arrived about a week ago. I plan to watch it in one seating late at night sipping coffee. Will opine here.

Oliveira; "No or the Vain Glory of Command" (Portuguese soldiers in Angola discuss episodes in their country's history, which are shown) is interesting and well worth seeing, but flawed. Aniki Bobo, his neo-realist classic from 1942, is one i particularly want to see; and Amor de Perdicao (1978).
How can cinema this essential be so unavailable. I'm basically just getting to know him, but I know the old man is a true original, very idiosyncratic. For example, on Abraham, a father and daughter sit at a restaurant, a man approaches and stands. The three talk for 59 seconds before we see the man's face. Often, de Oliveira points the camera down at characters' feet as if showing their faces would spoil the mystery.

The ending of Senso is almost too cynical, but the film is magnificent.
Almost too cynical, and not by design as crucial scenes critical of the ruling class during the period of risorgimento were cut by censors who deemed them inappropriate in post WWII
Italy.
Ana Torrent's performance is the finest by a child.
I haven't made up my mind if I prefer Ana Torrent in CRIA or SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE. Did you see the adult Ms. Torrent in Tesis?