the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

[Chris Knipp]

Like the Samuel Johnson quote, cinemabon--one of my own favorites.

Johann---Read the Wikipedia article about Leni. Here are some lines from it:

Her most famous works are documentary propaganda films for the German Nazi Party. . .

Triumph of the Will was a documentary glorifying Hitler and widely regarded as one of the most effective pieces of propaganda ever produced. It is generally regarded as a masterful, epic, innovative work of documentary filmmaking. Because it was commissioned by the Nazi party and used as propaganda, however, critics have said it is nearly impossible to separate the subject from the artist behind it.. . .

After World War II, she spent four years in a French detention camp. There were accusations she had used concentration camp inmates on her film sets, but those claims were not proven in court. Being unable to prove any culpable support of the Nazis, the court called her a sympathizer. In later interviews Riefenstahl maintained that she was "fascinated" by the Nazis but politically naïve and ignorant about the war crimes of which they were accused by critics. . . .

The History Channel, on its sister channel, History International, released a documentary entitled, Hitler's Women: Leni Riefensthal. In it, the accusation is made that Riefenstahl was acutely aware that her films were propaganda. They point to evidence such as the fact that Hitler had a sit-down discussion between Riefenstahl and Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels at her personal German villa, as seen in this picture (Registation Required), to resolve differences the two were having which were causing strife in Hitler's early regime. Even more damning are the film clips of Riefenstahl dining with Goebbels and Himmler, and other top men of both the Brownshirt and SS branches of NSDAP, intercut with interviews with German historians and WWII scholars questioning how any one could appear at state dinners with top Nazi officials (eating at the high table with them, no less) and be completely unaware of what politics they were supporting. Furthering the connection, they cite the fact that Riefenstahl sent a celebratory telegram to Hitler after the successful military campaign in France, "Your deeds exceed the power of human imagination. They are without equal in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?. . .

Lastly, they detail interviews with actual Gypsy survivors of the Holocaust, who refute Riefensthal's claims that the concentration camp victims she used for filming were not killed [4]. . . .

The documentary comes to the conclusion that Riefenstahl suffered from a deep denial of her actual culpability, to the point that she even began to believe her own lies regarding her innocence.

Did Riefenstahl get a raw deal when her efforts to get funding for further films after the war were shunned? As the article implies, it had become hard to separate her from her work, her work from Hitler, and Hitler from the extermination camps he created. This is a little bit more than guilt by association given such evidence as her congratulation of Hitler for the defeat of France. About anti-Semitism however there seems to be no clearcut evidence, only the suspicion that exists for so many Germans: that she knew what was going on, she heard Hitler's speeches, she heard him denounce the Jews, and she chose to repress this knowledge or deny it later on. Nonetheless she was a remarkable filmmaker and photographer.

[oscar jubis]

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I've been wanting to participate in several discussions. And I wish I could find the time to post longer opinions about some outstanding films out there. I am currently attending press screenings for the Miami International Film Festival (March 2nd-11th). I'm attending roughly two screenings a day and writing reviews. At this rate, I should surpass the 54 films I reviewed in my coverage of the 2006 fest. I will start posting them in about a week or so.

The two best films I've seen recently are Children of Men and 4. The former has the best mise-en-scene and art direction of any English-language film released in '06. The film is the perfect antidote to the current practice of covering a scene with multiple cameras and slicing-and-dicing the footage like an MTV video. Masterful long takes reminiscent of Ophuls and Sokurov prevail. And half the story is told visually, with the script sometimes seeming as an aide to the images. So it might seem slight if you're not watching closely. You can watch it with the sound turned off and the thing still makes sense. Silent film masters would approve.

4 is a Russian film with segments that recall Tarkovsky and Tarr, but it's a challenging, despairing, original, groundbreaking work of art. A second viewing was most rewarding. It received very good reviews, but none (not even J. Hoberman's) does justice to it. It's available on dvd. And I eventually found an essay in Sensesofcinema that truly enriches the experience of viewing it.

Originally posted by bix171
I think Hitchcock's treatment of women, especially from the '50s onward, which has a degre of cruelty I'd say bordered on sadism (culminating in Tippi Hedren's attack in "The Birds"), stemmed from what appears to be a mistrust of women, especially blondes. He continually puts them in harm's way and forces them to defend themselves, whether it be Grace Kelly in "Rear Window" or "Dial M For Murder" up to the aforementioned Hedren in "Marnie" and "The Birds". Whether or not this comes from his personal interactions with these women on and off the set (my understanding is Hedren, in particular, rebuffed him although I've also read he was celibate after the birth of his daughter) I can't be sure but I do think it heightens the experience of watching his films.

I know very little about Hitchcock's personal life. Your comments are very interesting and worthy of consideration. I wonder though if simply from the 50s onwards, cinema allowed depiction of characters, both male and female, which were more flawed. It was a time when mainstream society developed an interest in Freudian psychology and films featured a number of deeply flawed, neurotic, even mad characters. Notice how Hitchcock's male protagonists were treated, so to speak, in films like Vertigo and Psycho.

Regarding Leni Riefenstahl and The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, here's a review by the excellent critic Jonathan Rosenbaum for your consideration:

A fascinating if irritating and ultimately unsatisfactory 1993 German documentary by Ray Müller about the remarkable filmmaker whose work provided Nazi Germany with its greatest propaganda. It's important to know that this film was made at Riefenstahl's own instigation, clearly designed to accompany her then recently published autobiography, and that she had veto power over who would be interviewed (don't expect to see Susan Sontag here). Consequently this is more often self-portrait than portrait; like Hitler in Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, she's presented as a fully formed deity without family background or ideology save a reverence for beauty and strength. Admittedly, compared to the Nazi industrialists who went unpunished, she has suffered disproportionately for her Nazi associations (albeit less than any Jew who was gassed), and she deserves full recognition as an extraordinary woman; even in her early 90s she remained a courageous deep-sea diver, as the film shows. But at 182 minutes the film has only a few skeptical asides, and it shirks certain basic historical facts--allowing its subject to insist, for instance, that Triumph of the Will was a "straight" documentary with no allusion to all the carefully crafted studio retakes. John Simon's gushing, unscholarly review of her autobiography in the New York Times, a literary equivalent to Reagan's Bitburg speech, concluded that Riefenstahl "may have compromised her humanity. But her artistic integrity, never." If you agree with Simon that artistic integrity has nothing to do with humanity, this is the movie you've been waiting for. Incidentally, the film's stupid title was coined strictly for the Anglo-American market; the original German title translates as "Leni Riefenstahl: The Power of Images."

[Chris Knipp]

Interesting point about the title of the Riefenstahl documentary, which of course suggests a hedging of bets to paliate a doubtful audience--but while Rosenbaum himeslf is fair to Riefenstahl, he goes a little overboard in implying the film is a promo job for her. Even if she may have had some control over it, it leaves you with plenty of serious doubts about her innocence of collaboration; the stuff about the concentration camp inmates taken out temporarily to work in a R film is there, for instance, and so is the dining with demon generals. Anyone who really cared would need to see other material, including the History Channel films alluded to by the Wikipedia piece--but I don't think Riefenstahl's dubious involvement in the Nazi propaganda campaign is left in any doubt and it remains true that she took a beating for it afterward and had remarkable accomplishments in silent film and photography before and after during an active lifetime that lasted 101 years. It's always interesting to see what Rosenbaum has had to say, but I'd be interested in your own opinion of the film, Oscar, if you have one.

It's true Children of Men has some remarkable long tracking shots and crowd scenes, but some of those scenes lack credibility as does the whole story with its many unexplained points. The dystopian future has pushed a lot of buttons for people who are worried, and resultingly gotten credit for a profundity and relevance that it quite lacks. I think it's one of the year's most overrated movies. We could debate that on the thread devoted to it

http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...threadid=1887.

[Johann]

Huge thanks to Chris and Oscar for adding something worthwhile.

Chris, what you posted from Wiki is pretty accurate.

Triumph absoultely glorifies Hitler- that was what she was commissioned to do. In that respect, she did her job extremely well- too well for some. But like I said, hindsight is 20/20.

She must've known what she was doing, but at the same time, she was under the thumbs of Nazis. The way I see it (and I could be wrong- I'm willing to be wrong here) she looked at it as "well, I've got a prominent position, I'm being giving free reign to be an artist, why not try something?"

I believe the Wiki quote where it says she was politically naive and ignorant of the war crimes they were accused of.

After seeing the doc (and it does seem like a self-portrait- she overrides Ray Muller in a few arguments- she demands answers to questions that he cannot answer) I am convinced she was CRIMINALLY NAIVE in her dealings with the top people in the Reich. Criminally naive.

She was caught up in a horrible time that she repeatedly regrets in the film. Muller tells her that the world is looking for an apology from her. This is where denial comes into play.
She says "where does my guilt lie? I've suffered enough" (I'm paraphrasing because I gave the tapes back to the public library)

Please watch the film guys- we might be able to come to a better understanding of one another's posts if we've all got the film on our minds

[Chris Knipp]

I guess we're coming to more of an agreement now.

I just wanted to add one thing--that I'd agree with Rosenbaum in saying the Muller documentary is "ultimately unsatisfactory"--because it needs to get to the bottom of more than it does, I guess. It disturbed me too, but I didn't feel like I'd wasted my time. I had put off seeing it for a while because I thought the woman would be distasteful. She sort of is, but whether "criminally naive" oir not, (don't think she came to acknowledge that afterward, Johann--she doesn't repudiate anything but stonewalls as I recall), her career is troubling. She was not under compulsion to make the propaganda films. Making propaganda films for any government is a dubious eneterprise to get involved in, even if the government isn't reprehensible, and even if you produce masterpices. They're tainted masterpieces--and moreover they're masterpieces that people often find heavy and boring. Fascism's self-worship is a lugubrious enterprise. But Riefenstahl's life was a remarkable one.

[Johann]

I think she might've been saving her own skin by sending that telegram where she's blowing sunshine up Hitler's ass.
She talks about it in the documentary.

I mean he could've killed her at any time for any reason.

She had to be a "sympathizer" or else she probably would've had a pistol to her head in short order.

Think in terms of Polanski's The Pianist or Schindler's List- life and death was a silk thread thing.

Her artistry is what matters though.

For all of her naive crimes, she was still (in my opinion only) the greatest female filmmaker of all time.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
he goes a little overboard in implying the film is a promo job for her.
Rosenbaum says it's "more often autobiography than biography", which is more subtle than calling it a "promo job".

I'd be interested in your own opinion of the film, Oscar, if you have one.
Of course I have an opinion since I've watched the doc, albeit not recently. Riefenstahl is a highly interesting subject for a documentary and the clips from her films leave no doubt as to her photographic skills. The controversies regarding the extent of her sympathizing and collaborating with the nazis make it compelling. Yet there's a lack of rigor, such as leaving out well known facts as pointed out by Rosenbaum, that render the film less than definitive.

It's true Children of Men has some remarkable long tracking shots and crowd scenes, but some of those scenes lack credibility as does the whole story with its many unexplained points. I think it's one of the year's most overrated movies. We could debate that on the thread devoted to it

What does "overrated" mean? That a lot of critics loved it and you didn't. I decided it would take at least a couple of hours to write a review that does justice to the film. I would have to manage to put into words what the film explains visually, which is time consuming. It would take just as long to retort to everything in your review with which I disagree. I regret not having the time because I think you missed a lot of what the film explains via mise-en-scene and art direction. Children of Man is basically a fictional projection of what the world could potentially become in 20 years if governments continue to declare pre-emptive wars, and pass Patriot Acts, and acquire nuclear weapons, and disregard Geneva Conventions, and erect border walls, and lie about weapons of mass destruction, and encourage "patriotism", etc. It's richly imagined, and consistently awe-some filmmaking.

*My vote for "greatest female filmmaker of all time" goes to... Agnes Varda.

[Chris Knipp]

Yet there's a lack of rigor, such as leaving out well known facts as pointed out by Rosenbaum, that render the film less than definitive.
What well known facts are those?

It's not really accurate to say a softened documentary is "autobiography" more than "biography." But such a "biography"woiuld be a a "promo job" and it would be a fake. If Muller's film is such a fake, then it is a lot worse than we have been saying. Maybe it is. ButI don't think even Rosenbaum is implying really that the film was made entirely by and for the pleasure of Riefenstahl.

As for Children of men, overrated means more admired than it quite deserves. It isn't about me. I'm not the only person who has found serious faults in its narrative.. See what your pal Rosenbaum says about it. Only he thinks the remarkable evocations of dystopian future and the technical accomplishments of the earlier parts redeem the later degeneration into an actioner. I think the weakness was there from the beginning in the unexplained and patchy premise.

[cinemabon]

When it comes to women making a contribution to cinema, one needs to broaden the palate before creating a picture... certainly in America, you had Ida Lupino, one of the very first female directors. In China, Esther Eng and Tang Shu-Sheun were early pioneers. Certainly Italian director, Len Wurtmuller would have to be considered since she had a tremendous impact on cinema (far greater than any documentarian). If its documentarians, Michelle Parkerson's name should be mentioned as should commercial filmmaker Penny Marshall.

I'm sure I'm leaving out many great female artists (behind the camera) whose work has carved out a place in cinema history with far greater impact than Riefenstahl. No one outside of Germany ever saw her work until after the war. When I saw Triumph of the Will, I did not think, "Wow, what a great filmmaker!" I thought, "No wonder the German's were convinced Hitler was a god." She made him look good. But that formula is old and she did not invent it. Any school kid in film school knows how to cut a film to make someone look good. Many propoganda films were made during World War II. Just because someone says it's great doesn't make it that way. Glorifying the 'Aryan' race is sick, twisted, demented, and completely racists to the 'nth' degree.

And to say that a filmmaker is not aware of the material when you spend weeks creating a script, shooting and then cutting the material is being extremely naive. Let's not delude ourselves on that score.

If I sound upset or angry, it is because so many people suffered... and she did nothing to make amends after the fact. Where is the documentary about the evils of the Nazi's she made after the war?

[Johann]

DOA

Supremely rare documentary from 1980 on the punk movement.

I found this vhs tape in the garbage, of all places (long story).

Profiling the Sex-Pistols, the X-Ray Spex, Generation X, Rich Kids, Sham 69 and others, plus using cool trax from Iggy Pop (Nightclubbing, Lust for Life) this film is a great slice of anarchy.

The songs are COMPLETE performances, unlike other docs on punk music which use snippets and soundbites.

What's really cool about this film is seeing just how up in arms the establishment were over bands like the Pistols.

Now they seem almost tame, but back in the mid to late 70's this music was like an atomic bomb of annoyance to the powers that be.

There is a famous "interview" clip of Sid and Nancy where she's trying to wake Sid up- he's nodding out due to the heroin and can barely answer anybody, let alone Nancy. Vintage.

There are several clips of british "authorities" who have nothing but contempt for the Pistols and punk in general.

Not much has changed.

I reckon George Bush doesn't know jack shit about "In the Land of Hope and Glory" or "Police and Thieves".

[oscar jubis]

Great post. You obviously "get it". It's hard to convey to younger people what an art revolution feels like, because there hasn't been one for a long time. I watched DOA way way back. As a huge The Clash fan, I prefer Rude Boy, but DOA is essential. Last year's American Hardcore does a good job depicting the early 80s scene in the USA.

[Johann]

I really wanna see American Hardcore.

My current fave band is Black Flag and I love Keith Morris & his Circle Jerks, so I can't wait.

Haven't seen Rude Boy but I'm up for anything Clash-wise.

Congrats on the accreditation, btw.

You're our man in Miami Oscar. Looking forward to your reports.

[Johann]

She's Gotta Have It



Never saw Spike Lee's debut before, but I've definitely heard about it.
Fuckin' awesome movie. And I mean fuckin'!
Nola Darling is a young black woman who likes sex. A lot.
She lives in Brooklyn, New York, in the same 'hood as Mars Blackmon, a street-wise cyclist played by Spike himself.

She's sleeping with Greer, a muscle-bound "Billy Dee Motherfucker" (according to Mars) and she doesn't know which man she should commit to: Greer, Mars or Jamie.
Jamie is a guy who followed her on the street when he first laid eyes on her and they start a relationship.
So, she ends up boning all three guys at the same time.
She even has a lesbian hitting on her!

This is a great comedy- an "art film comedy" in my estimation.

It's shot in stark, beautiful black and white with one color sequence by Ernest Dickerson.
There's nudity, and there's one scene in particular that made my jaw drop: the who's pussy is this? scene.

I love this movie.
There's nudity, hilarious situations and even though it's set in the 80's, it's the good 80's, the intelligent, witty 80's.

The end credits are worth sitting through too- the clapboard "roll call" was just as funny as anything in the movie.

[Chris Knipp]

[Now in release in New York, February 2007. First seen at the 2005 NYFF at Lincoln Center in the grandeur of Alice Tully Hall. Seen again in a little auditorium at Cinema Village. It was worthy of the grandeur.]

Regular Lovers/Les amants réguliers
Philippe Garrel, France, 2005, 178 min.

CK description for the NYFF:
1968, 1969: a small group of young men take active part in the May 1968 Paris riots in this lengthy and meandering historical mood piece shot in black and white for a New Wave look that's at once fresh and nostalgic. The cataclysm ends, hopes die down, boys pair off with girls, and the hash and then the opium come out. There's a painter, a guy named Gauthier who wants to design clothes, and others. The group gravitates to the house of the wealthy Antoine (Julien Lucas) but the focus is on a budding poet and draft resister called François (Louis Garrel, the director's son, recently seen in Bertolucci's The Dreamers, who looks almost too poetic to actually be one) and an art student and sculptor, Lilie (Clotilde Hesme), who fall in love. Lilie's pledge of eternal loyalty to Francois lasts till a wealthy sculptor sponsors her and she goes off to New York, leaving her sensitive and sweet young lover shattered. The young people and the Paris interiors and exteriors (Lilie says Francois is "beautiful inside and outside") are lovely to look upon but the film requires patience and the English subtitles are the kind that burn out whenever the background is white (Chris Knipp)

Comment on seeing the NYC screening, February 2007:
. . .but this is also the kind of film that burns itself into your memory and keeps coming back. It takes you to a special place. Garrel père must know whereof he speaks, because he evokes the seminal moment of the late Sixties effortlessly. With what seem like casual gestures and details, he seems to touch on everything important, the dream of revolution, the alienation from the working class, the celebration of art and love, the depression after the excitement died down, which fades into the extremism of the Seventies, the love of clothes and music and dancing. Nothing new, perhaps, but that’s why the film doesn’t push a “period” look on us. The grainy black and white, which itself is so intense it seems to burn itself into your soul, creates a time capsule of youth that’s more universal than Carnaby Street pink and greed or paisley prints. Louis Garrel is the principled young poet, and Clotilde Hesme is the strong, independent passionate girlfriend. Philippe Garrel takes time with each moment to make it real. Even battles are boring, and the escape from them is more boring still. 90% of life is showing up and 95% is waiting for something to happen. Of course this film could be cut. The piano theme that introduces the lovers and their love keeps coming back a little too often. But the very unedited quality is quintessentially Sixties. Garrel has made a film about the Sixties that feels made in the Sixties; he’s made a film for us by making a film for himself. It would be nice to get a copy of this that had nice yellow subtitles, in French. The French DVD ought to be good; the French critics were ecstatic about this film.

Andrew O’Hehir in Salon recently described Regular Lovers as “the transformative filmgoing experience of the last few months for me, but also a movie that would bore the pants and several layers of skin off many, many viewers. This kind of movie demands that we turn off the phone, stow the watch in a pocket and surrender to a sense of time that is altogether disconnected from our everyday lives. It's the same surrender demanded by old-school works of high culture, by Wagner's "Parsifal" or Brahms' Third. (And by Chinese opera, Indian classical music, Noh theater and other things I know even less about.)" Well said. Indeed this is one of those slow-burning cinematic epipahnies that may give fellow-afficianados a sense of conspiratorial intimacy and whose meaning transcends anything you can codify or analyse. Manohla Dargis called Regular Lovers "magnificent" in her review. . It unquestionably is. It has a truly epic quality (much in contrast to the beautiful hothouse claustrophobia of Bertolucci's The Dreamers), and I can only hope that more of the right Americans get a chance to see it on a big screen, and eventually that it gets better subtitles.

Available on French DVD.

[Johann]

RoboCop


At first glance this movie seems kitchy, corny.

But after watching it again for the umpteenth time I think it's a great, visionary film.

Paul Verhoeven is known for his stylistic, weirdish films and this one is no exception.

The RoboCop suit design is awesome.
The action is awesome- check out the Criterion version for all of the rated X scenes. And the story is awesome.

A cop named Murphy gets killed. (not entirely...)

A technological company capitalizes after another robot cop design went berzerko.

A cyborg made of titanium, flesh and kevlar brings sweet justice to the crooks of Detroit (or Delta City- take your pick).

Lovely movie that never bores me.