Printable View
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.Quote:
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.
Sacha said to Greenaway one day on set:
"Je ne pas un realisiteur; je c'est un Greenaway"
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.Quote:
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!
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.
>>"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?
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".Quote:
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.Quote:
As far as narrative, I prefer films that appear incomplete, able to absorb several interpretations, have a vague ending, or violate narrative conventions.
I could watch Jack as Warren Schmidt forever. Hey Jack, this could be a sitcom smash....
>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 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
>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. <<
Yeah and a certain amount of people would watch mashed potatoes run down the wall. It doesn't change the fact that films with widespread poularity aren't necessarily bad films while films with a small, devoted following aren't necessarily good films.
>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. <<
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 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.<<
You call it gross-out but another person might consider it high art. As you said before, "there is an audience for absolutely everything." isn't it a little "black and white" to simply dismiss Green out of hand? (This is a philisophical question since I also thought Green's work was trash. )
>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.<<
Sentimentality? I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook. To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.
>>but what really did this ending have to do with the film it belonged to?<<
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.
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...
>>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!
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..