Antoine Doinel wrote:
I know, I know --- actually, I caught up with Canterbury Tale two weeks ago (thought it was good, but ultimately pretty slight)
I can't really follow you here. "Canterbury" for me is, if not the 'deepest', then at least the most multi-layered and complex of all their films. The plot itself may be somewhat whimsical or at least 'strange', but there is so much in there: the problem of American-British relations and cultural (mis-)understandings, handled much less didactically than in AMOLAD; the question of tradition and in which way to preserve it (or not); the role of women and the exploration of alternative lifestyles (see the Prudence Honeywood character), the question of 'What is Englishness' and so on and so on.... The greatest thing about the film is that it never breaks down under the load of these musings and that all these themes come to together in such an effortless way and are thus perhaps not as apparent on a first viewing as they become on subsequent viewings. Not to speak of the images themselves and of the magnificent acting by everyone involved, but particularly by Eric Portman and John Sweet. Oh, and it's also a great film about filmmaking, in a metaphorical way; the (manipulative) power of images. Probably my favourite P&P film, despite the Red Shoes ballet. But I admit that, like IKWIG, I had to watch it twice before I really, really began to appreciate and love it.
I tend to agree with you about "Edge of the World", though the beauty of its images again didn't let me worry about the melodrama too much (after all, I also like Arnold Fanck's films, and somehow "Edge of the World" strangely reminded me of them in places). I sometimes think I must be the only person here who actually enjoyed "Age of Consent", but then, I didn't expect it to be a great film in the first place and, with that frame of mind, found it quite amusing and, as usual, visually striking. But it's a trifle, for sure, though a lovely one.