1990s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 2)

[colinr0380]

On whether the characters in Titus are easily separated into 'good' and 'evil', I liked the interpretation Taymor gives in the commentary and Q&A that Titus and Tamora are on opposite trajectories through the film (Everyone else are just pawns in the conflict between them)

Tamora begins as a defeated and captured Goth, has her eldest son sacrificed by Titus to appease his Gods (as she cries out "cruel, irreligious piety" - you are sacrificing my son in the name of your religious ritual?). Then when luck turns in her favour she takes the opportunity presented for revenge and is cosumed completely by it, turning herself and her sons into grotesque parodies of vengeance.

Titus starts as an armoured figure, victorious and someone who always follows the rules and thinks nothing of sacrificing sons "for the greater good", in war or for a perceived slight against his king (as when he kills one of his sons after Bassianus steals Lavinia away from her proposed marriage to Saturninus, who then turns his lustful attentions fatefully onto Tamora). He is then used and abused by those to whom he swore his allegiance, so his sacrifices were all in vain - there is the suggestion that this loss of his role and reputation is what drives him mad rather than losing family members or even his hand - they are small sacrifices, made willingly. However as he is destroyed (and has his sons condemned, his daughter ravished and mutilates himself in an attempt to restore his reputation and save his son's lives), he becomes more human and more able to warmly relate to the other members of his family. However he is just as much driven by vengeance as Tamora, and will be just as much destroyed by it.

In some senses could Titus be seen as more responsible? After all he was the military man who got his sons killed. It was his rigid approach to duty and blindness to the situation that was unfolding that allowed things to get so out of hand. His 'madness' also seems more calculated to appear convincing but feels like an illusion that will be quickly dropped (as in the turn on a dime he does with the boys once Tamora leaves, as talked about above), whereas Tamora seems more together on the surface but the final desperate appearance in costume with her sons suggests she is driven by a single minded mad revenge that overrides any common sense. It is just an extrapolation from earlier events. After all she was in an extremely powerful position once she married Saturninus - why would she need to pursue revenge against Titus when he was losing favour and influence anyway, unless she were driven by stronger urges for revenge?

I find the final Lucius speech deeply ironic in that Tamora is talked of as being the vicious, calculating, heartless bitch who 'deserved' her fate (while she was mainly wanting revenge for the death of her son and deeply loved her other two sons - perhaps too deeply), while Titus is portrayed as the noble character upholding his honour (who had a rather cold relationship with his family, even when 'insane', and who would rather kill his sullied daughter to put her out of her misery than come to terms with her new condition).

Because of that frustration with the two sides occupying the middle ground with little to choose between them, I think the audience ends up polarised at extremes. They initally get pushed to the easier nihilism of sympathising with Aaron and his 'plague on both your houses' Yojimbo-style point of view. But then beyond that you have the hope for something different from the future generations - will they continue the conflict or be able to move beyond reprisals and manipulations towards the possibility of a bloodless future? It may be a long (maybe even three minute) walk through the darkness to reach that goal, but that makes the eventual appearance of the rays of the sun more of a hopeful sign.

Or to put it another way at the end the rest of the play's characters remain trapped in the cycle of violence, willfully ignoring the implications of their acts or whether their actions could be seen as wrong by people with other points of view. Lucius's final summing up speech just shows how little they have all learnt (history as written by the victor). However the boy and the baby are like the audience in that they've been witness to all the violence of the play but are able to 'Exeunt' from the story into the outside world with the knowledge of what they have experienced to mull over and maybe affect the decisions they take in the future in the 'real world'.

[Sloper]

I must ask, Sloper, what did you think of Almereyda's version of Hamlet? I'll guiltily admit that I enjoyed a fair portion of it. Enough to own the disc, actually.

Haven’t seen the Almereyda Hamlet; I keep meaning to get it out (it’s in the library at Warwick) but I guess I’m a little sceptical about it, though I shouldn’t be. Everyone I talk to who’s seen it quite likes it, but not all that much...

I’ve seen some good stage Hamlets, including a great little shoestring production of the very short ‘first draft’ quarto version. The best one, though, was two hours long, played as one continuous scene, set in a nightclub, with both Horatio and the dead king as ghosts in Hamlet’s head (played by a fat guy at a piano, present throughout). It began with Claudius singing ‘He ain’t heavy, he was my brother’. Ophelia choked to death on tape (cassettes representing Hamlet’s love letters) and the whole thing ended with Hamlet sitting in an armchair in complete silence for about two minutes. Sounds terrible but it worked. (Calixto Bieito was the director, and went on to direct something called Celestina, one of the worst things I’ve ever seen at the theatre.) The best filmed Hamlet I’ve seen is the BBC version with Derek Jacobi and Patrick Stewart – just four hours of great acting. Bliss.

Colin – that’s a very cogent analysis of the play, very well expressed. You’re absolutely right about Titus and Tamora both destroying themselves with revenge, and that does seem like a valid ‘explanation’ of the disguise scene. I also agree about Titus becoming more human as he realises the futility of his stoicism and of his service to the state. I remember Hopkins being very moving as he promises Saturninus to resolve the conflict over Lavinia, and Saturninus just shuts the door in his face.

However, mostly it feels like you’re talking about the play rather than the film itself. For instance, I didn’t get much of a sense that Lange’s Tamora was driven mad by revenge. She seemed quite lucid, even in the disguise scene. If she were frothing at the mouth a bit, then it might all have been more convincing, but she came across to me (and it’s a while since I saw the film) as a very cold, obviously ‘evil’ villainess. The example of Calixto Bieito shows that experimental, ‘modernised’ productions can succeed or fail, regardless of how well thought out they are, if the approach isn’t suited to the source, or if the talent can’t rise to the occasion. I’m sure Taymor had a coherent interpretation of the play in mind (Jonathan Bate, who edited the Arden edition of Titus, says he worked on the film, though what his input was I don’t know) but these things either work in the execution or they don’t, and the film seems to me to have been compromised by a desire to emulate Luhrmann’s R&J and achieve a similar success. I’d be interested to hear Taymor’s commentary, but whatever her true feelings about the moral dimensions of Shakespeare’s characters, the end result is cartoonish and inhuman.

Welles had a particular idea about how to characterise Falstaff (as the most ‘truly good man’ in all literature), and extensively altered the plays in order to make the character more sympathetic and innocent. The thought and effort he put into this process is extraordinary, and his textual transpositions often really ingenious. But the Falstaff in Chimes at Midnight is anything but an idealised character, thanks to Welles’s own brilliantly ambiguous, insecure performance, and to the performances of the other actors, and the editing, photography, etc, etc, which ultimately count for more than his ‘interpretation’ as the screenwriter. Whether its ideology makes sense or not, drama has to work in the moment when it occurs. Titus works for lots of people - everyone I know who’s seen it loves it – and as a student I’d be happy to analyse the hell out of it, but dramatically I find it to be a dead duck, covered in fireworks.

[foggy eyes]

Beautiful write-up of US Go Home, zedz. I have very little to add, except that it was interesting to see this after watching Assayas' L'Eau froide recently - both films share the same baseline material, similar themes and an extended party sequence backed by "wall-to-wall" pop music (best bit of L'Eau froide: the Nico-scored arcing tracking shot that frames the non-events of the morning after as an extended Garrel homage). The major difference is probably that Denis constantly foregrounds the here-and-now rather than the fleetingness of time and concrete experience - Martine's habit of affectedly requesting yet only half-finishing cigarettes is one great (gestural) example of many. I thought Gregoire Colin's bedroom boogie-woogie (captured in one uninterrupted take) was magnificent - even more so than Lavant's in Beau travail!

[roujin]

I should see US Go Home. I enjoyed Nenette et Boni a lot but I found some of it to be vague. The ending (although totally improbable--if it even does happen) is pretty charming and generally colors the reaction of the film more than it should. One of my favorite parts of the film is Gregoire Colin pacing around his bedroom, reading aloud his sexual fantasies. I just sort of went, "exactly!" ( ). It's currently my least favorite (out of the 4 I've seen from Denis) but I can see it growing in stature with rewatches.

[domino harvey]

Speaking of Shakespeare, my (perhaps only) favorite Shakespeare adaptation is eligible, 1998's Ian Holm-helmed King Lear.

[Sloper]

I dimly remember that one - very claustrophobic sets, cube-shaped rooms with bare walls, painted in stark colours. It seemed a bit prosaic when they suddenly found themselves out on the moor, in the rain. But what I mainly remember is how good Ian Holm was; the film was based on an RSC production which, I think, marked Holm's return to the theatre after twenty years of chronic stage-fright.

[Camera Obscura]

Lists.

Some impressions:

Lars von Trier's Riget/ The Kingdom (1994-97) is a probable candidate for my top position (It is eligible, is it?) I first watched it on a friday afternoon (!) on Dutch television (the VPRO) and it floored me. I cannot imagine a '90s list without it.

White Men Can't Jump (1992). Watched it so many times, and it just never bores for one minute - endlessly entertaining. Hands down the best sports film ever made.

Alexandre Rockwell's monochrome little indie In the Soup (1992) was quite a revelation for me. It's not just another hip sub-Jarmusch tale of some disgruntled indie-filmmaker (Steve Buscemi's character in the film that is). Plenty of laughs, but there's much more on offer, Seymour Cassel's magnificent performance to start with. His best role to date as far I'm concerned, with of without Cassavetes.

Olivier Assayas' love letter to Maggie Cheung and Hong Kong Cinema, Irma Vep (1995) is wonderfully delirious ride. And Lou Castel's eccentric appearance as the other madman genius director is just the icing on the cake.

With the exception of The Kingdom, I gather my list will be pretty much horror-free, but Candyman (1992) I must include. A clever, extraordinarily well made, well paced film, with great performances and some scenes still drive me right up the wall, even after all those years.

Did a little Chabrol-marathon lately, but I'm pretty sure none will make it to my '90s list. Betty (1992), L'Enfer (1994), Rien ne va plus (1997) are decent enough, although at this point I haven't seen La Cérémonie. I'm gonna catch that one, before ruling out Chabrol entirely (for the '90s of course). It's on the top of my list.

Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives (1992), Bullets Over Broadway (1994) or perhaps even Deconstructing Harry (1997) are prime competitors. Deconstructing Harry is not that good actually, but the out-of-focus storyline might be the funniest idea I've seen all year (you can tell, I'm in desparate need of some decent '90s comedies).

I'm ready to give anything Wim Wenders does a chance, but his '90s output is pretty underwhelming compared to his '70s and '80s work. In weiter Ferne, so nah!/ Faraway, so Close! (1993) and The End of Violence (1997) are the only ones worth considering in my book. Until the End of the World (1991) is an absolute disaster, even laughable at times. I just couldn't take it - good soundtrack though.

And from Takeshi Kitano, defintely A Scene at the Sea (1991), probably Sonatine (1993) and Hana-Bi/ Fireworks (1997) and maybe Summer of Kikujiro (1999).

I'm a novice to Patrice Leconte's films, so I picked up the R2UK Second Sight box set. Completely different from his previous work, Ridicule (1996) is a brilliant period piece. It's about the pivotal role of wit in and around the French Court during the last days of the Ancien Regime. It's a witty (naturally) and literate piece and Versailles never looked this "real" in a feature film - it looks lived in. For me, one of the biggest '90s surprises so far. Top 20... Don' miss that one, or don't forget Patrice Leconte.

[Cold Bishop]

Lists.

Some impressions:

Lars von Trier's Riget/ The Kingdom (1994-97) is a probable candidate for my top position (It is eligible, is it?) I first watched it on a friday afternoon (!) on Dutch television (the VPRO) and it floored me. I cannot imagine a '90s list without it.

I'd imagine it would, but the two series would be counted separate.

I'm still have some more "work" to do before I can find the time to start plugging films for this list (there still a few darlings I want to defend from the last one), but my offer on making available A Brighter Summer Day to anyone who wants to see it, and has trouble tracking it down, still stands.

[zedz]

Lars von Trier's Riget/ The Kingdom (1994-97) is a probable candidate for my top position (It is eligible, is it?) I first watched it on a friday afternoon (!) on Dutch television (the VPRO) and it floored me. I cannot imagine a '90s list without it.

I'd imagine it would, but the two series would be counted separate.

This could go either way, since it falls between two of the 'rules':
- television mini-series are eligible and count as a single entity
- two-part films count as a single entity (whereas trilogies count as individual films)

In the interests of encouraging variety and allowing people to not obsess over the relative merits of Riget I and Riget II when they could be watching other films, I'm prepared to declare them joined at the hip - unless anybody feels strongly that this shouldn't be the case. (Only protests from people who actually intend to vote for one or both parts will be entertained!).

If anybody can think of other 'problem cases', bring them up here so they can be thrashed out.

[Der Müde Tod]

In the interests of encouraging variety and allowing people to not obsess over the relative merits of Riget I and Riget II when they could be watching other films, I'm prepared to declare them joined at the hip - unless anybody feels strongly that this shouldn't be the case. (Only protests from people who actually intend to vote for one or both parts will be entertained!).

If anybody can think of other 'problem cases', bring them up here so they can be thrashed out.

To make it harder: If possible, I'd vote for Riget I but not for Riget II. If possible to vote only for the entire kingdom, I'd probably still vote for it on spot 48 or so.

[swo17]

I intend to vote for Riget I, II, and my envisioned version of III as one entire entity.

Now a related issue: I can see the rationale for not combining films that are part of, say, a trilogy when the later films are cash-ins/afterthoughts, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to draw the line based on whether there were two parts vs. three parts when a better distinction might be films that were originally envisioned with an arc to take place over multiple films vs. all other cases. To wit, why is Dekalog considered one film and Three Colors three separate films? Structurally, these two projects seem very similar to me.

[domino harvey]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't all ten parts of the Dekalog were conceived together and aired in quick succession on TV while the three parts of the colors trilogy were released months apart and filmed separate from each other? It's a bit like calling the original Star Wars trilogy one film, isn't it?

[swo17]

Yes, I realize that my suggestion groups the entire Star Wars trilogy, perhaps the entire Star Wars sextology(?) into one.

Though I would add that there is a big difference between releasing each part within a few months of each other, and within a few years (or decades), like Star Wars. Not to mention, there were three years between the two Rigets. And technically fourteen years between the two Ivan the Terribles.

Also, the release dates on IMDb for Dekalog don't all make sense, but suggest that it may have originally aired once a week over a period of a few months.

[knives]

I would, for example, consider the Samurai trilogy as a single entity. I think it has a lot to do with the intent from the beginning. It also should be directed by one person not multiples, taking Star Wars out.

[Murdoch]

I'd say if something was made to be seen as part of a whole (Blue in the Three Colors trilogy, Empire Strikes Back in the Star Wars saga, etc.) then it should be counted as a only a one part of a single entity. But then you have something like Star Wars that stretches across three decades. So I think that for the Lists Project it's best to take release dates into account and how films were shown - such as Berlin Alexanderplatz being aired over a stretch of time and should be counted as one film for the Lists Project, but with the Three Colors films being released over the course of several years they should each be counted separately.

But I don't think you should discount something because it had multiple directors at the helm because how would you vote for something like Chacun son cinéma? Would you only vote for individual segments?

Which leads me to ask: How would you vote for something like Chacun son cinéma?

[knives]

For anthology films I'd consider the shorts as separate entities that fit into a whole idea, sort of like a themed festival. The only exception I see an argument being made for would be something like The Terror where the bits fit into a singular whole, but I doubt that any one will claim The Terror as the best of anything.

[swo17]

but with the Three Colors films being released over the course of several years they should each be counted separately.

Going off IMDb dates here, if you don't count a screening of Blue in Poland in Jan 1993, all three films were released within a nine-month period between Sep 93 and May 94.

[Murdoch]

Over the course of several months then.

Although that does put a damper on my argument, so I'll leave this for greater minds to contemplate.

[swo17]

Well, whatever distinction ends up getting used, it seems like there are going to be several individual cases that constitute gray areas. From a practical standpoint, I think what matters is 1) that all the people who plan to vote for a particular film/series are all agreed, because otherwise, how do you tabulate votes when some people vote for individual films and others vote for the entire thing in one? and 2) combining films from a series frees up more spots for other films, which I think is a good thing. For series released entirely in a given decade, this is relatively straightforward, and I personally would have no qualms about grouping Three Colors, Riget, or, say, Rohmer's Four Seasons. Of course, then you have gray areas like what zedz calls Kiarostami's Chinese box trilogy (probably not even formally a trilogy) which includes one film from the '80s and two from the '90s. Like I said, with any distinction there are going to be some questions that will have to be resolved on a case by case basis. Perhaps the solution is whichever distinction people think will lead to the least questions.

[zedz]

Any of the above approaches is arguable, But I'd rather stick with the inherited rules (not mine!), however arbitrary, than revising then just before the finish line. If there's another iteration after this one, whoever runs it can do an overhaul, if there's enough support for it.

At least the current rules have the virtue of clarity (like the imdb rule - however dumb it gets, I'm grateful it's there). Otherwise we'll have to make individual rulings on far too many different trilogies, and we'd continually come up with examples that straddled decades. Are the first three Star Wars films 70s or 80s? Or examples that are forced to encompass wildly different levels of achievement. Does anybody here want to seriously argue for the three Godfathers as a single coherent entity? "Oh, but that's different!" you may well cry, but is it really? Just because Lucas claimed to have his decline planned all along doesn't mean we should believe him.

Also, even with Three Colours, I'd certainly rank the three films very differently, and the 'trilogy' aspect of them is one of its least convincing aspects. We also run into the quagmire of trilogies invented by critics (e.g. Antonioni's) or imposed as a directorial afterthought (or subject to directorial flip-flopping, like Bergman). And what of Kiarostami's occasional claim that the interrelated Koker films are not a trilogy but the odd-one-out grouping of And Life Goes On, Through the Olive Trees and Taste of Cherry is?

On the Riget issue, since we've got at least one indication that a voter will want to split the difference, I think we should go with them as separate entities.

I don't know if it was ever official, but episodes from portmanteau films have tended to be voted for individually. We had individual votes for Antoine et Colette and La Ricotta in the sixties, and I remember voting for Erice's Lifelines in the noughties (I think The Hand was also singled out). I'm assuming, again on the I-don't-need-another-headache principle, that this doesn't apply for episodic films from a single director, so no lobbying for your favourite section of Mystery Train or Asylum.

[swo17]

At least the current rules have the virtue of clarity (like the imdb rule - however dumb it gets, I'm grateful it's there).

At the risk of contradicting everything I've said previously, what about this to resolve all future disputes: if IMDb combines it, then it's one movie; otherwise, no. Then we have:

Berlin Alexanderplatz: 1 release
Dekalog: 1 release
Three Colors: 3 releases
Riget: 2 releases
Chacun son cinema: 1 release
Ivan the Terrible: 2 releases
and so on...

[domino harvey]

Otherwise known as the common sense approach

[Yojimbo]

At least the current rules have the virtue of clarity (like the imdb rule - however dumb it gets, I'm grateful it's there).

At the risk of contradicting everything I've said previously, what about this to resolve all future disputes: if IMDb combines it, then it's one movie; otherwise, no. Then we have:

Berlin Alexanderplatz: 1 release
Dekalog: 1 release
Three Colors: 3 releases
Riget: 2 releases
Chacun son cinema: 1 release
Ivan the Terrible: 2 releases
and so on...

for aesthetic reasons, and my own personal preferences, I've always like to regard Ivan the Terrible, 1 and 2 as being two distinct films; Part 2 being far superior, IMO

[zedz]

At least the current rules have the virtue of clarity (like the imdb rule - however dumb it gets, I'm grateful it's there).

At the risk of contradicting everything I've said previously, what about this to resolve all future disputes: if IMDb combines it, then it's one movie; otherwise, no. Then we have:

Berlin Alexanderplatz: 1 release
Dekalog: 1 release
Three Colors: 3 releases
Riget: 2 releases
Chacun son cinema: 1 release
Ivan the Terrible: 2 releases
and so on...

This makes sense to me - except for the breaking up of portmanteau films, which I think should remain an option. As far as I can remember, nobody has voted for something like Rogopag or Eros in their entirety, but plenty of people have voted for individual components of them. Also, imdb is completely inconsistent in this respect (e.g. Antoine et Colette is listed individually but La Ricotta is not; Terayama'sGrass Labyrinth gets its own entry but Borowczyk's L'Armoire, from the same film, doesn't).

The only other casualty will be a handful of two-parters (e.g. Ivan - but this is already problematic, as noted, and it straddles decades). The few genuinely problematic two-part films I've looked up (films shot as one and distributed as two - e.g. Bernard's Les Miserables and Shimizu's Four Seasons of Children) seem to be agglomerated by imdb anyway - at the moment. I can't think of any problem cases in the 80s and 90s (i.e. genuine two part films that hardly anybody would want to evaluate separately) to 'test' on imdb - any suggestions?

[knives]

Ditto on Ivan being two, with two being better.