Printable View
Deepa Mehta is a good example of how "cinema needs no shackles" (oscar jubis). She made a film called "Fire" that just about had her executed in India.
The reaction to it? Theatres were burned to the GROUND.
Let's just say "homosexuality" is not embraced by Hindi people.
AT ALL.
Sorry for the time warp, but there's a couple of things I've been meaning to get to, and meaning to get to...
>Amelie is an entertaining,superbly edited feel-gooder predicated on romanticizing a Paris that no longer exists.
What Jeunet recreates in Amélie is not a "clean Paris" at all. It's the Paris of Robert Doisneau (famous photographer), the romantic idea of Paris. Jeunet said it himself, it's the Paris people like to romanticise about, a Paris that never existed, but is like a myth.
>A perfect introduction to European film for the novice and reluctant.
I think it would be a poor introduction to European film because thankfully there aren't many similar ones. It's more of a Hollywood romance with much more inspired visuals, which is why it has much more overall appeal than the typical foreign fare and I can't understand why serious film fans think it's any good. I would rather send someone a film that was one of the best examples of a certain type/genre/movement of filmmaking and then if they liked that I could suggest a group of others they might also dig.
Jeunet's stories are so shallow I can't even tell there's water.
Amelie is basically a cartoon that lifts an old fairytale plot (Pollyanna) plus borrows poorly from a few much better films (Leolo, Toto the Hero). It populates it's world with types rather than people. To make it appear different, he tries to shock you, I think, but whatever his intention is it gets old really quick. It might work if there was any context or human element, but without those there's no reason to care. I just sat there, never laughing once, knowing everything would come on que. Still, probably for those who were dozing off, he had a dull and unnecessary voice over narration explaining every last bit so you knew exactly what he was supposed to be going for. Jeunet undoubtedly spent countless hours calculating this thing, but it's a heartless and soulless exercise that's so calculated there's no question or doubt, no failure, no trials, no surprise. The whole thing is so facile and stupid. The films with Caro had some shadows, some ups and downs, some uncertainty and unpredictability. This just had excellent cinematography.
>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've never heard of anyone that didn't react in any way to a Greenaway film. Greenaway's films are some of the most controversial, thus they must illicit a very polar emotional response from the audience. The thing with Greenaway, one of the reasons he's so good, is he isn't forcing a certain response on the audience.
>I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook.
If the point of the film is that we are all liars then why is it wise to be optomistic?
>To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.
Yes, but for the same reason the opposite is also true.
>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.
Semantics and cookie cutter defenses aside, the point is still whether it's a logical conclusion.
Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews
>The reason why his 60s films are most popular is because their innovations and conceits have already been incorporated into mainstream film culture.
That's true, but I think it's more because of how quickly they were incorporated. Conversely, I think the problem now is few if any directors are using his current experiments.
>I wouldn't call Godard a bore- he certainly doesn't bore me, but he confuses me more than Greenaway (and that's an achievement). He knows how to manipulate the screen to sometimes astounding effect, and for that I drop a knee.
To me the same old thing, especially when it's really predictability, is the most boring. Godard's films are never that. Sometimes they come together for me and sometimes they don't, but I'm always an active participant when I watch his films because he makes you struggle to find the meaning. I want a film to make me think, work, so that's why I like Godard.
>You imply we have to convince ourselves of their worth. By the way, I think many would agree with your disregard for Godard. His potential audience is smaller than other directors', resulting in lack of distribution in America.
This is why the it's cool to like Godard argument doesn't make sense anymore. Godard has some funny line about being the only guy who makes a living making films no one watches. I don't see many people bragging about his films after the 60s anymore, it's hard to even get a chance to see them. Maybe it's still cool to like Breathless, but there's not enough visibility/awareness of Godard's later works for people to be convinced they "have to" like them.
Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews
>>I think (Amelie) would be a poor introduction to European film because thankfully there aren't many similar ones. It's more of a Hollywood romance with much more inspired visuals, which is why it has much more overall appeal than the typical foreign fare and I can't understand why serious film fans think it's any good. I would rather send someone a film that was one of the best examples of a certain type/genre/movement of filmmaking and then if they liked that I could suggest a group of others they might also dig.<<
The key word is INTRODUCTION. You can't simply expect a viewer who is accustomed to general American cinema to appreciate something that has no ties or similarities. Amelie is cute, good natured and clever and it has a nice style and is easy to follow. I think that's the thought process of whoever said "it would be a good introduction for a novice or a reluctant viewer."
>>I've never heard of anyone that didn't react in any way to a Greenaway film. Greenaway's films are some of the most controversial, thus they must illicit a very polar emotional response from the audience. The thing with Greenaway, one of the reasons he's so good, is he isn't forcing a certain response on the audience.<<
From me, they usually illicit a yawn. Unless there is a soul behind the work, no matter how "controversial" you consciously try to make a film, it just comes off as pretentious.
>I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook.
>>If the point of the film is that we are all liars then why is it wise to be optomistic?<<
That "we are all liars" wasn't the point of the film. I think the point was that truth is subjective and even if we wait around until we think we know everything it still isn't going to be accurate. So we shouldn't let the fear of the unknown paralyze us from taking positive action.
>To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.
>>Yes, but for the same reason the opposite is also true. <<
Not really, since we have free will, we can alter our future. My point was that it is wrong to let fear of the unknown paralyze you from taking action. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>>Semantics and cookie cutter defenses aside, the point is still whether it's a logical conclusion.<<
It's neither semantics nor a "cookie-cutter defense" to point out different interpretations. You took your baggage into the film and determined that it SHOULD have "logically" ended a certain way, I say you are full of prunes. It's like pointing out that Mary in Michelangelo's "Pieta" was far too large.
stevesteitz, you often use words like "pretentious", "hack" or "elitist" in comments about Godard and Greenaway. We often disagree because you believe the greatest art "affects all humanity", "carries a universal appeal" or consists of "basic human story-telling". The best filmmakers, you argue, "make a film for the audience". This is why Jaws, Star Wars, Braveheart, Fellowship and Lawrence of Arabia are amongst your favorite films. Populist Art vs. Elitist Art is an old but still relevant and vibrant debate. (Did you ever read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead?)
What I particularly admire is your cosmopolitan inclusion of films regarding of provenance. Your populist bent incorporates Kurosawa's samurai flicks, Melville's noir films and the occasional Herzog or Bunuel. You've even taught me a thing or two about Russian cinema in previous posts. Refreshing.
Thanks for the kind words. I've read "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand but not "The Fountainhead" yet. While I can't deny some of the greatest films I've seen were obscure foreign films, my 10 favorite films are probably more mainstream than most film buffs. That wide appeal is certainly one of the reasons I have them on my list. Having worked at a high-end video store (and watching movies every night) I had the chance to see something from every corner of the world and I'm glad I had that chance because you certainly learn to look at film as a tool or an art: something more than just diversion or entertainment. The best films (in my book) can act as both.
I saw "Satan's Brew" this week. Anyone see this bizarro film?
I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or just admire from a distance.
I haven't seen it Johann and I'm not sure you think I should. The Fassbinder I want to see but may never get a chance is the longest film ever made: BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ.
By the way, I am sharing my experience attending THE MIAMI INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL in a thread in the General Forum for y'all foreign film fans.
Actually oscar in retrospect, Satan's Brew was quite enjoyable.
I 've heard of "Berlin A", and I would like to see it. I've seen "The Chelsea Girls" which is an 8 hour flick- 4 if you see it in split-screen (I did not).
Anyone see the 5-hour workprint for Apocalypse Now? I have!!
I had a moment of honor when 16 film nuts & myself were awarded a certificate for sitting thru Andy Warhol's "Sleep"
(which was another 8 hour viewing) in Toronto in 1995. It was just a guy on a mattress sleeping for 6 hours! They tacked on 2 hours of the same footage at the end! It was worth it, though. Ushers stood in the aisles with flashlights scoping for people who were snoozing. It was a packed house when it began- only the brave, insane warriors stood at the end. I'd never do it again...
Satan's Brew goes into my RENT list.
I am definitely too old to sit through Warhol's Sleep. My wife is an encephalogram tech and she has brought home vhs of patients subjected to a 24-hr EEG so I have an idea of what you've accomplished. Incidentally I attended the Toronto FF in 1995.
Please tell me more about the 5-hr Apocalypse. Will I get a chance?
Ah, Apocalypse Now. It's on my ten best list of all-time.
The workprint was a copy I got from a collector. (I'll never tell who) It doesn't flow like the original cut or the redux cut. It is extended scenes mainly, and lots more of "going up river".
The original cut was perfect. Only the really curious should seek out the gargantuan version. If you loved the film then it's definitely worth seeing, but you're not missing a whole lot with the studio versions. They are fine.
I liked Redux best. It fleshed out the original to a degree yet didn't take away from the powerful scenes. I noticed the cinematography more seeing the extended footage, perhaps because I have seen the original so many times.
has anyone seen CENTRAL STATION? i don't know who did it, but it is foreign and has subtitles. it's very beautiful. the look of it. no one famous.... at least not known in U.S. i'm a crybaby, and it did me in! VAGABOND sounds like something i need to see.
i agree about jack in ABOUT SCHMIDT. i think he saved that movie. no one could have pulled that off and made that movie worth sitting thru.
Central Station was seen by a lot of people, few foreign films get adequate publicity and this one did. I enjoyed watching the protagonist's gradual thawing. But it was the widescreen cinematography that brought me back for seconds.
For a South American film that will bring you to tears guaranteed, rent The Official Story (Oscar winner from Argentina).
I highly recommend Vagabond,anniedoa.
I warn you that it is INCREDIBLY sad. Very depressing to watch-but so was Ikiru, and that was a masterpiece. It is incredibly interesting to see what happens to the girl. Varda opens it exactly like Kubrick's Lolita, with the climax of the story.
I only watched it once-and so will you- unless you're a sucker for punishment. I cried like a baby. Glad I was alone...