Anyway, you started an interesting discussion of the film in your David Lean thread here.
Oscar is not taking an active part anymore, so I don't think he'll reply. I'm sure he didn't mean to exclude "big films."
Anyway, you started an interesting discussion of the film in your David Lean thread here.
Oscar is not taking an active part anymore, so I don't think he'll reply. I'm sure he didn't mean to exclude "big films."
Hello Chris and cinemabon. I think very highly of Lawrence of Arabia and yet I don't include it because I don't feel a personal connection to it. That's it. There are big, epic, spectacular films that really hit a nerve with me like Reds and The Last Emperor.Originally Posted by Chris Knipp
That makes sense, Oscar. Very nice to hear from you, by the way. My greater connection with Lawrence of Arabia than to Reds and The Last Emperor is obvious -- my many years of studying Arabic and my few years of living in Arabic countries. I have a personal memory/connection with Reds too though, through a very dear friend of that time when it came out.
The concept of "long films" seems more and more extended lately as commercial features (I believe) are more often longer now, and increased focus on TV miniseries, which occasionally get a limited theatrical release (like Assayas' Carlos).
Thanks Chris.
An idiom more appropriate than "hit a nerve" would be "strike a chord" :-)
I have added a few titles to this list, some films produced by Val Lewton in the 40s such as Cat People and Curse of the Cat People and Preston Sturges'Sullivan's Travels (the first "dramedy"?)that have grown on me over the years and now teach consistently.
You're right about "the concept of long films being more extended", etc. Actually, my favorite recent long "film" is the 2-part TV-series version of Mildred Pierce.One recent film I may one day include in this very special list is Goodbye to Language, depending on how it repays repeat visits.
And with "binge watching" TV miniseries become one long film for a lot of viewers who see a whole season or most of one at a time. I've watched more than one episode at a time of "Mad Men," "Doc Martin," "Weeds," "The Good Wife," and several others that I like. But last week I so much savored the recent five-part "London Spy" that I watched only one episode at a time, a day or so apart. I think "London Spy" is as good as a good film. In December I watched "True Detective" (over several weeks, too strong to watch more than one at a time) because I'd admired Beasts of No Nation, the first original Netflix feature release, and "True Detective" was also directed by the director, Cary Fukunaga and had the same strong visual sense.
Likewise I too watched the recent five-part TV "Mildred Pierce," starring Kate Winslet, because it's done by the "team" of director Todd Haynes and cinematographer Ed Lachman, whose work I admired so much in Carol. I loved its visuals and the craft of the period recreation, though the excitement faded toward the end. I followed up by watching the Michael Curtiz movie but haven't read the James M. Cain novel.
I also watched (and liked) Mad Men. I also liked Jane Campion's TV series Top of the Lake and a few other things. Teaching four cinema courses per semester means I watch more old films than recent releases although I manage to watch enough new films to have a sense of what's going on. Actually, I could put out a list of 20 or so 2015 releases that I like a lot. As far as films that fit into this thread, special films that fascinate me and compel me to re-watch, the last recent ones I include on the list are Seidl's Paradise trilogy and Godard's Goodbye to Language.I also added the film I've been showing to teach "noir", Tourneur's Out of the Pastwhich came out in 1947.It gives me such pleasure to show the Bluray in a theater. Nicholas Musuraca was in charge of the shadowy, silvery cinematography my students can't help but admire.
http://www.chrisknipp.com/links/doon.jpg
"Mad Men" was and is a must-see. You already mentioned Goodbye to Language I saw it in the 2014 NYFf and reviewed it then. Technically it got a 2014 US theatrical release (29 October 2014 (New York City, New York). Have not seen nor heard of Campion's "Top of the Lake." but am looking now at Emily Nussbaum's what looks like brilliant piece about it, it's "meditative beauty," in The New Yorker. If you're interested, just click. Obviously we should watch "Luck," "House of Cards," and "Breaking Bad," among others. I skipped "Breaking Bad" because I loved the silly but super-entertaining "Weeds" and didn't want to see a down-at-the-mouth treatment of the same premise.
As for the joy of showing films to students, I used to get some films shown (regular film films in the auditorium) at Dwinelle Hall I guess it was at UC Berkeley when I was teaching Comparative Literature there. I showed Nicole Williamson's Hamlet I remember and Kubrick's Lolita. Did my best to drum up general interest in attendance of the films because they were expensive to rent and show. Fun to do that I know. Easier now but I prefer film nonetheless. Just saw They Will Have to Kill Us First and cannot get info (as I could not on the camera/lens used for Kaili Blues), but feel it might be Super16mm film like Ed Lachman used for Carol, Far from Heaven and the "Mildred Pierce" miniseries. . Such intense color. Obviously digital is a cold look. Lachman has spoken a lot about his process with Haynes, see this Variety article.
Last edited by Chris Knipp; 03-06-2016 at 12:37 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks