the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

Since You Went Away (1944) - John Cromwell

Wow two Cromwell films in two days, although this is much more the work of Producer/Writer David O'Selznick, in his never ending quest to top Gone with the Wind. A good film, perhaps too ambitious (at least in its run time), but certainly had it's moments. I loved the romance between Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones, and thought that over all the acting was pretty damn good. At times it seemed a little negative, but I suppose that goes with the territory.

I strongly agree with the idea of watching it on a big screen. However I am a fan of Wong and decided to buy DVD's of all his films, so I got this. I will watch it in a theater when it comes. I saw As Tears Go By, Ashes of Time, and Days of Being Wild in a theater in the early Nineties but have gone back to see Days of Being Wild in the new print as I've mentioned, and have videos of the others which I rewatch, and would gladly rewatch Ashes of Time on a big screen. For me as I've said elsewhere Wong is an artist whose work has such rich style one can enjoy watching it any number of times. I am sorry if the collaboraton with Christopher Doyle is over, even if the replacements are good, because Doyle was responsible for so much that was adventurous and free.

As for whether 2046 will be further altered, that is possible, but perhaps unlikely at this point. Who knows? I have read the chapter on it in the new book and clearly Wong worked on it a long time. Wong himself may feel that that chapter of his creative life comprising the Sixties love trilogy is over, as he has more or less said.

As for Godard, well I'm glad his non-fans see all his films, but he has made quite a lot, and I got bored with them, because they stopped making sense to me. Chacun à son goût.... I have seen Notre Musique. I was not as impressed as many seem to be, but it made sense, at least. The Hebrew-Arabic discussion was particularly interesting. It all seemed so much fresher in the Sixties....

I hope the new Téchiné will be better than Loin.

Well, you've must've finished 2046 by now; any thoughts?

From our recent conversations I was under the impression that you hadn't seen Loin, I thought I brought it up in the Strayed thread. Anyway, what didn't you like about it?

Fear X

I liked your coverage of this film, which seems a very fair assessment, without having seen it.

I haven't seen Loin, but I'm going by reports that it's not among Téchiné's best works; the Indie Wire description seemed convincing: http://www.indiewire.com/movies/rev_...0906_Loin.html

2046

It is ravishing and complex, and certainly a must-see. Beyond that, I prefer to reserve comment for a complete review. I don't want to challenge or influence anybody before they've even seen it.

It's funny that you don't want to influence anyone on 2046 but that indiewire article has certainly influenced you about Loin and it even prompted you to say earlier that "I hope Techine's latest is better than Loin." A bit unfair don't you think since you haven't seen it yourself? (Actually the Indiewire review is not all that negative.) Anyway, I taped the film last night and saw it again so I'll try to "influence" you soon. I'm also looking forward to your 2046 review.

I was just giving a polite excuse. I prefer to write a complete review, and I prefer to review films when or just after they have US theatrical showings. Do you know when that will be happening for 2046?
I'll read whatever you write, of course.

I hope 2046 is happening soon, and they're not saving it for the actual year, lol. I think I might give up soon and just pick it up on DVD. As for my last film I watched Five Fingers (1952), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. The film is pretty good with a strong performance from James Mason. Came out in a rather weak year though. 1952 brought Singin' in the Rain and to a lesser extent High Noon, I'm not really fond of any other film from that year, and I've seen a bunch. This film is probably more noted for it's screenwriter Michael Wilson than for any other factor. The script is tight, but Wilson did better work, particularly with Bridge on the River Kwai and Planet of the Apes (where he didn't have to take an alias).

Quote:

---

I watched Five Fingers (1952), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. The film is pretty good with a strong performance from James Mason. Came out in a rather weak year though. 1952 brought Singin' in the Rain and to a lesser extent High Noon, I'm not really fond of any other film from that year, and I've seen a bunch.

---

Others from 1952 besides High Noon and Singin' in the Rain:

The Big Sky (Howard Hawks)
My Son John (Leo McCarey)
Park Row (Sam Fuller)
Umberto D (Vittorio De Sica)
Moulin Rouge (John Huston)
Othello (Orson Welles)
Robinson Crusoe (Luis Bunuel)
Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa)
Carrie (William Wyler)
Fanfin la Tulipe (Christian-Jaque)
The Quiet Man (John Ford)
The Life of Oharu (Kenji Mizoguchi)

I would hardly call the year of Ikiru a "weak" one. I would say it was one of the great years.

Well, perhaps I should have rephrased and said weak for Hollywood films, or weak in terms of my Alternate Oscar research. Sure Ikiru is a great film, but it wasn't released in the US until 1960. As for the rest of the films you've listed, well I stand by my previous remark. Sure Othello is great, in my opinion better than High Noon, but that film was buried for nearly four decades. Now we can get in an arguement about the rest, but hey some years don't do much, they might have lots of noteworthy films, but very few really amazing ones. I also realize that this may turn into a massive debate between us, so I'll try and stop now, and get back to the lecture at hand.

Satan's Brew (1976) - Rainer Werner Fassbinder

All I'll say is if anyone can think of a stranger Fassbinder film, by all mean's let me know. This film is an interesting one, everyone is high and everything that should be abnormal is normal and vice versa. Fassbinder effectively created a unique and at times ridiculous world. The film isn't really surreal in terms of impossible things happening (for the most part), but surreal in the ridiculous seeming plausible. Well worth watching, and the best of the five most recent Fassbinder films I've seen. As to what those films are, Whity, The American Soldier, Pioneers in Ingolstadt, and Effie Briest. Soon enough I'll get a few more of his films, so I'll soon be an expert, or at least an authority.

BTW I have similar complaints about film from 1934 and 1944 and come to think of it 1937.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wpqx
I also realize that this may turn into a massive debate between us, so I'll try and stop now, and get back to the lecture at hand.

---

I know the remark is specifically addressed to Chris, but allow me the opportunity to say that the main, perhaps the only, reason why I post at filmwurld is the possibility of debate. I've found that it's most likely to happen here than anywhere else. Debate is the type of exchange most likely to result in some type of a learning experience, an enlargement of one's narrow, subjective perspective. I would definitely be disappointed if no one challenges my opinions. Otherwise it becomes a banal, self-congratulatory enterprise.

I see, but I didn't think our discussion on Todd Haynes went off very well, so I was being cautious. If you must though . . .

Films of 1952

The Quiet Man - decent at best
Park Row - weak Fuller effort
The Big Sky - again mediocre at best
My Son John - propoganda
Moulin Rouge - weak
Robinson Crusoe - never saw it
Carrie - ignorance again (but on my list)
Fanfin la Tulipe - never heard of
The Life of Oharu - overly pessemistic
Umberto D - again more depressing than necessary, although a damn good film, but again this wasn't released in the US until 1956, so I don't usually count it.

as for one's not mentioned
The Greatest Show on Earth - entertaining as it may be, it is considered by many to be one of the worst best picture winners
Ivanhoe - how this got a best picture nod is beyond me
The Bad and the Beautiful - a damn good picture, but again not really worth awards
Casque D'or - likeable, but again not stellar
Limelight - second rate Chaplin

Now I will hold off judgement regarding Elia Kazan's Viva Zapata, a film that I have not yet seen, which could restore some of my faith, but until then . . .

Bay of Blood (1971) - Mario Bava

Influential early slasher film this one is style over substance. I can't even tell you what it's about, but it had something to do with some lakefront property. All I know is lots of people die very gory deaths, and that is the center of the film. Bava gets creative with how his victims are dispatched, and although the camera work seems amateurish it does work for this film. I was however impressed with the editing, and in general the dubbing wasn't too bad, but perhaps I'm building a tolerance.

wpqx

I understand your reluctance to enter into a debate, depite Oscar's point that what we need is discussion, dialogue, exhange, not just listing the notches we've put on our hobby charts. Debate means being challenged, having one's facts and ones arguments held up to public scrutiny. And sometimes they don't survive the test. That has happened to me plenty of times, and it can happen to others.

I don't want to get into an argument with you particularly about 1952. This is not a huge issue with me. But if you toss off each title of the ones I listed with a quick phrase, we can't necessarily get anywhere; you haven't necessarily proven anything. The three-word response can work fine if purely informational, for instance "Fanfin la Tulipe -- never heard of." Fair enough. Others you give, however, that presumably are meant to give a critical evaluation, such as

The Life of Oharu - overly pessemistic
Umberto D - again more depressing than necessary, although a damn good film, but again this wasn't released in the US until 1956, so I don't usually count it.

--just don't cut it. Whether or not the film was released in the US, you can't say 1952 was a bad year, and "pessimistic" is hardly a valid criticism of any film as you admit in admitting Umberto D is "a damn good film."

But the whole issue of whether good films were being made in 1952 is one you dodge, with good reason, because it isn't a claim that will stand up.

Personally, for me Ikiru is the film I chose long ago as the greatest film experience of my life, and hence for me personally the greatest film. I don't make great film lists, but it is at the top of any I'd make. Apart from that personal 'prejudice,' which I think is a justified one, Ikiru is one of Kurosawa's acknowledged masterpieces and I'm not alone in placing it highest of all.

As for the others, I merely wanted to point out that your remark that 1952 was a lackluster movie year was a bit facile, to say the least.

Perhaps you need not know about Fanfin la Tulipe but Gérard Philipe is good to know about as a French cultural icon, romantic idol, and star. I notice that Phillipe won the best actor award at Cannes in 1954; this was the time when he was in his heyday. http://theoscarsite.com/chronicle/1954c.htm. He was a remarkable actor and starred in three dozen films though he lived only to be 37.

I don't see the point of your listing inferior, even award-winning, 1952 pictures (I would not argue taste was at an all-time high in that year) as proving anything. Your point to prove is that 1952 was a weak year, not that it produced some bad pictures.

Since I am old enough to have been growing up in the Fifties, the movies of that time have the quality of legend or icon. Most of Hollywood's pop flicks of the time repelled me, as many of today's products. But for me, the Fifties was a wonderful time for film and I don't think I would be the film fan I am today if the movies of the Forties and Fifties hadn't been great. And Hollywood wasn't without masterpieces or wonderful actors. To say that one year is weak or another strong seems a bit pointless. Better to comment only on general periods and specific films. That's what I think, anyway.

I like the following comment from wpqx: "I'm not really fond of any other film from that year" because it implies and takes into account the subjectivity of one's personal taste. Granted, such a statement also implies that the person making it has managed to view under desirable circumstances a great percentage of the films released that year. It's obvious to me that wpqx has watched a ton of movies despite his youth. Personally, I would be reluctant to call any year "a weak year" without doing a great deal of research and some serious viewing and re-viewing. I do make lists by year so here I submit my 1952 lists (why not?) by year of world premiere.

English Language

1. Othello (Welles)
2. On Dangerous Ground (Ray)
---The Big Sky (Hawks)
-- Clash By Night (Lang)
5. Rancho Notorious (Lang)
-- Limelight (Chaplin)
-- Singin' in the Rain (Donen)
8. The Bad and the Beautiful (Minelli)
-- Bend of the River (Mann)
-- Park Row (Fuller)
11.Angel Face (Preminger)
-- The Lusty Men (Ray)
-- Monkey Business (Hawks)

Honorable Mention:The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, The Quiet Man, The Narrow Margin, Rabbit Seasoning, High Noon, Moulin Rouge.

Not Seen: My Son John (McCarey), Son of Paleface (Tashlin), Macao (von Sternberg)


Foreign Language

1. Ikiru (Kurosawa)
-- Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
3. Umberto D. (De Sica)
4. Casque d'or (Becker)
-- Europa '51 (Rossellini)
-- Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (Ozu)
-- Forbidden Games (Clement)
-- Le Plaisir (Ophuls)
-- Mexican Bus Ride (Bunuel)
-- The White Sheik (Fellini)

Honorable Mention: A Woman Without Love (Bunuel)

Not Seen: Beauties of the Night (Clair), Fanfin la Tulipe (Jaque), The Citizen (Ghatak)

I can't believe I forgot to note Forbidden Games. That is another one that I saw at the time and that made a huge impression, one of the biggest impressions of any film I saw in my youth. I didn't see The White Sheik till quite a bit later, though. I don't know if I saw Fanfin la Tulipe at the time, but I think I did. It was kind of mainstream. Really this to me was a very fertile period, especially for foreign films. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a good English film in there somewhere, though the greatest Ealing comedies seem to have skipped that year, since 1949 brought King Hearts and Coronets (one of my all-time favorites--and it probably was released in the US in 1950), Passport to Pimlico and Whiskey Galore (all of which I saw at the time), 1951 brought The Man in the White Suit (another of the great ones) and the Lavendar Hlll Mob, the Ladykillers came in 1955. There was Gift Horse in 1952 with Trevor Howard and Richard Attenborough, a war movie, but I didn't see it. I wonder what the Ealing studios were doing in 1952. I didn't see Rancho Notorious till much later but it is very interesting with a remarkable cast and of course La Dietrich.
I did not see The Bad and the Beautiful because I did not like that kind of movie. Did not see Limelight; I didn't like Chaplin. By then he was passé. But, yeah, the year grows back to life. I can never say whether a year is good or bad even today. The more movies I see, the more I think it was a good year. I am not jaded. I think there's a lot of good stuff out there, but I don't feel I ever see too much. The critics who comment on the quality of work emerging in general and lament the decline are usually full of crap. Rosenbaum has pointed to the fact that Denby has done that, without really seeing the vast spectrum of new films from Iran, Asia, Africa, etc. But I don't even think we see a really complete picture of what comes out of Italy or France each year. To generalize about a year you have to be somebody who sees three new films a day, and you have to have an axe to grind. I am frankly uneasy about broad generalizations.

Actually it appears The Man in the White Suit opened in the US in 1952, and while I can't have it both ways, that is another indication of the fact that there was some marvelous cinematic fare available even on our rustic shores in 1952. The Man in the White Suit is not only a supreme Alec Guinness vehicle; a great Ealing comedy; but also a comic indictment of capitalism's monopolistic lust for control, against the interests of practicality --but then it also makes fun of the clever inventor who thinks his new technology will solve all life's problems for us.