SCFZ

Joks Trois wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:01 am Are you suggesting that Plainview is a more subtle character than Bill? Perhaps, but that is like arguing that some STD's are less severe than others. Sure it's true, but it kind of misses the point. His performance in Blood is LOUD, unquestionably. 'I DO BELIEVE I'M AN OIL MAN!' That is almost parody level stuff, like a live action Snidely Whiplash. When he is mad, you can see it all over his face. He doesn't need to 'explode' in the bowling alley. He explodes much earlier in the film, several times in fact ('I'LL CUT YOUR THROAT!!'). Much has been done to excuse the eccentricities of this performance (i.e. it's meant to be funny etc).

As noted above -- Mileage Is Gonna Vary. I don't find the volume in THERE WILL BE BLOOD to be all that extreme. The monologue about "when I say I'm an oilman you will agree" isn't shouted at top volume, but stated in a most reasonable way near film's start, in a scene where he actually comes off like the sane guy in the room. Of course there are explosions, as when he attacks Eli ("AREN"T YOU A HEALER?!?!?!?!?!?!), but the whole "Cut Your Throat" scene is done with a minimum of volume and a maximum of menace, there's that remarkable scene when he abandons H.W. on the train, and that long long shot of Plainview walking away all hunched over seething with what looks like a million emotions is the polar opposite of an explosion. And of course there's that mad finale. What can I say -- I dug it. It's unquestionably a larger than life performance, and clearly not to everybody's taste. I've always enjoyed the hell out of it.

once upon a time... in hollywood (quentin tarantino) disappointing. maybe tarantino's weakest script. no dialogue really snaps, crackles, or pops. pitt's academy award was yet another sympathetic pat on the back. tarantino's casting is no longer particularly interesting. instead, it's like a tv show well past its prime that relies on big name guest stars to prolong the act. also, not sure what the historical revisionism is supposed to shed light on. in inglourious basterds, it was compelling as a commentary on the questionable joy of pervasive violence, but here it's just tarantino daydreaming something else happened on that fateful night. ok. sure. that woulda been nice? but...? and for a tarantino film that doesn't utilize his normally rigidly structured plotting, it still feels awfully episodic, even tangential. lots of little bits here and there that don't add up to a cohesive whole. more half-baked than anything. music choices were also uninspired. at the start, i liked it. almost seemed like tarantino's jerry lewis movie, a bright and colorful cartoon abound with comic skits and silly set-pieces, the incessant splicing of the 'real world' with clips from rick's filmography. it was good fun, fairly intriguing, but then it overcorrects into safe tarantino-esque territory, except the magic isn't quite there. a couple scenes have a bit of tension, but without the witty and rhythmic banter a lot of the other scenes just kinda coast along. perhaps, this was supposed to be tarantino's road movie? his model shop?? just a lazy ol' rambling breezy cruise through '60s los angeles??? idk. it's entertaining enough, just a disappointment imo. cool poster though. and django unchained is still worse, so it's always got that going for it. maybe i'll watch it again before i take it back to the library...

thoxans wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:46 pm once upon a time...

All I remember is that Brad Pitt is hella cool in this movie, and that the Bruce Lee fight scene was hilarious.

I just remember Sharon Tate enjoying herself at her own movie -- Tarantino gifts Tate with his own narcissism.

Another thing I remember from that movie are the quite numerous shots of bare (female) feet. Has there been any academic research on this phenomenon in Tarantino movies?

Les Godelureaux (Calude Chabrol, 1961) I am not the biggest Chabrol fan, but this one is quite good. The tone is super-farcical and grand guignol throughout, which might be a turnoff to some. Some of the irreverent jabs at the bourgeoisie are dated and stale... But the beating heart of the movie is the performance of Jean-Claude Brialy, a jaded, sophisticated hedonist/nihilist who is smart enough to recognize his utter loneliness and emptiness. You can literally hear him screaming on the inside.

thoxans wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:46 pmjust a lazy ol' rambling breezy cruise through '60s los angeles???

exactly (why it's maybe my favourite movie of his [the stupid stuff in it is why it's maybe not])

HBO Max finally got onto a platform I use, and its almost overwhelming how much stuff is on there, from THE SOPRANOS to Mizoguchi. I've gotten most use of their glorious Looney Tune channel, where the glories of Warner Bros animation are there for the viewing in lovingly restored beauty.

REAR WINDOW straight through in the first time in what must be years. And it still works by and large.

Greyhound was refreshingly... straight to the point. almost no nonsense, no commentary or reflections on the whole of the war (or on war in general!), almost no personal relationships. and just 82 minutes, sans credits. git it! good boy, tom!

So, I just saw this:









*Khabarda / Out of the Way! (1931, Mikheil Chiaureli)

So, let me just start by saying that this is, unfortunately, by no means a great film.

It is pompous, ridiculous and silly in a way that you really feel how it tries to push its point. The weak end of propaganda, where it is really felt and understood to be just that.

The plot: Destroy history. Or rather, tear down monuments, including a church - as they are dangerous/decreasing the quality of life and let's build something new.

It is interesting in that it pits the religious against those eager to move to modernity - all played for laughs - as are the discussions and the bizarre infighting in the committee - including the phrase "Punch him, he's a formalist".

Now, this is actually a comedy - and a lot of this is intentional - but the hapless, old fashioned pro-history characters - that are presented as the leads of sort - just come off as too silly - and of course, the message is clear: Go away!

Still, the visuals here are frequently breathtaking, including some fun effects - and the quality of the print is great. If you enjoy Soviet silents - it is definitely one to add to the extended watchlist.

*I am also really proud that my first thought was: "This reminds me of Saba (1929)" - a more serious but still overwrought look at alcoholism - which looks great but is still really damn silly. It is indeed by the same director.

Game Change (Roach, 2012)

I'd almost forgotten what an ignorant yokel Sarah Palin was, and how much she appealed to voters who felt left behind and ignored by "elitists" (or what I prefer to call "qualified, educated, experienced, competent people").

A great election film, well-acted and quite compelling at times, especially when Palin struggles to get up to speed by learning basic facts to avoid being caught out not knowing much about anything. Julianne Moore was terrific as Palin, and the rest of the cast were very good too. She was definitely the prototype for Trump and whatever follows now.

Turns out you no longer need to be educated to be successful in politics, you just need rat cunning and a folksy, populist persona.

7/10

pabs wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:47 pmthe prototype

that would actually be reagan, but that's a discussion for another thread...

GAME CHANGE almost succeeded in inspiring something like sympathy for that Palin creature in a couple of scenes. Almost. Ed Harris added a profound dignity to the role of John McCain that I never for a moment saw the actual McCain display, a misfire. The movie is from that period when it looked like Palin was a bizarre aberration, a gross mistake somebody made -- little did way too many people know...

I watched the DVR'd of the new restoration of LA STRADA that was shown on TCM a few weeks back, and I noted a scene that I know I've never seen before. Every other time I've seen the film, that melody first appeared as source music when played by Matto on his violin. In the new restoration, there's a scene before Matto appears, between Gelsomina and Zampano where she sings her theme melody, remembering that they heard it from a radio while sheltering from a storm under an awning.

I watched Duras' Entire Days In The Trees which is apparently one of her more ignored films. I can kind of see why, as she keeps the formal conceptualism at a minimum here, but familiarity with her other work does yield some rewarding observations in the overall mise-en-scene. You'll find a lot of her pectoral sensibility alive here, but in a way that feels much more naturalistic.

Bulle Ogier is doing excellent work here, and in the climax of the scene in which she dances repeatedly with a series of ambiguous male suitors, while haunting music pipes in from a seemingly absent house band, we get a complete recontextualization of India Song's mis-en-scene. A very similar approach, but filtered through cinematic naturalism, so we lose a great degree of the ethereality of the earlier film. It remains effective as a piece of drama nonetheless.


Ogier posing in various locations, leaning against furniture, also calls to mind a less abstracted approach to what Duras later would do with Agatha.



Shot by Nestor Almendros. I read in someone's letterbox review that he was unsatisfied with his work on this film. But I find it interesting. Sort of similar naturalism to his approach to La Collectioneuse that allows to drift just vaguely into Duras particular brand of impressionism.


Not my favorite Duras, but fascinating in how absolutely different it feels from the rest of her filmography. There's a lot of interesting content here about colonialism, and a sense of casting an outsider's eye on the colonists themselves. We look at the French as if they were this bizarre, foreign culture that doesn't have the necessary needs of the "real" world. (which we never really see, and is never truly named)

TROUBLE WITH HARRY -- lovely fall location cinematography from Robert Burks, maybe the oddest little movie to wander out of Hitchcock's filmography, the guy's dead and nobody gives a shit, they're all too busy with their own affairs, it might be the lowest keyed mellowest black comedy out there, and Mildred Natwick is a goddess, and that's Mildred Dunnock teaming up with Natwick to humiliate John Forsythe in one scene, they just obliterate him there's not even a greasy spot left. I read that Hitchcock originally wanted William Holden, and yeah.

I finally feel like I get this, the lackadaisical pace finally worked its magic. Second tier Hitch. But upper second tier Hitch.

THE ELEPHANT MAN revisited in the delicious new 4k disc, and it looks and sounds great. Somehow it just works, Lynch manages to balance out the horrible and the beautiful so that the movie never devolves into Spielbergian puke-inducement. The film's discomfort with its own collaboration in the exploitation of John Merrick The Elephant Man comes through every now and then, as Hopkins' Treves doesn't want to hear Hiller's defiantly stated opinion that Merrick is just being stared at all over again.

This was my first full revisit in many years, I know the movie almost by heart having seen it all those years ago and been bowled over by it at the little multiplex in a shopping mall, I'd just never seen anything quite like it. I was prepared for disappointment. My use for Lynch has dwindled significantly since the turn of the millennium, when he stopped producing work that I have much use for. I'm so glad to have enjoyed the film. It made me consider revisiting that foolishness about the drive in Los Angeles. Maybe later.

A lot of professors/scientists these days are claiming that They Live By Night is "by far, the saddest movie ever". They are correct. It's also, by far, the best

No one has ever been as lonely as Nick Ray was his entire life

Ok gonna go intensely miss my ex now

kanafani wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:29 pm Another thing I remember from that movie are the quite numerous shots of bare (female) feet. Has there been any academic research on this phenomenon in Tarantino movies?

I hope not! Who cares about that nerd's foot fetish!

Was Emil Jannings cinema's first great actor? I believe he was. Just finished rewatching Waxworks. He could mug like nobody's business, but he was also capable of delivering more.

I watched Judgement At Nuremberg. I'd previously seen Downfall, so I already knew a thing or two aboot those Nazi fellows.

Joks Trois wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:29 am

kanafani wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:29 pm Another thing I remember from that movie are the quite numerous shots of bare (female) feet. Has there been any academic research on this phenomenon in Tarantino movies?

I hope not! Who cares about that nerd's foot fetish!

https://screenrant.com/quentin-taranti ... explained/

ozu had his trains, tarantino his feet. just one of those reoccurring motifs that signal capital a auteur. personally i like feet where the toes descend in size in orderly fashion from big toe to pinky toe. second toes that are longer than the big toe freak me out. also, pinky toes that are so little that you wonder how the person is able to even cut their itsy bitsy pinky toenails

Now that’s what I call academic research!

It's a quirk rather than a motif, but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless!

La Chienne: rewatch. Renoir's 30's films generally seem to improve with repeated viewing. Simon is great in it, and the humour is quite black for its time. 7.5/8/10.

So like 3/32? That's a pretty low rating!

could be 75/8

i'm getting 0.09375

Bunch of nerds.

(Programming languages will evaluate to 3/32, or 0.09375).

I wasn't a fan of La Chienne, everyone outside of Simon acts horribly and there's a scene cut every 90 seconds or so which completely fucks up the film's rhythm. Watched Raising Arizona last night, predictably delightful, not sure what took me so long.