Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

«‹›4 »

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

juan the owl posted:

Now it didn't even rank in the latest Sight and Sound poll. It's always going to get trotted out every now and then as "influential," but the zeitgeist has long passed.

You could say the same thing about, say, Jaws (1975) or Halloween (1978). If you look at a random modern Hollywood film you might not find that many direct lines of influence between it and those two films. But those two films changed the landscape so profoundly that very few Hollywood films aren't affected by that if not the films themselves.

I think the same's true of Penn's Bonnie and Clyde (1967). The fact that what was new and remarkable about the film has become so metabolised by mainstream Hollywood that it's just part of the institutional mode of representation today doesn't diminish the importance of Penn's film, it just underlines it. The same is true of, say, the films of D.W. Griffith. It isn't like modern filmmakers are going back to his Biograph shorts to study how intercutting or shooting close-ups works, but that doesn't mean that films that use intercutting or close-ups---which is to say essentially every loving film made today---aren't influenced by Griffith's films.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 23:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:22

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Zogo posted:

What are the other dozen or so that are as influential?

I didn't really have a particular list in mind, I was just emphasising the importance of the Penn film. But off the top of my head: The Birth of a Nation (1915) (first film to be a cultural touchstone to that extent, establishment of the first real institutional mode, too much else to mention here), It Happened One Night (1934) (the prototypical romantic comedy, everything else you can say about Capra), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) (demonstrating the commercial viability of the animated feature film and being their template), Stagecoach (1939) (defining the sensibilities of the studio-era Western, which in turn defined distinctly American studio-era filmmaking), Citizen Kane (1941) (too much to discuss here, notably its commercial failure ensuring the non-emergence of auteur-driven film as part of mainstream Hollywood until the Penn film we're discussing), A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) (for containing arguably the single most influential performance in all of cinema), Shadows (1959) or maybe Faces (1968) (for all the ways they predict `independent filmmaking'), Klute (1971) or The Godfather (1972) (for Willis' photography, which would become the most important visual element of American filmmaking until the advent of digital effects), Jaws (1975) (for being the first modern blockbuster, which has shaped Hollywood ever since), Halloween (1978) (for shifting the emphasis of horror to the antagonist, inevitably leading to the development of the film franchise as distinct from the film sequel, and too much else to discuss here).

Like I said, that's off the top of my head; I didn't really have those specific titles in mind when I made the comment. And keep in mind this is just American film. Specifically feature-length narrative film. So no Gertie the Dinosaur (1914) or Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) or Nanook of the North (1922) or Deep Throat (1972).

Magic Hate Ball posted:

It does feel like a weak imitation of a French New-Wave film (in a sort of retroactive sense it's like Badlands meets Band Of Outsiders) but it's hard to deny the impact it had on the American cinema landscape.

I really don't think Penn's film is merely aping the style of Nouvelle Vague; it is a resolutely and distinctly American film. Bande � Part (1964) is this whimsical deconstruction of the gangster film with Godard's manic social conscience. Bonnie and Clyde isn't whimsical. Indeed, it seems to be an intentional reaction to that sense of whimsy---the protagonists want to be in Bande � Part---stylish and carefree and let's stop all the bank robbing for a little dance number. They don't really want to be criminals. The problem is that they are, they're not very good at it, and being someone who does armed robberies for a living isn't something for a carefree spirit, it's brutal and grotesque. I think it's easy to miss this today, since the violence seems almost pedestrian compared to the kind of violence you see on screens today. But at the time it was considered almost pornographically shocking.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2012 03:39

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Criminal Minded posted:

I'd be curious for you to expand on this.

Think of the look of a drama in the '70s. You're imagining murky, underexposed shadows, earth tones, amber highlights (usually lit from overhead or alongside the figure being illuminated). Whites aren't pure white. Warm colours.

I mean pick any random frame from the first two Godfather films and think about what makes it distinctive, and it's Willis. And that look was just as important in the '70s as the Miami Vice look was for the '80s, with the distinction that that Willis look became part of the native look of film, not just stylised film (like with Mann's visual sensibilities).

Willis is also, as far as I know, the reason why sepia tones mean flashback.

It's difficult to talk about this without screenshots, but I don't have my DVDs of the Godfather films and I don't have a blu ray player that I can pull an image off of.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2012 04:27

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

juan the owl posted:

I never said anyone was bashing it. Just that you'd be hard pressed to find a consensus that it ranks among the all-time greats, which used to be a pretty common opinion.

It's #42 on the AFI list. And #144 on the TSPDT list. It's on Roger Ebert's list of great films. It isn't on the BFI top 50, but it is a subject of one of their `Film Classics' texts (by Lester Friedman). If you look at the negative reviews listed on rottentomatoes, the only one that isn't one from 1967 (TIME, New York Times, and Variety all panned the film on its initial release) is from Dennis Schwartz.

I mean I'm not a fan of lists and Rotten Tomatoes and in general really couldn't give a poo poo about the consensus. I'm just wondering where the hell you're getting the idea from.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2012 10:59

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

friendo55 posted:

See and for someone that has never heard of Eric Rohmer[...].

I think that's an interesting example where the `Criterion effect' hasn't happened. For years if the subject was the French Nouvelle Vague, the three names everybody would think of were Godard, Truffaut, and Rohmer. For whatever reason, Godard and Truffaut would still be part of that but Rohmer wouldn't. Random callback to Pennchat from earlier---despite the obvious comparisons to be made between Godard's Bande � Part (1964) and Bonnie and Clyde, Rohmer was the big influence on Penn, and Penn has the protagonist Moseby in Night Moves (1975) comment that watching a Rohmer film is like watching paint dry.

Le Genou de Claire (1970) has already been mentioned and it's great, but Ma Nuit Chez Maud (1969) (My Night at Maud's, the film Rohmer made immediately prior to Claire) and L'Amour L'apr�s-Midi (1972) (originally always Chloe in the Afternoon but now invariably Love in the Afternoon) are the two that I'd consider absolutely essential Rohmer (like Les Quatre Cents Coups (1959) and Jules et Jim (1962) for Truffaut or � Bout de Souffle (1960) and Bande � Part for (early-career) Godard).

I think it's always interesting when Criterion adding a film doesn't immediately catapult a title to the `mainstream film snob' vernacular. Like I would've laid money that Max Oph�ls was suddenly going to become a part of everyday online film discussion the same way Jean-Pierre Melville did when Criterion started pushing his films.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2012 21:36

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Cacator posted:

Branded to Kill is the better movie, it's a little more comprehensible and funnier but visually not as interesting as Tokyo Drifter.

I think Branded to Kill is the better film, but I think Tokyo Drifer is way more accessible---it's visually inventive, but the story is pretty straightforward. Branded to Kill's story, on the other hand, is borderline incomprehensible even upon rewatching and, I suspect, is not intended to be taken literally---I think we're supposed to take the film as the pop culture fantasy a small time crook retreats into to cope with his sense of inadequacy.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 03:00

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

WickedIcon posted:

Branded to Kill is basically bizarro Drive.

I'm really not seeing it.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 07:34

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

I don't really try to stay on top of the release rumours or whatever so I had no idea they'd got Medium Cool (1969). Haskell Wexler, gently caress yeah.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 21:16

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Macrame_God posted:

Things to Come and Safety Last sound awesome. I'm not so sure about Shoah. I could barely endure Night and Fog and it's nowhere near as long as Shoah.

A while back for a thread here in CineD I put together a list of my personal favourite films. The `top ten', a kind of categorisation I'm not particularly fond of, consisted of (in chronological order):

City Lights (1931)
Night of the Hunter (1955)
Vertigo (1958)
8 1/2 (1963)
Chimes at Midnight (1965)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Faces (1968)
Raging Bull (1980)
Shoah (1985)
Ran (1985)

Of those, Shoah is the only one that doesn't float in and out of the list as the whim strikes me. I'm not saying that it's my personal favourite on that list, but it's the one film that, whenever I'm thinking along the lines of films which are among The Great Films in the abstract, absolutely must be included.

It's certainly an important film entirely as a historical document, and it is largely on this basis that it has earned its reputation. There is much to be admired in Lanzmann's approach, eschewing the use of historical footage, recreations, and the other standard approaches to conceptualising acts of genocide committed by the Nazis. The hours and hours of personal testimony, interrogation, confession are potent stuff.

But I also think that Shoah looks increasingly important as this mode of documentary filmmaking becomes ever more inflected by our modern obsession with `reality' media. When drones and rapists can both be expected to supply youtube video of their actions to whomever cares to watch, what need is there of Lanzmann? Any Nazis of the future will no doubt blog and tweet and youtube their transgressions as a matter of course. So as time goes on I think it will serve not only as a vital catalogue of firsthand accounts of the Shoah, but also a document of a time when every act of infamy great and small would as an organic part of its commission include self-documentation with cell phone camera.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2013 10:43

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

WickedIcon posted:

Honestly, while Shoah is a very well-made documentary and I believe it totally deserves the esteem it's held in, I still think Night and Fog is the definitive film about the Holocaust. N&F makes the same point in an equally effective (and absolutely heartwrenching) manner, and in an eighteenth of the time.

Out of curiosity, what is `the same point'? I really don't see them having `the same point' any more than I'd say that, I dunno, Top Hat (1935) and Faces (1968) have `the same point' because they're both concerned with the difficulties of romantic love.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

Shoah, especially at the $99 price tag, is probably meant more as an institutional buy. Which makes sense since I can't imagine anyone wanting to watch it more than once. I have some problems with Lanzmann as an interviewer, which bleeds into the core structure of the film, but it's still an incredible document that deserves to be seen once.

What problems? The most common complaint about Lanzmann I hear is how he badgers some of the subjects of his interviews. This is true, but I don't know why it is a problem unless we for some reason want to pretend that genocide is a subject upon which we should be expected to keep an open mind.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2013 02:25

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Pretentious is just a shorthand (ironically) for obtuse.

I've gotta believe that being a black and white film in French doesn't help. Lacking those, it's easy to imagine it merely being called `boring' (which stands alongside `pretentious' as the biggest semantic null in film criticism).

I actually feel like according-to-Hoyle pretentiousness has been, like so many things previously the exclusive province of marginalised films, coopted by the mainstream. The average superhero film of recent vintage or the neorevisionist horror film feels, to me anyway, far more dictionary-definition pretentious than modern art house films are, as they habitually and characteristically have embedded within them an implicit argument about what does and does not constitute `serious' filmmaking and, simultaneously, the overt attempt to distance themselves from what they perceive as the less serious elements of their antecedents in the attempt to wrap themselves in the trappings of `serious' narrative film.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2013 22:40

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

mod sassinator posted:

Watched Army of Shadows tonight and really enjoyed the film. Why did this get buried and never released in the US when it came out in 1969?

That's a complicated subject, but the short version is that the film didn't do well in France at the time and so it wasn't perceived, in France or internationally, as an important film. Why was this? The film's sensibilities are essentially pro-Establishment: it's patriotic in a fairly conventional way, and it presents de Gaulle in a very favourable light. But when it was released France was in the middle of massive civil unrest. There was a huge public strike in '68, and de Gaulle resigned the French Presidency in April of '69 amid increasing unpopularity. So it Melville's film just didn't reflect the public sentiments of the time when it was released. Imagine a patriotic American war film featuring Richard Nixon as a heroic role model being released right around Watergate. Kinda like that.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2013 09:34

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Magic Hate Ball posted:

The 50% Criterion sales have, so far, been in June and November.

...in July. Can you emphasize a bit `in'? `In July'.

# ¿ May 25, 2013 19:01

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Magic Hate Ball posted:

Paris, Texas is a perfect film that you have all somehow ignored.

Wim Wenders is a a fairly prolific director with a extremely varied (and uneven) catalogue, but Paris, Texas (1984) is definitely one of his best. In fact the only Wenders film I'd put above it is Im Lauf der Zeit (1976) (unfortunately difficult to find in North America), and everything else a substantial step below them. Wings of Desire (1987) is the film he'll be remembered for, but while it's a good film, I have a sneaking suspicion I think it's mostly because the film oozes with all the trappings of being An Important Foreign Film---filmed in black and white, shamelessly allegorical, elaborately existential, and so on.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2013 20:39

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Im Lauf der Zeit is the one that opens with the guy making GBS threads on the side of the road?

Yeah, it's the one with the on-screen pooping.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 02:09

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

November's Titles
City lights

loving finally.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

Some small samurai set

Jesus gently caress. Have I missed something or is that completely out of nowhere?

# ¿ Aug 15, 2013 22:24

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

DetoxP posted:

Not completely out of nowhere. I think Criterion's Hulu page has been holding a lot of Zatoichi for a while, and most things on there eventually make the transition.

Ah. I don't use Hulu so haven't seen that. Has City Lights been on Hulu for awhile now too? I noticed (some time ago) that it was in the Criterion Hulu adverts and always thought it odd that they were pimping it there with it not yet having a spine number.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2013 22:44

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Cemetry Gator posted:

I would recommend Ran, Kagemusha, and Roshomon, but I don't know if they're really like Zatoichi, given that Zatoichi seems more like a fun samurai movie, and all three of those are really more like art-house movies or epics. So it might not be your cup of tea, but I'll give you some guidance in case you're interested.

Ran is probably the easiest to recommend of the three. First off, the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Kurosawa is a master of getting the right shots[...].

It's worth nothing that the greatest of Kurosawa's cinematographers, Miyagawa Kazuo---who did the photography for Rashomon (1950) and Yojimbo (1961), as well as Ozu's Floating Weeds (1959) and Mizoguchi's Ugetsu (1953) and Sansho the Bailiff (1954)---was also the cinematographer on around a half a dozen of the Zatoichi films.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2013 02:00

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

STEVIE B 4EVA posted:

That's not the most prominently it appears.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 01:24

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

VoodooXT posted:

I'd also recommend Oshima's Outlaw Sixties. Incredibly interesting but lesser known movies from Nagisa Oshima after he formed the Art Theatre Guild.

Although the films in the Eclipse set were made after the ATG was founded, none of them were ATG films. Between 1961 and 1967 ATG was basically film society devoted to exhibiting non-Japanese arthouse films. The first ATG-produced film Oshima directed was Death by Hanging (1968), released about half a year after the latest film in the Eclipse set, Three Resurrected Drunkards (1968). All the films in the set were produced by Oshima's own production company, Sozosha, which co-produced most (all?) of Oshima's ATG films.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 07:30

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

ThetaOmnikron posted:

Would love to catch a couple of these when they play by me. What are the essentials?

Kings of the Road (1976) is what I'd pick as Wenders' best film, and has the added argument of being effectively unavailable in North America.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2015 17:41

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Anonymous Robot posted:

Huh, Murakami made a movie? It looks like it wasn't super well-regarded.

Not enough ejaculation or lactation.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2015 23:53

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Basebf555 posted:

I'd love to see a Criterion release of a great modern action movie like Die Hard or even The Matrix.

It would be really nice if Criterion---or anyone really---released a decent blu of the Hong Kong Woo films. The Dragon Dynasty discs are pretty dire. So were the Criterion DVDs, for that matter.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2015 02:45

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Dr.Caligari posted:

The best day of my life would be the day Criterion releases The Master of the Flying Guillotine

There's a good probability we're never going to see a better transfer than the existing DVDs, barring some `pristine print found in a barn' scenario. The negatives are pretty much shot and the transfer used in the Pathfinder `Ultimate Edition' DVD was made using the best print available at the time. Any transfer made today, about a decade and a half later, would be threading the needle between reproducing lovely materials or really zealous digital cleanup.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2015 03:18

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

There's also suspicion there that it's not Three Kings, but Wim Wenders's Kings of the Road

A North American release of Im Lauf der Zeit (1976) would loving own, but I'd be really disappointed in Criterion if their hint for it didn't include a reference to pooping.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2016 00:54

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Radio Spiricom posted:

they keep releasing wim wenders movies but not until the end of the world lol/smh

That would be cool but I'm glad to see Im Lauf der Zeit (1976) finally getting a NA release.

Is this going to be the first (literal) pooping in HD in the Criterion Collection?

# ¿ Feb 17, 2016 05:21

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

bobkatt013 posted:

I finally watched the Great Dictator. I can not believe how amazing it looks and sound. What a majestic piece of cinema.

The Great Dictator started filming in September of 1939 and was released in October of 1940.

In 1952 he went to London for the premier of Limelight (1952) and was subsequently denied re-entry into the US. Because of suspicions about his political views.

This is one of the handful of essential Hollywood stories.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 22:20

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Egbert Souse posted:

The Warner DVD has Cat People and Curse on the same disc.

Are there any differences between the Warner Lewton DVDs and the Turner Home Entertainment DVDs?

# ¿ May 4, 2016 04:55

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Yaws posted:

Multiple Maniacs is getting restored by Criterion

This is unexpected and awesome.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 01:46

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Yaws posted:

Yeah I thought Waters had kinda disowned it but I guess not. He does the best commentaries so I'm really looking forward to it.

Now I just need Mondo Trasho

Criteriion has been on a bit of a tear recently. Multiple Maniacs (1970), Kings of the Road (1976), and Chimes at Midnight (1965) were all right at the top of my personal list of almost-unavailable films that I really wanted a good release of. Now if they'd somehow or other get ahold of Mickey One (1965), Diary of a Shinjuku Thief (1969), some Juraj Herz....

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 07:17

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Rusty Staub posted:

they have this on Hulu, so i'd guess they hold some sort of rights to it..?

Cool, didn't know that. In which case I guess I should have said Funeral Procession of Roses (1969) instead.

And huh they have Juraj Herz' The Cremator (1969), which is probably his best film (and the score by Zdeněk Li�ka is one of my favourites as well). But not Morgiana (1972) or, like Ferat Vampire (1982).

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 21:27

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Coaaab posted:

That reminds me that I could do with more Franti�ek Vl�čil as well.

Yeah, Marketa Lazarov� (1967) owns, but Valley of the Bees (1968) is right up there as well. As are their Liska scores.

Criterion has flirted with Czech film and the Czech New Wave a couple times, but it would be cool if they dug into it the same way they do with, say, Japanese film.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 22:32

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

HP Hovercraft posted:

I've only seen The Cremator but I absolutely adore it, I need to seek out more by him. His version of Beauty and the Beast looks amazing.

He's one of those directors whose best films feel like they are almost but not quite great films and who has a bunch of films that aren't his best, and I think that's the reason why he's relatively unknown.

We ought to have better language for talking about this sort of thing. Because I have no problem saying that The Cremator is a great film (despite what I just said). But it's not exactly a film that casts a long shadow. I don't find myself comparing other films to it. Don't see it's influence everywhere. Don't find it changing the way I feel about the medium. Or whatever. I made similar comments about Aldo Lado in the horror thread, and it's pretty much the same thing. His films, at their best, feel like they're on the ragged edge of being revelatory or seminal or whatever...but they're never quite there.

As opposed to, I dunno, B�la Tarr,. Whose misses leave you feeling like that was a mediocre great film but holy poo poo was it a great film. If that makes sense. Talking about film sucks.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 06:12

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

RichterIX posted:

Fantastic Planet isn't allowed in my home because something about the animation style makes my skin crawl. I don't know why but it is the scariest movie I've ever seen.

I feel kinda the same way about anything filmed in Supermarionation.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 21:52

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Daveski posted:

Anyone have any recommendations for films like Tokyo Drifter/Branded to Kill that are available on blu-ray/DVD? I have the Nikkatsu Noir set (amazing) and the Koreyoshi Kurahara set (mixed). Doesn't have to be Criterion.

The Eclipse Nikkatsu set does in fact own, but the films in it are mostly the kind of thing films like Tokyo Drifter (1966) and Branded to Kill (1967) were a reaction against. Suzuki's Take Aim at the Police Van (1960), which is part of the Eclipse set, comes from a very different place than a film like Branded to Kill, despite them both being directed by the same guy and coming out of the same B-movie factory within a couple years of each other. Apart from some of Suzuki's other films from around the same time, there really isn't a broader body of work they fit into.

The closest neighbors, in terms of sensibilities and not just as a historical accident, are the films of the Japanese New Wave, in particular the films that came out of Oshima's ATG studio. Suzuki wasn't part of the Japanese New Wave---he was very much part of the Japanese studio system of the '50s, although he never really made the kinds of films the studios wanted---but he was studied and imitated by the younger Japanese directors trying to create their own mode of filmmaking outside the studio system. Oshima's Diary of a Shinjuku Thief (1969) and Matsumoto's Funeral Procession of Roses (1969) are two of the classics of this moment in Japanese film. Neither are yak films and both are more self-consciously experimental than even Branded to Kill, so they might not be exactly what you want.

And if Suzuki's late '60s films are an arrow pointing from the Nikkatsu B-movies of the '50s to the ATG films of the late '60s, then the line that runs parallel to that arrow without quite intersecting it is the body of work that Imamura did for Nikkatsu; a film like Pigs and Battleships (1961) is informed by the same bleak and skeptical Japanese view of their own postwar culture, but approaches the subject with a set of aesthetic sensibilities that are more or less completely different than either Suzuki's or the later ATG films', while still diverging radically from the standard studio mode of filmmaking that produced it. These Imamura films are in another box from Criterion, but again they're probably not quite what you're after.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 02:12

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Cemetry Gator posted:

One Eyed Jacks looks really interesting. It has the guy from Paths Of Glory who Kubrick fired (he was the crying, slow witted one) and Marlon Brando. How could you go wrong? They're both sneezing actors.

It's...okay. Brando directs the way he acts: meanderingly, with long stretches of aimless posturing punctuated by moments of great clarity. He also lacks any particular flair for visual composition (more or less the exact opposite of fellow lionised-actor-turned-once-only-director Charles Laughton) so the whole thing owes almost all of its structural elements to the institutional mode as used by the classic studio era Western. Not to say it's a bad-looking film: Charles Lang's photography is as solid as it always is. But it feels kinda like....

Ever watch a cheap science fiction film from like the '50s or '60s and you can see that there's this really solid idea in there but it's getting buried under the bad effects and just the general lack of a visual/narrative/whatever grammar in which to express what the film is try to say? It's kinda like that. Like it feels like it would've been a wildly different, and much stronger, film if it had the next decade's worth of changes in the Western genre to draw upon (in terms of film grammar).

It's not a bad film by any stretch, and it's definitely worth watching. And it'll be great to have it available again. But it definitely feels like a swing and a miss, a film that's really good for a footnote of a film, but it's still just a footnote. If that makes sense.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2016 02:17

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Egbert Souse posted:

They should get some cinematic shows not on streaming like the original Outer Limits and The Prisoner.

The Outer Limits is on Hulu.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 02:24

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Doctor Teeth posted:

I've had Solaris sitting on my shelf for ~4 years and haven't found the time to watch it. I really should get around to it at some point. How does it compare to other Tarkovsky movies?

It has way more driving in tunnels than any other Tarkovsky film. By, like, a substantial margin.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2016 05:36

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Magic Hate Ball posted:

Which makes it the best.

The driving stuff is good but I like the train riding in Stalker (1979) more.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2016 06:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:22

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

I saw it for the first time about a year ago when the restoration came out and it blew me away. Maybe a top 10 crime movie for me now, easily my favorite of the admittedly few movies I've seen by Wim Wenders (I think I'm the one person who doesn't really care for Wings of Desire).

I dig Wenders in general, but the angel films leave me cold. I feel kinda the same way about Altman's The Long Goodbye (1973), in that I have admiration for the film as a technical accomplishment (or however you want to say it---admiring the craftsmanship or whatever) without ever feeling like I connect with it. A film like Im Lauf der Zeit (1976) or Paris, Texas (1984) I feel like there's more interior space, more room to move around in, get the feel for the place, while Wings of Desire (1987) feels like something hanging on the wall that you just sorta look at for a moment, nod, and then move on. If that makes sense.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2016 23:42

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

«‹›4 »