|
Intolerance - D.W. Griffith, 1916 Griffith is much better at cinematic technique than he is at moralizing. Here he showcases both. His statements about the indignities caused by "intolerance" are dubious. What precise role intolerance played in the dramatic outcomes of the four stories remains murky to me. It comes off like an overly zealous attempt to put a digestible label on some very complex events and situations. He even shoehorns the term into the intertitles as a way to solidify the point. "Defeated by intolerance..." etc. Maybe instead of Intolerance the film should be titled Bad People Doing Bad Things. But forget all that. Here's the good news. Griffith's simplistic moral statements are far, FAR outweighed by the absolutely KILLER cinematic skill on display. Not only is showing the four separate stories a really great idea, but the whole thing is a technical marvel. The word "epic" is used a lot to describe this movie, but only when you see it will you understand just how accurate the term is. This film has production design that would be the envy of every modern big budget Hollywood film. The Babylon segments are an absolute spectacle of detailed, gargantuan-scaled art design. And the battle sequences would make Peter Jackson drool. It's exhilarating and incredibly entertaining. While it does have Griffith's trademark simplistic themes, it doesn't live or die by them. It succeeds by its ludicrously ambitious scale perfectly realized. This is the first Griffith film that I can say I really love. 431/1000
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Intolerance - D.W. Griffith, 1916 I love silent cinema, but I find it hard to get through a lot of pre-1920 features. The Birth of a Nation kind of bores me until they get to the Reconstruction half, where it really goes crazy. Intolerance is an exception. Griffith was old-fashioned in his drama methods when the film was made, but the simplicity lets the craft really shine. One thing that is great is that the old fashioned method gives an even better authenticity to the 3/4 of the film that's set in the past. What makes the film astonishing is that everything you see is there. No special effects. If I had to pick the most significant film in the history of cinema, I'd pick this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
A new list I made: “They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?” – The Complete List (Every Film From Every Edition)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:A new list I made: “They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?” – The Complete List (Every Film From Every Edition) You are a monster. But a monster I appreciate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Almost 500 films booted off over a ten year span. I didn't realize there was that much turnover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
weekly font posted:You are a monster. Same. Thanks for making this, Spatulater! e: guessin 2015's STILL is an accidental inclusion Escobarbarian fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
I've been hacking away at this for a couple years now, according to a letterboxd list I'm at 520 of this years, and 562 on your list of every film.  BTW I want more letterboxd friends: https://letterboxd.com/derekw741/ (If you want to feel like you're making progress, cheat by downloading the Excel file and sorting by length, then go to youtube.. Oh hoh, I watched 40 movies today!") Quad fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:Same. Thanks for making this, Spatulater! Yeah, wrong Still. Thanks. I used Letterboxd's import feature. I guess I better go through and check them all  edit: Glad I did. There were a couple more errors. Spatulater bro! fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Almost 500 films booted off over a ten year span. I didn't realize there was that much turnover. And yet there's still amazing films that have never made the list. Also, when the hell did The Devil in Miss Jones make the Top 1000? I didn't realize it had that much critical clout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Quad posted:I've been hacking away at this for a couple years now, according to a letterboxd list I'm at 520 of this years, and 562 on your list of every film. There's a letterboxd thread. Post there! (we all want more friends)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:And yet there's still amazing films that have never made the list. Also, when the hell did The Devil in Miss Jones make the Top 1000? I didn't realize it had that much critical clout. Some are probably ready to tackle a TSPDT ranked 2500 list. That one was ranked 950 in December of 2006 and 877 in March of 2006.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
The Mother and the Whore - Jean Eustache, 1973 Examines the complexities of youthful relationships, namely those that are ostensibly "open". And it does so with lots and lots of talking, mainly by Jean-Pierre Leaud's character. It strikes me as peculiar that these women find his self-enamored loquaciousness so fascinating. I think Leaud is a great actor, but his character got on my nerves. Come to think of it, so did the Veronika character. Aside from her final monologue, she's either listening intently to Alexandre's blathering, or talking about sex. We get it, you like to gently caress. The dynamics between the three characters kept me interested, but looking back on the film, I don't see greatness here. Sure it's more emotionally deep than other French New Wave films I've seen, but it's all still pretty shallow on the whole. Its lengthiness doesn't help things either. I feel pretty middle of the road on this one. 432/1000
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Female Trouble got bumped too These are the main issues I have with the new list, along with Three Colors: Red jumping Three Colors: Blue. Not a fan of that. At a quick count I'm at 277 on the current version of the list with only like 15 of the ones in the 800s. Not sure whether to count Empire or not though. Power of Pecota fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:These are the main issues I have with the new list, along with Three Colors: Red jumping Three Colors: Blue. Not a fan of that. I actually agree with Red > Blue. I feel that Empire counts as a freebie. Go watch the short clip on Youtube and call it done. Nobody on the right side of sanity would sit and watch it in its entirety. Nor should they be expected to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Rose Hobart - Joseph Cornell, 1936 Films that are comprised entirely of a preexisting film are, to me, inherently uninteresting. It can work if it's done in a unique and interesting way, such as with Peter Tscherkassky's Outer Space, which turns its source film into something else entirely. But here with Rose Hobart what we get is basically a silent highlight reel of the actress Rose Hobart from the film East of Borneo with a cha-cha soundtrack and a blue tint. Pretty humdrum. 433/1000
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Ordet - Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955 Films about faith and miracles grip me because I'm anxious to discover which stance the film will take. Are we going to witness a legit act of God? Or will the film end up siding with science/secularism? And so Ordet gripped me. Knowing nothing about Dryer's personal beliefs, the film could have gone either way. I watched with excitement. But as the film progressed, I slowly began to realize that the film's stance on the existence of God/miracles didn't matter. It was the characters' view of faith that mattered. And that's exactly what this movie is - an examination of faith (or lack thereof) of a few specific people. But then there's that ending. On a superficial level it seems pretty obvious that the film is asserting that yes, in fact, miracles are literally real and prayer works for the truly faithful. But I have a suspicion that there's more to it than that. Just like the modern day people of faith must justify and interpret the miraculous events of the scriptures, so too must viewers of this film consider the possibility that what we experienced isn't to be taken at face value. 434/1000 (top 50 complete)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Los Olvidados - Luis Buñuel, 1950 Buñuel's no nonsense style of filmmaking is indescribably refreshing. He's concerned with one thing and one thing only: making his point. Not sugar coating, not presenting silver linings, not sentimentalizing so the audience leaves with a smile on their faces. Whether his films are brimmed with satire or presented relatively straight-faced, he has important things to say and he says them with little regard for any sensibilities he may offend. In Los Olvidados, Buñuel's approach is one of realism, though there are a couple scenes where his surrealistic tendencies show themselves. It's also darkly playful, just like one would expect from him. Some of the exaggeratedly destitute situations reminded me of Land Without Bread. For example, the children's carousel being manually turned by other children. It's so absurd that it's almost humorous. But this isn't a funny movie. On the contrary. It's an extraordinarily bleak movie, actually. In fact the ending rather shocked me and left me rattled. Even most other films of this same pedigree, something like Bicycle Thieves for example, don't hit their points with such cold bluntness. Again, this is Buñuel simply not giving a poo poo about handing us any optimism. It's his thing, and he does it quite well. 435/1000
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I saw that in a freshman seminar ~7 years ago, and I'll never forget the way everyone says EL JAIBO. That's an all-time great villain name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Brief Encounter - David Lean, 1945 Movies are filled with romances, so much so that the "love interest" is almost an obligatory addition to any script. I've seen people fall in love on screen hundreds, thousands of times. But only one time until now can I think of that the budding romance between two characters has felt 100% authentic, where the passion and childlike heart-fluttering felt as real as if I were experiencing it myself, where I was filled with excitement as I watched - and that's with Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise. But now there's a second one. Witnessing the love between Johnson and Howard's characters unfold was less like watching a movie and more like listening to a close friend spill their heart to you. You care. You hang on every word. As we bear witness to Laura's mental confession, the conflict of feelings, the guilt, the danger, the confusion, the youthful exuberance - it all hits incredibly deep. The wonderful performances sell it, but it's the air tight script that launches this onto another level of greatness. David Lean's masterfully controlled direction doesn't hurt things either. There's a magnificent moment near the end where the camera suddenly rotates by about 20 degrees. It occurs just as a character nearly decides to do something incredibly foolish. As reason re-enters the character's mind, the camera straightens out again. It's a brilliantly effective way to convey a sudden mental lapse. This is a special movie. It's simple, real, gripping and kind of exhilarating. I want - need - to see it again very soon. It's only been a short time since I watched it, but I'm certain that I'm truly, madly in love with it. 436/1000
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Brief Encounter - David Lean, 1945 The more I think about Dr. Zhivago the more I feel the same. Lean was just a baller
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Knocked out a few shorts today. The House Is Black - Forugh Farrokhzad, 1963 drat. This really makes me feel bad for all the times I bitch and complain about my cushy life. These people are literally falling apart, yet they praise god for all the wonderful things he's done for them. They go to school, they work, they play games. They're not happy, just resigned. They cling to their religion and their faith. The film forces us to consider the irony of being thankful to a god that is either causing, or failing to cure, the misery of these lives. In this reality full of such pain and misery, is the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god even logical? Listen to Britain - Humphrey Jennings, Stewart McAllister, 1942 Well shot, but entirely without context or purpose for me. Hooray for Britain, I guess? Tale of Tales - Yuriy Norshteyn, 1979 It's always exciting for me when I get to see a type of animation that I've never seen before. This is highly imaginative, creative, strange stuff. It's a mixed media type of animation. I really dig it. The story is told abstractly so I'm not entirely sure I understand what I saw. But the film nevertheless hit me emotionally. I think the beautiful, pensive music did a lot of the work. This is a beautiful film. 439/1000
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
I didn't like The House is Black at all. Despite being well intentioned, it seemed like it was more interested in presenting the disabilities in a kind of objectifying way instead of presenting these disabled people as people. One of my documentary books has a chapter on Listen to Britain. If I ever find time I could try scanning it and making a pdf for you. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I didn't like The House is Black at all. Despite being well intentioned, it seemed like it was more interested in presenting the disabilities in a kind of objectifying way instead of presenting these disabled people as people. I saw it as these particular people being a symbol for all pain and suffering. So the lack of focus on them as people didn't bother me. The point seemed to be more of a universal one. Raxivace posted:One of my documentary books has a chapter on Listen to Britain. If I ever find time I could try scanning it and making a pdf for you. That'd be cool. It does seem like a film that needs some supplemental explanation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
I was having trouble making scans look like anything other than poo poo, but it looks like the whole chapter is on Google Books anyways. Amusingly, there is also a chapter on Blood of the Beast called "It Was An Atrocious Film".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:I actually agree with Red > Blue. I saw Jonas Mekas speak a couple weeks ago at a screening of Walden and he brought up Empire. After helping Warhol make it he traveled to Vienna, Germany where a screening was to be held. And he saw a big audience go in to the film. A few hours later he comes back and everybody is still there. He looks in again right before the film ends and not a single person has left. They stayed through the entire film. He was amazed and didn't understand it - and he filmed the thing. Turns out, a local newspaper had promised free travel to the United States for anybody who sat through the entire film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
A part of me is annoyed that Empire is on the list. It was a novel experiment, but it's not a film. I think the "greatness" of these films should be about what the viewer takes away from them by viewing them, not merely their concept.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
I don't know if you have archives but I made a Movie of the Month thread for Empire last year, largely as a lark but also because I really do find it fascinating.Me posted:Empire was a film that was always waiting to be made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
I was at the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh last week, and they had a catalogue of all of his films that you could just pick and choose to watch. I don't think I made it through a minute of Empire. I fast forwarded it a bit, then a bit again, then another bit, then turned it off. They were also airing Blow Job on a part of a wall, and I thought it was a 2-minute short because it seems to loop. I didn't realize it was 35-minutes!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
What's funny about the Warhol Museum is that every day except Friday its hours are only from 10-5, so on typical days you wouldn't even have enough time to get through all of Empire. The Red Balloon - Albert Lamorisse, 1956 The stark contrast of the vibrant red balloon against the backdrop of the drab grey streets of 1950s Paris is a strikingly poignant visual. The story of the animate balloon taking on a pet-like role to a young boy is a joy to watch. The film does a wonderful job conveying that childhood innocence and wonder that we all sorely miss. But what I love most about this is the "performance" of sentient balloon itself. Try as I might, I couldn't figure out how they achieved the clever effect. And frankly I don't want to know. It's pure magic, very fitting for a film such as this. 440/1000
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Red Balloon is adorable and looks amazing. I really like that movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Imagine paying $20 for entry, making a beeline to the screens, and just standing there watching Empire for the entire day. THAT is true dedication to the TSPDT list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Imagine paying $20 for entry, making a beeline to the screens, and just standing there watching Empire for the entire day. At least in the home you can watch it at 1.5x speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:At least in the home you can watch it at 1.5x speed. Who do I look like, FFD?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Children of Paradise - Marcel Carné, 1945 I just don't get it. I hear people talk about great movies all the time. We all know them. Casablanca. The Wizard of Oz. Gone with the Wind. The Godfather. Why, WHY isn't Children of Paradise regularly included in this common cinematic vernacular? This is a capital G Great movie. And not just great from a cinephile's perspective, but it's by all rights a crowd pleaser, a film that should be a household name. My best guess is because it's in French. Very unfortunate. It's a supremely romantic film, though the idea of mutual love is presented as an ever elusive goal. It frames the concept of love in a very grounded, almost uncomfortably realistic way. Maybe we'd give up everything we have for something else that we long for deep down. It makes us care. We care about who ends up loving who. We care about the outcomes of these characters. We cheer some on, we boo others, but we thoroughly understand everybody. The impeccable writing ensures this. In his introduction to the film on the Criterin disc, Terry Gilliam points out how rare it is to see a big budget studio film that's also a poetic work of art. I couldn't agree more. It's impressive in scope, but also stunning in its measured tone and nuances. It's rythmic and calculated, perfectly paced and ingeniously crafted. It's both a technical marvel and an intimate character examination. I can't think of a single thing wrong with this movie. It's flawless. If only us Americans didn't have to read subtitles, this might be the most talked about classic of all time. 441/1000
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Nashville - Robert Altman, 1975 A whirling mosaic of characters, songs, relationships, desires and tragedies. The individual stories are brief but compelling, the characters are genuinely interesting, the satire is sharp, and there are some really funny moments. What I loved most about this is the quick, overlapping dialogue for which Altman is famous. There are lots of quick little lines that are easy to miss but add so much personality to the film. I dislike country music but I can't deny how enjoyable some of the tunes are. I think what does it is the authenticity with which it's all presented. I've never lived in Nashville, but I grew up in Branson Missouri so I know a thing or two about stagy country western cheese. And this film knows its poo poo. Everything rings true. I have one complaint: the film needed more Jeff Goldblum. 442/1000
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Nashville - Robert Altman, 1975 Are you a Shoji Tabuchi fan?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Are you a Shoji Tabuchi fan? No. But I've seen his show and it was probably the least cringey of all of them. Also the theater's bathroom has a pool table in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Nashville - Robert Altman, 1975 Hard to argue with more Goldblum usually but I think it's better to preserve the mystique of tricycle motorcycle guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Looking at Goldblum's filmography, his first role was in Death Wish where his official credit is "Freak #1". Somehow that seems so appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Looking at Goldblum's filmography, his first role was in Death Wish where his official credit is "Freak #1". Somehow that seems so appropriate. If you go back and watch Death Wish, Goldblum stood out amongst the other randoms even in that small role. Another smallish role where he's one of the best things about the movie is Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
