DVD News and Discussions :: RE: Technical Issues and Questions

Author: kaujot
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:21 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 323

fiddlesticks wrote:

kinjitsu wrote:

If you had mentioned the source of that quote then I would have known exactly what you were referring to. It seems that every time the phpBB database is updated it screws up most, if not all, of the special characters.

I'm sorry; the source of the quote (for me) was a post by domino harvey in another thread; he got it from some external source. I confess that I'm not savvy enough to even know what a phpBB database is or how I could have phrased my question in a clearer way. Sometimes it's a curse to be as techno-deficient as I am.

The phpBB database is the engine that's behind this board. As in, CriterionForum.org is running on phpBB.

DVD News and Discussions :: RE: Technical Issues and Questions

Author: fiddlesticks
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:17 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 323

kinjitsu wrote:

The Masters of Cinema Series :: RE: 72 L'Enfance-nue

Author: peerpee
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:00 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 30

That cat scene at the start is actually a different take to what appears in the film! (Only discovered that the other week).

The Criterion Collection :: RE: 450 Bottle Rocket

Author: swo17
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:48 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 44

Um, Rushmore is on top, obviously.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that every film of Anderson's after Rushmore has been a slightly paler photocopy of the film that preceded it. (Though "slightly" is being generous for Darjeeling.) Bottle Rocket, however, is another animal entirely. It's Anderson's only real straight-up comedy, without the attempt at depth of his later work, but I think it pulls that off quite nicely. I actually know people who only like Bottle Rocket, and not Rushmore or Tenenbaums.
_________________
Strong as a bird, fast as a can.

New Films :: RE: The Wrestler (Darren Aronofsky, 2008)

Author: moviscop
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:39 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 32

Nothing wrote:

Have loathed every past Aronovsky flick, and you judge an award by it's jury - no-one on there I'd trust, except perhaps Lucretia Martel. But... this does sound interesting. We'll see.

I find the Venice jury pretty good myself. The only doubt I would have as to the quality of the film would be that it was the last in a series of stinkers.

Apart from that, I think it is going to be awesome.
_________________
Now try to cough.

The Criterion Collection :: RE: 450 Bottle Rocket

Author: psufootball07
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:29 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 44

Hmmm...I would put Rushmore on top, and also Life Aquatic at its worst. Bottle Rocket may have been his beginnings and clearly not his best, but Life Aquatic just didnt work for me, and I know many other people feel that Life Aquatic was a real disappointment for the cast that it had.

The Criterion Collection :: RE: 450 Bottle Rocket

Author: CA Rodgers
Subject: Bottle Rocket
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:25 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 44

As far as Was Anderson goes... he on of the best film makers today. And I always thought Bottle Rocket was a good first movie, though the films have gotten better over the years. Bottle Rocket was one of those movies that made you feel really warm and good inside. It wasn't trying to be anything, you could tell it was a guy who just really wanted to make a funny ass movie.
The order for me is. The Royal Tennenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited, Rushmore, Life Aquatic, Bottle Rocket.

The Masters of Cinema Series :: RE: 72 L'Enfance-nue

Author: zedz
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:55 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 30

sidehacker wrote:

Trailer. I'm a bit worried that my expectations are becoming a bit unrealistic, but I still can't wait.

I can't believe they put the cat in there. (And that's just the start of it.)

Old Films :: RE: IMDb missing entries

Author: Eligius
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:52 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 59

The two short films Carna (1969) and De Val (1970, The Fall) by dutch director Adriaan Ditvoorst also appear to be missing. Too bad since, in the 60's and 70's, he has been regarded as most promising dutch director by the likes of Pasolini and Bertolucci and these two short films really deserve some more attention.
_________________
"Drama is life, with the dull bits cut out."

Alfred Hitchcock

The Criterion Collection :: RE: 397 Ivan's Childhood

Author: ando
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:47 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 88

This film doesn't resemble any other of the "Soviet Realist" pictures to my mind. The narrative is certainly not as straightforward as many of the films coming out of that period.

One of the most amazing things that I admire about this film is the way in which Tarkovsky weaves dreams and nightmares, fears and hopes, fantasy and function, even sanity and delusion together in such a tight almost imperceptible manner. Editing, obviously, is key here, though he was to rely less on this narrative technique in subsequent films.

Sometimes, I must admit, I'm not always sure of the narrative's point of view. Ivan is not always present (he's absent altogether in he love triangle sequences). This is the chief weakness (if it can be called that) of the film. For example: Other than the professional association of Ivan and the soldiers involved in the love triangle, what links Ivan to this? How does the triangle permeate Ivan's actual childhood? Does he just imagine the triangle? Does he have intimations of it? What is the relationship of the triangle to Ivan's childhood?

Tarkovsky did admit that Ivan's Childhood shows the signs of a young filmmaker not sure with his craft and I see now (in many instances) what he meant. Still, not many films that I've seen from this era of Soviet filmmaking (which would have been apropos to the realist credo) involve this level of visual poetry. The great irony with Tarkovsky is that his imagery is starkly, even disturbingly realistic.

New Films :: RE: Comic Books on Film

Author: dx23
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:31 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 105

Antoine Doinel wrote:

Sam Raimi continues to waste his time and talent, and signs up for two more Spiderman sequels.

They have to redeem themselves from the bad taste Spider-Man 3 left. The only good thing in it was looking at the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard.

The article mentions something interesting about the new "trend" of taking comic book films and making them "dark" after the success of the Dark Knight. The first thing is that "dark" is not a trend. Is a stupid term use by the corporate idiots in the film industry who doesn't understand comic books. It's stupid for Bryan Singer and Co to think that the sequel to Superman Returns is going to work if they make the character, plot, etc "dark". What makes a comic book film good is to remain faithful to the source material. That is why Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, Iron Man, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, The Crow, Sin City, Hellboy 1 and 2, Road To Perdition, Batman Begins, the Dark Knight and even the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles worked.

What I have seen is that everytime a director, actor or studio tries to use their "creative" control and style to recreate to their own vision of the source material is the time when these comic book films fail. It happens all the time and that is the reason why the bad comic book films outnumber the good ones. For example, Fantastic Four 2. Besides the miscasting of Jessica Alba, the stupid director had the idea of not showing Galactus as a "robot" because "my movies would not have giant robots". Guess what? Galactus is a fucking robot and will always be, not a fucking dark cloud, imbecile!

This rant was brougth by another dissapointing comic book film named Ghost Rider. With nothing better to do today, I mistakenly watched this film on Blu Ray. Between Cages horrible acting, the bad editing and ridiculous puns, this made for a excruciation film that shouldn't have been this way. The source material is interesting, why dumb it down and make it "fun" and "funny" This was a film that was supposed to be "dark".

Old Films :: RE: The Fugitive Kind (Sydney Lumet, 1959)

Author: ando
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:23 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 7

Brando couldn't play everything, contrary to what many believe. And I think this is a case in point. Though I do agree that he seems almost disinterested here - an acting choice, probably. Perhaps he tried to affect the aloof aspect of Val's character (contrary to the busy-body, gossip minded characters around him) too much. A Hollywood actor like James Dean or Montgomery Clift might have been able to pull it off and still retain the magnetic quality vital to the character.

Williams supposedly admired this film, though.

New Films :: RE: Che: The Argentine & Guerilla (Steven Soderbergh, 2008)

Author: Kirkinson
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:19 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 74

Mr_sausage wrote:

Taking a complex or intelligent view of a situation is not predicated on using weak terms, or having weak opinions, or coming to no definite conclusions about things one way or the other.

I don't see where we disagree. I'm arguing against the mentality that sees "authoritarian murderer" (or any similarly strong label) without a well-rounded analysis and stops there before such an analysis has occurred. It has nothing to do with weak terms, weak opinions, or ambiguous conclusions.

DVD News and Discussions :: RE: Technical Issues and Questions

Author: kinjitsu
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:10 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 323

If you had mentioned the source of that quote then I would have known exactly what you were referring to. It seems that every time the phpBB database is updated it screws up most, if not all, of the special characters.
_________________

Old Films :: RE: Best German-language Films of the Past 25 Years

Author: Tommaso
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:01 pm (GMT -4)
Topic Replies: 56

lubitsch wrote:

If you are talking about a distinctive and innovative visual style, you mean in reality a very extroverted visual style, something like minimalism a la late Ozu or late Dreyer or the kinetic slambang of Tarantino or Stone. Again it's more easy to study or write about and it's better as a label for being identified.

That is certainly true, but it may simply be a personal thing. I'm interested in all sorts of arts, and so the thing that interests me most in film is that which I cannot have from, say, literature, and that is the visual side. So the films that are 'real' films for me are those that pronounce that aspect very much; also it is the aspect that lies at the origin of film: photography and visual representation. Elaborate scripts, dialogue etc. all came later. This is a point of view one need not share, but to quote Greenaway (who is obsessed with style, obviously), I'm simply not very much interested in films as 'illustrated texts'.

lubitsch wrote:

In fact, why this obsession with style? It always seemed to me that film scholars look obsessively for the aspects which make film special and different from all other arts. Why exactly shouldn't be acting or the script be of equal importance. Let's say a film is marvellously written and has great acting, but a classical, solid style. and then let's take a daring visual approach which unfortunately reduces acting and script to mere bystanders. Strangely and again without any real justification the latter film will garner likely more attention in academic circles.

Is that really so? I remember Schreck somewhere (in the Eclipse thread?) criticizing your namesake, Ernst Lubitsch, precisely for his visual uninventiveness. While I don't necessarily agree, and was initially surprised at that point of view on someone who is actually one of my favourite directors, I can see where he's coming from if you compare Lubitsch only a purely visual level to Sternberg or Murnau. But neither does that distract from Lubitsch's films, nor from any critical attention. There is a style in Lubitsch, PLUS the elaborate scripts and dialogue. In this respect, he's perhaps one of the most perfect of filmmakers. But the same dialogues filmed in an uninteresting, TV-film like manner simply wouldn't interest me. In other words: while Lubitsch certainly wasn't a great 'inventor', no 'avantgardist' like Dreyer, he nevertheless managed not to forget that film is an essentially visual medium.

lubitsch wrote:

And I find it hard to justify the funding of experimental films which are seen by nobody like most New German cinema films were.

Would you say that Harriet Shaw Weaver and Sylvia Beach shouldn't have financed Joyce writing "Ulysses", a book that 'nobody' wanted to read? Funding of experimental works needs to be done, even if the results are uncertain or in retrospect might even be bad. Without funding we wouldn't have films like Jarman's "Last of England" or Ottinger's "Dorian Gray", and in my view hits as these excuse quite a few misses. And the same goes for the experimental films made nowadays.

About the actors: I don't know about Alexandra Maria Lara, but actresses like Nina Hoss or Veronica Ferres would draw ME to the cinema in any case, theoretically; the only problem is that the films they're acting in don't interest me very much. Or a different example: would anyone care for films � or even only release them on disc - like "Seven Sinners" or "Pittsburgh" if Marlene Dietrich hadn't acted in Sternberg's films? A good actress is certainly an asset, but can never make up for an uninspired director/script. Tilda Swinton is breathtaking in all her films (even in something like "Ada" or "Technolust", both of which are truly bad films), but nothing she made with other directors came even close to Jarman's movies. And much as I admire her, her presence alone doesn't make me go to the cinema.

I agree with a lot of the other things you say about the current state in Germany.. The interest in films is generally low in Germany, and to hear that the Lubitsch set lost a lot of money is a crying shame. Even arte TV doesn't seem to help. I'm not sure those attacks against cinema you mention are responsible. These attacks were made in all sorts of countries. I'd rather suspect it was the break of tradition that occured with the Nazi regime, and from which German cinema on a broad basis has never really recovered. The utterly sentimental films made in the 50s may have played their part, too. And Herzog , Wenders and Fassbinder were probably deemed too 'artsy'.

lubitsch wrote:

You can play this game on and on if you ask yourself why exactly Russian cinema and its fast cutting is deemed so important if the French did it a few years earlier. Well for left-wing critics and that's the majorityuntil the late 70s, films had to be of social value, the french films didn't fit the bill, the Russian ones which are arguably even more simple-minded did it better.

A good point, certainly. Perhaps the 'self-propagandizing' (in the form of essays) helped the Russians as well. On the other hand, the French also made a lot of social-conscious films, think of Feyder or L'Herbier, so what was it that the Russians had? The emphasis on technique and a more visible style, which extended much further than just fast cutting.

I deplore very much that Staudte or K�utner are so unknown outside Germany (simply because these are great films); and I didn't know about Rossellini's early flirts with fascism. But the question whether cinema has to have a social conscience might asked with the same right as your question about why cinema has to be obsessed with style. Why this emphasis on social matters, especially in Germany, especially in academia? Historical reasons, of course, but I can't see any artistic ones.

lubitsch wrote:

.Most directors don't even touch political themes like Fellini or antonioni though the latter wrote a glowing review of JUD S�SS which has to be seen to be believed.

I haven't read Antonioni's piece, but having been lucky enough - for a German - to have actually seen the film in a special presentation (it was an 'eductional' retrospectice of NS films organized by FWMS at the local art cinema a few months ago) I at least can understand where he might come from. I found the film impressive, too, and found it interesting how from a contemporary point of view the propaganda is almost reversed. The somewhat Byronesque 'evil Jew' is the only interesting character in the film, the 'good Aryans' are all so unbelievably stupid and dull that I clearly sympathized with the Suss character all the time, despite of his 'evil' deeds. And as the subsequent discussion in the cinema showed, I was not in the minority. That the film certainly had quite another impact in Nazi Germany is a different matter, but that Antonioni , especially as an 'outsider', might have found something interesting in it doesn't surprise me very much. You'd hate to hear it, but it IS a very well-made and stylish film. That doesn't make me forget its unforgivable intentions and its perversity, but that's simply a different approach and level of discussion. On the other hand, I found "Kolberg" utterly boring and badly constructed. The worst thing is that any actual discussion of these films is almost impossible due to the fact that they are only allowed to be shown on these special occasions. Like it or not, it only adds to their mystique for those who have never seen them, and THAT I find really unfortunate.

lubitsch wrote:

. And if Visconti, Pasolini, Rossellini, Bertolucci or Cavani tackle fascism it degenerates into sexual perversion showing an impressive lack of political vision.

Agreed for all of them apart from Pasolini. I can't repeat all that was said in the CC "Sal�" thread, but in my view sexual perversion is clearly NOT what is in the centre of that film. And if there's one director whose political vision was razor-sharp, I can't think of anyone else than Pasolini.

lubitsch wrote:

I'd love it if we could put together once an international congress where every country sends a team of 10-20 film historians which present a detailed list of the films they think are important ones and then these films are seen by all other teams and finally there's a big final discussion and everything is beautiful and if they all haven't died they live forever ... seriously I'd love to start from the scratch instead of having the baggage of old ideas and concepts

In our own limited and non-scholarly way, I think this is the main reason for the criterionforum.org list threads. I learned a lot from individual members defending their favourites and the final assembly of those lists, though I never actively participated in the voting.