criterionforum.org

I can't imagine trying to rank them, but I believe there's a "greatest male performances" thread lying around somewhere.

In the Other Lists subforum, several of us listed our Best Male Performances after that ridiculous list was published. Just post in there, really

EDIT: Dude, you're the one who started that thread too [-X

Yeah, I just noticed that. Maybe clean it up, leave it open for everyone to pick their own fifty? Either way, I can't see myself ranking something like acting performances. Too messy and subjective. Not always dependent on the quality of the actual film. So on and on...

Reminder that the Noir Lists are due Monday night, but technically I won't be tallying until after 5PM EST on Tuesday, if you want to press it. I will post the list and make a new thread for the next List Project, Westerns, at that time, with all the details. Thnx

Too much overlap between noir and crime films? I would LOVE to do a crime/gangster project. Sure you get some classic-period noir overlap, but there are enough sub-genres in there that it could be really fascinating: mob films, heist films, true crime films, prison movies, procedurals, legal dramas, weird genre benders like Fargo.

My noir project participation was really limited by a busy six months of life. I only got in a good twenty or so viewings, and obviously didn't put in a list out of respect for the project.

I know it'll be some months away, but my own vote is for a Horror list project once we finish up the Westerns.

After the downbeat genres of noir and western I'd rather something lighter like musicals, but given that the next list won't end until around October horror might be a better fit.

I'm keen on horror too, but I agree we need to have a break from guys' genres, so my vote's for musicals as well.

Musicals would be my pick too, but as always, it's up for discussion. We got plenty of time to figure out as a board what comes next

I prefer Horror as a genre, but as Matt said way back we do kind of need a breather after the one two gun shot of noir and westerns. So musicals for me.

Musicals might be a stretch for me to produce a list of 50: I love all the thirties stuff, no matter how corny, but most of them from the mid 50s on leave me rather cold.
But it may mean the equivalent of getting time off for good behaviour!

Musicals would be so much fun because there are SO MANY under-seen/under-discussed gems out there that maybe I could actually start convincing board members to seek out and talk about stuff like Quine's My Sister Eileen, Daddy Long Legs, &c. My period of discovering and devouring Hollywood musicals was undoubtedly the high point of my entire career of film viewership-- it's the most uniquely cinematic of cinematic art forms!

domino harvey wrote:Musicals would be so much fun because there are SO MANY under-seen/under-discussed gems out there that maybe I could actually start convincing board members to seek out and talk about stuff like Quine's My Sister Eileen, Daddy Long Legs, &c. My period of discovering and devouring Hollywood musicals was undoubtedly the high point of my entire career of film viewership-- it's the most uniquely cinematic of cinematic art forms!

well, after 'Pushover', I definitely want to check out more Quine: I think it might be the only movie of his I've seen.
Although I'm not so keen on late period Fred.

But I will admit to loving Herbert Ross' 'Pennies from Heaven', so not all modern musicals are busts.

You know I be mentionin' Dr. Horrible up in here.

Yojimbo wrote:Musicals might be a stretch for me to produce a list of 50: I love all the thirties stuff, no matter how corny, but most of them from the mid 50s on leave me rather cold.
But it may mean the equivalent of getting time off for good behaviour!

Not even the muppet cabaret?

Incidentally is it wrong that I consider that movie a musical and not A Star is Born.

knives wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:Musicals might be a stretch for me to produce a list of 50: I love all the thirties stuff, no matter how corny, but most of them from the mid 50s on leave me rather cold.
But it may mean the equivalent of getting time off for good behaviour!

Not even the muppet cabaret?

Do Waldorf and Statler get to do a duet?

No, but the Beaker and Bunsen romance is rather amazing.

Yojimbo wrote:But I will admit to loving Herbert Ross' 'Pennies from Heaven', so not all modern musicals are busts.

I've never bothered to track down the Hollywood remake, because it just sounds so redundant and wrong-headed, but the original will get highly placed on my list. One of the great extrapolations of the musical form and also a fantastic commentary on the genre and its function.

zedz wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:But I will admit to loving Herbert Ross' 'Pennies from Heaven', so not all modern musicals are busts.

I've never bothered to track down the Hollywood remake, because it just sounds so redundant and wrong-headed, but the original will get highly placed on my list. One of the great extrapolations of the musical form and also a fantastic commentary on the genre and its function.

The British original was a tv series, zedz; I've actually got the tv series box-set for a few years now but still haven't gotten around to watching it yet
(I also have a vinyl lp of songs from the series)

Neverthless I'll be voting for it, unless mini-series are ruled ineligible for this arm of the Lists Project. I'm pretty sure I voted for Pennies from Heaven in the 70s list (unless Casanova took my Potter preference that go-round).

zedz wrote:Neverthless I'll be voting for it, unless mini-series are ruled ineligible for this arm of the Lists Project. I'm pretty sure I voted for Pennies from Heaven in the 70s list (unless Casanova took my Potter preference that go-round).

Perhaps I'll get to watch the DVD set in time, if it helps push me 'over the line' with 50 musicals

The remake is worth it just for the musical numbers. I'm not sure about how well the film translates Potter; it all feels very rushed, like it could have used an extra thirty minutes or so, and no, it doesn't step to far beyond the original in terms of narrative; but the numbers are all really top notch.

My only gripe with the original is still the "shot-on-video" look of that TV era. It's ridiculous how much more free and spontaneous the numbers shot on film in the last episode - especially "Pick Yourself Up" - feel compared to what came before.

But this is a conversation that should wait.

Cold Bishop wrote:The remake is worth it just for the musical numbers. I'm not sure about how well the film translates Potter; it all feels very rushed, like it could have used an extra thirty minutes or so, and no, it doesn't step to far beyond the original in terms of narrative; but the numbers are all really top notch.

My only gripe with the original is still the "shot-on-video" look of that TV era. It's ridiculous how much more free and spontaneous the numbers shot on film in the last episode - especially "Pick Yourself Up" - feel compared to what came before.

But this is a conversation that should wait.

I think it might have been Steve Martin's best performance, perhaps just ahead of 'The Man with Two Brains', of his dedicated comedy films.

Don't hesitate, Yojimbo - the mini-series is grim viewing but utterly addictive, crammed full of world-class acting, great songs, witty low-budget dance numbers, and dialogue so bleak it will turn your hair grey. There's a scene in the second or third episode where Freddie Jones, as the tyrannical headmaster, explains to a young teacher why he is so cruel to the children: it's so as not to give them any false hopes about the world in which they're about to suffer out their lives. It's really just a very long, very great film about the ways in which we lie to ourselves in a vain effort to make life seem bearable, and it's telling that the headmaster doesn't get a song (if I remember rightly; it's been a while). The songs express the deepest, most idealised yearnings of the characters, but are in stark contrast with the sordid tragedies that punctuate their lives. Time and again Potter situates the songs in a context that insistently draws out their bleakness.

The effect of having the actors mime along to original recordings, rather than actually sing (as I think they do in the film?), is to add an extra layer of aching poignancy to the proceedings, because we're always hearing these delicate, quivering voices from the distant past, and theyr're the voices of the characters' souls: buried deep inside them and inaudible to the other characters, a fascinating comment on the artificiality of musicals. But it also retroactively makes those old songs and musicals seem like 'pennies from heaven' in the most degraded, despairing sense - scraps of love, beauty and happiness thrown to us by an ultimately malignant fate, just to keep us clinging on a bit longer, papering over the horror of life with a veneer of melodious gaiety. It's both a very earnest celebration of the genre (the songs are all great) and a scathing critique of it. I guess a lot of this must be true of the film as well, but the great joy of the series is getting to know the characters over a long space of time - you really invest in their fates. And of course, there must be fewer songs in the film, which can't be good. And no Bob Hoskins; also not good.

EDIT: Cold Bishop, that cheap made-for-TV look of the original is one of the things I love most about it, perhaps because I'm fond of that era of British television in comparison to the glossy pseudo-filmic look everything has now. It's not just that, though - the rough and ready quality of the dance numbers is absolutely central to the series' purpose. (Glee might actually be a series worth taking seriously if it de-glossed itself a little, though I guess its ratings would plummet...)

Anyway, the last couple of comments do make me want to see the film more; I look forward to the (eventual) real discussion.