SCFZ

Monsignor Arkadin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:42 pm Saw Niagara (1953) for the first time, since I now live just near the actual Niagara Falls.

I like films that explore a location thoroughly... but aside from the falls themselves this was kinda...bad?

Yeah, it's mainly just okay, what tension and interest it has just evaporates after a specific scene. I liked Monroe's meanness, not a quality she got to display much. But yeah, there's less than meets the eye here.

His Motorbike, Her Island (Nobuhiko Obayashi, 1986)



Medetai yume... it's the movie I always dreamt the young-at-heart romantic, Obayashi himself, could make! After the wonderfully creative Hausu, and the beautiful, nostalgic, ironically-even-ghostlier-than-Hausu Haishi, I just knew he could combine it all and put out one absolute masterpiece like this!! I just wish I'd watched it when I was younger; it would certainly be threatening my top 10 then... maybe still will, even so.

Why can't more directors be like Obayashi-sama - and like myself - in actively trying not to make movies boring? Every frame, every second, every edited cut, something interesting and wonderful is happening; direct or subtle music is chiming in from every little corner of the soundscape; every actor and actress as a striking portrait; the blissful use of colours and contrasts... oh man. If more movies were like this, I would hate movies far less!
5/5

COUNSELLOR AT LAW -- Wyler's 1933 law office drama from a play by Elmer Rice, great fast-talking times. More of a bunch of character studies than an actual story, with John Barrymore doing some of his very best work here as George Simon, a rich lawyer with a practice in the Empire State Building, dealing with clients and family and that one thing he did that one time a long time ago that is going to come back and bite him in the ass. It's like about five episodes of BETTER CALL SAUL crammed into 85 minutes. The spectre of anti-semitism appears every now and then, but the movie doesn't quite know what to do with it.

not exactly last watched, but still thinking about this shot in william s hart's wolf lowry (1917) where all in close up, embarrassed by his disarray before his beloved he picks up a sticky wadge of mud that's fallen off his boot, squashes it into his pocket, and then smears the dirty residue all over his trousers. hello bill, you hot bastard, i didn't know you had it in you.

COME AND SEE -- watched straight through this time, with the room darkened and the sound up full blast, and it's a knockout. One of Criterion's finest releases, I think. I'm still not sure about certain elements of the film, some newsreel footage in particular, but not enough to think less of the film.

And the package contains an interview with Roger Deakins where he says how pretty the movie is and how much he likes it, and also manages to try to draw some comparison between his own work on the absurdly overrated 1917 and Klimov's film, and it's just grotesque.

go go tales: a fun riff on a chinese bookie. i was skeptical but it's darkly hilarious. didn't know i missed bob hoskins yelling so much

gulp. i signed up for mubi (i hate myself) to watch an otherwise inaccessible bressane and rita azevedo gomes' fragil como o mundo, and for some reason it let me watch a film other than the 30 days now streaming ones, so i watched vitalina varela

seriously how come costa can make such mind-bogglingly beautiful pictures? can't think of anyone else working now that gets close

but....dare i say it.....i think i'm getting old......i got a whiff, just a slight sniff.....of kitsch

which is so confusing i didn't think about it any more. probs will stick to the old movies for a while now (after the bressane & gomes)

^He makes 99% of contemporary film makers seem visually illiterate.

I really liked V.V, but I wanted more.

The Offence: interesting film. Different role for Connery. Hardly a masterpiece, but it is quite intense, and Lumet's take on 70's England is bleak even by that decade's standards! 6.5/10.

Re: Hoskins. He was one of the best shouters in the business!

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:47 pm gulp. i signed up for mubi (i hate myself) to watch an otherwise inaccessible bressane and rita azevedo gomes' fragil como o mundo, and for some reason it let me watch a film other than the 30 days now streaming ones

they've quietly been doing it for awhile but there is now a "library" section that has a lot of films streaming outside of their 30 day selection. and it's a pretty good lineup too, bunch of indian nfdc stuff, recent argentine films, pere portabella etc. not sure why they don't advertise it more openly.

A bunch of movies I've seen recently:

Don’t Go Breaking My Heart 2 - I liked it even less than the first one. Practically nothing in it moved me or made me laugh, or even smile for that matter. All I see in it is slick, overly smart artificiality.

First Cow (Kelly Reichardt, 2019) - Now that's a goddamn movie. One of the best (anti) westerns of the past ## years, a beautiful meditation on America's violent past, centered on a friendship between two souls in the wilderness. Is this Kelly's best movie yet?

The House That Jack Built (Lars von Trier, 2018) I do not blame von Trier for this monstrosity. This is exactly the kind of movie one should expect from him at this stage of his career. I only have myself to blame for watching it.

Specter of the Rose (Ben Hecht, 1946) "Ballet noir" is such a bizarre and unique concept. I don't think it quite works: it has plenty of pacing issues, and the camp can be too much at times, but I was certainly never bored, and some of the dialogue has an Oscar Wilde level of wittiness to it.

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (Noah Baumbach, 2017) A pretty sweet Baumbach movie, well written, with great performances from Sandler, Stiller, Hoffman, and others. Good time on the treadmill. I really disliked the recent movies he's co-written with Greta Gerwig. I think she's a likable actress but a lousy writer. This is a marked improvement over those. Should I watch Marriage Story now? My intuition says stay away.

Une autre vie (Emmanuel Mouret, 2013) I've only seen one other Mouret movie, an offbeat, very enjoyable comedy called Shall we Kiss? This one is very different, a grand love melodrama that is not funny at all but very lovely and beautifully shot, with great performances from the two leads. Mouret is a keeper.

Martin Eden (Pietro Marcello, 2019) A movie by a director I've never heard of before, based on a Jack London novel I've not read. This is a great historical drama that really has the density of a novel. I loved the fact that I really had no clue when the movie was set. Pre-WWI? Pre-WWII? The seventies?? It's also got some incredible usage of archival footage throughout. I shall be seeking more works from Mr. Marcello.

nrh wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:16 pm

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:47 pm gulp. i signed up for mubi (i hate myself) to watch an otherwise inaccessible bressane and rita azevedo gomes' fragil como o mundo, and for some reason it let me watch a film other than the 30 days now streaming ones

they've quietly been doing it for awhile but there is now a "library" section that has a lot of films streaming outside of their 30 day selection. and it's a pretty good lineup too, bunch of indian nfdc stuff, recent argentine films, pere portabella etc. not sure why they don't advertise it more openly.

thanks for the info. bizarre they don't point that out

kanafani wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:59 pm A bunch of movies I've seen recently:

Don’t Go Breaking My Heart 2 - I liked it even less than the first one. Practically nothing in it moved me or made me laugh, or even smile for that matter. All I see in it is slick, overly smart artificiality.

First Cow (Kelly Reichardt, 2019) - Now that's a goddamn movie. One of the best (anti) westerns of the past ## years, a beautiful meditation on America's violent past, centered on a friendship between two souls in the wilderness. Is this Kelly's best movie yet?

The House That Jack Built (Lars von Trier, 2018) I do not blame von Trier for this monstrosity. This is exactly the kind of movie one should expect from him at this stage of his career. I only have myself to blame for watching it.

Specter of the Rose (Ben Hecht, 1946) "Ballet noir" is such a bizarre and unique concept. I don't think it quite works: it has plenty of pacing issues, and the camp can be too much at times, but I was certainly never bored, and some of the dialogue has an Oscar Wilde level of wittiness to it.

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (Noah Baumbach, 2017) A pretty sweet Baumbach movie, well written, with great performances from Sandler, Stiller, Hoffman, and others. Good time on the treadmill. I really disliked the recent movies he's co-written with Greta Gerwig. I think she's a likable actress but a lousy writer. This is a marked improvement over those. Should I watch Marriage Story now? My intuition says stay away.

Une autre vie (Emmanuel Mouret, 2013) I've only seen one other Mouret movie, an offbeat, very enjoyable comedy called Shall we Kiss? This one is very different, a grand love melodrama that is not funny at all but very lovely and beautifully shot, with great performances from the two leads. Mouret is a keeper.

Martin Eden (Pietro Marcello, 2019) A movie by a director I've never heard of before, based on a Jack London novel I've not read. This is a great historical drama that really has the density of a novel. I loved the fact that I really had no clue when the movie was set. Pre-WWI? Pre-WWII? The seventies?? It's also got some incredible usage of archival footage throughout. I shall be seeking more works from Mr. Marcello.

kanafani, you're breaking my 'ooooh all the coincidences' heart - i loved a mouret this week, it's so nice to see someone else not rave over To, and is that the pietro marcello that made the wonderful la bocca del lupo? How do i get to see martin eden?

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:58 pm it's so nice to see someone else not rave over To

Holymanm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:20 pm

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:58 pm it's so nice to see someone else not rave over To

oh crap, i don't want to start another fellini episode, forget i said that. some people like him some don't it's all valid, i'm doing 1905 bye

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:58 pm is that the pietro marcello that made the wonderful la bocca del lupo?

Same guy!

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:58 pm How do i get to see martin eden?

Let me see what I can do

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:29 pm

Holymanm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:20 pm

twodeadmagpies wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:58 pm it's so nice to see someone else not rave over To

oh crap, i don't want to start another fellini episode, forget i said that. some people like him some don't it's all valid, i'm doing 1905 bye

yeah i love fellini but i certainly don't care if others don't. same in reverse with the egregiously overrated mr. to!

mods can i be blocked from this thread please? just kidding

Yesterday I watched the highest-ranked film from our annual poll that I hadn't seen before - Edvard Munch (Peter Watkins, 1974). Help me out if you can, because I do not understand the great acclaim.

1. The incessant voice-over makes Edvard Munch a film that tells instead of shows. It strikes me as the most unimaginative way to present a biography, and it's taken to such an extreme that the title character rarely speaks. In other words, there's barely even a performance at the center of this.
2. Documentary techniques, like talking-head commentaries from secondary characters, or voiced-over itemizations of historical milestones from the 1880s and '90s, interrupt and dilute the narrative, turning the movie into something like those awful tv nature documentaries. I know it was actually made for television... and it shows.
3. The obsessive attention to historical detail is - according to the movie's own portrayal - totally contrary to the spirit of Munch's art. In his paintings he strove to eliminate distracting concessions to realism, yet the film does everything possible to fill out the picture with the fashions, furniture, hit music, and dance crazes of the times.
4. Any biography already has a few strikes against it. The narrative is ready-made, which makes it too easy for the writers to roll it out on auto-pilot. The movie is long and repetitive, filled with needless flashbacks, dwelling ad nauseam on the juvenile misogyny of Munch and his crowd. Like most artists, the only especially interesting part of Edvard Munch's life was when he put brush to canvas... and we don't need a movie to tell us that.

Have you seen other Watkins movies? Cuz part of the way Watkins works is in setting up a relationship between the contemporary viewer/world and the world/era of the thing he is filming in a way that critically comments on current ways of seeing applied to perspectives alien to that manner. The choices are purposefully dialectic to that effect, in a somewhat similar way to that of the way Godard sometimes opposes what is heard to what is seen to create tension.

That's not a bad start, at least in principle. No, this was my first Watkins film. I tried to consider the possibility of a dialectic, but I didn't get very far with it. I mean, on one hand we have a stylistically conservative film about a radical artist, which could in theory be instructive (there's no absolute good or bad in breaking or following conventions). On the other hand, we have a biography without a developed central performance, which could be a fairly radical or novel approach. But when I try to take this beyond theory and say how it changes or enlightens my view of Munch, his paintings, his time period, or anything else, I run into a dead end. The movie *tells* us that Munch painted emotions with color, but that's already pretty much the first thing anyone learns about Munch. Could it be that Watkins wants to criticize Munch's art? I don't see that either, although he succeeds in making the artist look like a serious cad and Strindberg like a downright woman-hater.

not sure how the film could be considered stylistically conservative - every formal technique you've listed is essentially alien to "standard" dramatic narrative presentation.

the most beautiful film i've seen this year a portuguesa ♥♥♥ plz carry on

I mean conservative in a few senses: it adheres faithfully to historical events, in other words it's a straight by-the-book retelling of highlights from the artist's life; it's a period piece that aims for verisimilitude; and insofar as it uses documentary techniques, those techniques are fairly common, albeit to a different sort of film. I'd agree that in other ways the technique is unconventional - the fact that it mixes documentary techniques at all, and the diminishment of its central performance to a kind of vessel. What I don't see is how these choices make it a better film.

yes but nearly all of watkins choices are (sometimes perversely) dialectical! the historical context is encyclopedic and totally accurate but the facts of munch's life (and much of the lines attributed to him) are taken directly from the primary source of his odd, self-mythologizing diaries. the voice-over dialogue by englishman peter watkins is immediately distancing from the norwegian dialogue (the whole soundtrack to this i remember being really dense, kind of overwhelming when heard in a theater). that common documentary techniques (say the onscreen itemization of historical milestones, or the taking head interviews in a scripted dramatic film) or formal techniques that echo documentary (say his habit of quick zooms at the start of scenes) in a type of film where they don't belong is disruptive, even confrontational in a way.

and a lot of watkins choices have direct political ideas behind them - working with non-actors who work as a group through the political and social context of the time until they are able to improvise or generate their own dialogue in "character" (this technique is brought out even more in commune and his strindberg film the freethinker, where the actors comment on the process to camera) may not always result in the best performances, however we might think of what the best performance is, but watkins would argue the communal process as a method is worth it.

it's been several years since i've seen the film so i can't really say whether it would work for me anymore or not, although i did at one point think it was a great movie. watkins is a strange figure though, undeniably brilliant but compulsively self-mythologizing (he definitely feels great kinship with his version of munch, and will seem to feel even moreseo with strindberg in the freethinker), possessed of a pretty wild persecution complex (this is a man who thinks his films have been marginalized due to political antagonism instead of the fact that they are insanely long and formally alien). i remember talking to a beloved, now late documentary teacher of mine who agonized over whether to show the commune at all because she considered it a great work but she had never in all the years she taught found a single student who didn't hate it!

sorry if anything i'm saying is off base, i'm going completely off of memory here (i don't remember the central performance as being anything other than a totally committed, normal acting performance for example)...

I'm genuinely curious though why the movie placed so high in our poll. Maybe it's enough to score 2 or 3 votes in a high tier, but my friends on Letterboxd give it 4- and 5-star ratings galore. Is it love, admiration, or both? What about the experience of watching the film? Does anyone actually appreciate Edvard Munch enough to watch it at least twice?

I sympathize with your teacher. There are lots of difficult films I would have loved to teach, but I had to ration them out in small doses.

I have something that actually has nothing to do with this interesting conversation, so please feel free to ignore, but I am always amazed when folks are able to recall so much detail from movies they've seen years ago. Literally thousands of movies I've seen have virtually disappeared from my head, even ones I've adored. Sometimes when I rewatch a movie (which I'm doing a little more often nowadays), I'm astonished to see how many scenes and images have evaporated without a trace. Often all that remains is just a very vague general impression, a mood that is hard to put into words. Is it just me, and have I always been this way, or is this one more symptom of my general mental and physical decline? Who knows. Anyway please carry on.

It's funny, some films I can remember in detail and others just vanish from my mind like you said. I once got halfway through a film before realizing I had watched it years earlier. It doesn't necessarily correlate with how much I liked the film - sometimes a plot sticks in the memory, sometimes a scene or a detail, sometimes a general structure, sometimes a feeling or taste. If I like a movie a lot I'll always try to see it several times. Everything in my top 50 I've watched at least 3 times, most at least 8.

Umbugbene wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:36 pm What about the experience of watching the film? Does anyone actually appreciate Edvard Munch enough to watch it at least twice?

I sympathize with your teacher. There are lots of difficult films I would have loved to teach, but I had to ration them out in small doses.

the 2006 dvd from new yorker video (i think?) came out when i was still in college, and i remember watching both versions of the film in pretty quick succession, and loaning it many of my classmates, one of which liked it enough to writer her end of year thesis paper on it. certainly it felt very exciting both as a kind of hybrid work, a work of biography and history, and as a film about finding your place as an artist in difficult historical time period. there was also a major munch art exhibition at moma that same year which certainly helped. it played very well when i saw it in a theater some years later but i haven't revisited it since.

it's played in new york several times in the last few years, at lincoln center and metrograph and i think did very well at both, and i see a lot of glowing reviews on letterboxd from younger kids who saw for the first time at those screenings so it definitely still seems to be working for people.

Every time I think of Edvard Munch that recurring piano piece in it immeditely starts playing in my mind. Does anyone know if it's from an existing piece or just something someone on the set just plonked together? One of the most haunting pieces of film music I know.

It's playing at 2:26:46
https://youtu.be/LmZTNreZI5I?t=8805

For me it's mostly that I hold a kind of summary feeling about a lot of movies I've seen, where a kind of central concept is held about the film, but the details are fuzzy. But when I read conversations about the movies or see clips, then more of the detailed thoughts I had return, even if the specific triggers for those thoughts are still somewhat vague. The more movies I've watched by a given director, the easier it can sometimes be to recall individual films by how I placed them into understanding their body of work. That can mean that I might be putting more emphasis on commonalities than singularities in the given film, but having thought about how they relate often keeps some details fresher. The more time I've put into talking or thinking about a movie, the better it sticks of course, so those that fade quickest are the ones I didn't get to have a conversation on and maybe don't have any special connection to other films of the same director, genre, or themes for me. Of course accuracy of my takes on any of the movies are a completely different matter open to debate as it should be.

It sounds like I more or less agree with NRH's take on Watkins. He's one of the directors that I think "reads" more readily when one gets more familiar with his work for the his method and how it reads from film to film. In the case of Munch, the read is informed by Watkins aesthetic and socio-political leanings as to why he might want to make a movie about Munch at that particular time given the other movies he made. The way I've found his movies to work, the reason I think of them as a dialectic, is that the weight of the response I feel isn't in the things shown or said in themselves, but in how they frame a concept that remains unspoken, the combination of "current" media concepts applied to the details of past events or imagined future ones opens a space between the ideology of the media methods and the specificity of detail that can reveal what is hidden in the banality of convention.