|
fenix down posted:I agree with penismightier's assessment of Unforgiven, but I do have one minor gripe. Some of the greatest westerns of the past came out of a time when the genre was popular, so you can cherry pick the good ones from a wide selection and compare them to today when they are few and far between. In my opinion the standouts are great films that just happen to be framed against a western backdrop. And I think the reason that there won't be a western revival any time in the foreseeable future is that America doesn't think about America---and Hollywood doesn't think about Hollywood---the same way anymore. And not just in the sense that we don't believe in the particular mythology embodied in the studio era western but, and I think this is what penismightier was talking about earlier, because we don't think in terms of grand mythologies anymore. Now even when we think of comic book heroes and villains---the apotheosis of classic American reductionist thought---we insist on seeing complexity and confounding moral ambiguity. The earnest simplicity of the mythology of the western just can't play to audiences who think the loving Joker belongs in the pantheon of deeply nuanced dramatis personæ.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
penismightier posted:It feels pointlessly nihilistic. Dark for dark's sake turns me off. It's too easy. If you re-edited the film with a minimal score and just let the characters be by themselves when they're under a bunch of sky walking from one end of the frame to the other, or when they're sweating or bleeding or planning murder, and so it had more of a documentary and less of an indie music video feel, it would be a much better film. Of course I might just be saying this because I think I'd watch eight reels of Ray Winstone reading the ingredient lists off of cereal boxes. I also dig that John Hurt has reached that age, which almost all English actors seem to reach, when they'll appear in anything, and act the everloving gently caress out of even the smallest, most forgettable, most inconsequentially-written roles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
SubG posted:And I think the reason that there won't be a western revival any time in the foreseeable future is that America doesn't think about America---and Hollywood doesn't think about Hollywood---the same way anymore. And not just in the sense that we don't believe in the particular mythology embodied in the studio era western but, and I think this is what penismightier was talking about earlier, because we don't think in terms of grand mythologies anymore. Now even when we think of comic book heroes and villains---the apotheosis of classic American reductionist thought---we insist on seeing complexity and confounding moral ambiguity. The earnest simplicity of the mythology of the western just can't play to audiences who think the loving Joker belongs in the pantheon of deeply nuanced dramatis personæ. Yeah, this is pretty close to what I mean. This is why I've been dying to see a good Superman movie, and this is why more and more I like direct-to-video action movies like the Undisputed series - that's the last refuge of earnest heroism. I hate to talk about "good role models," but they hardly exist in action/adventure fiction anymore. You don't need to look any farther than Batman, who's always been dark, but has totally gone over the edge. Nolan's films are groping towards an anti-vigilante statement but I'll tell you right now it's gonna be too little too late. The hero/anti-hero pendulum has swung to cartoonishly dark, and somehow it's mistaken for profundity. That's what I was saying about The Proposition, too. It's just a hateful little prick of a movie. It's like a child who hides his fears underneath meanness. I'm uncomfortable making pleas to morality, so instead I'll make one to maturity: It's a childish trend. In twenty years Bale's Batman growl is going to be as ridiculous as Adam West's potbelly. And unlike West, Bale doesn't even have comedy as an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
penismightier posted:That's what I was saying about The Proposition, too. It's just a hateful little prick of a movie. Of course, that also describes just about all of Cave's musical output pre-The Boatman's Call in 1997. I don't agree with your opinion of The Proposition being dark for the sake of dark (I haven't watched it in about eight or nine months, but I remember my initial reaction being that everyone was such a sack of poo poo because they simply had no other choice in the 1880s Outback). It's definitely nasty, though, and it makes me wonder if, like Murder Ballads, it was something that Cave just needed to get out of his system. I'm glad Hillcoat's adaptation of The Death of Bunny Munro fell through, though. That book is just a complete clusterfuck of  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Yeah, this is pretty close to what I mean. This is why I've been dying to see a good Superman movie, and this is why more and more I like direct-to-video action movies like the Undisputed series - that's the last refuge of earnest heroism. Bale's Batman growl is already ridiculous, but that's not because of the film tone. But for "good role models" you seem to be leaving out this year's Captain America. It's not that good of a film, but the Hero Steve Rogers is that ideal of a good old fashioned role model. He fights because it's right, even if the odds are against him and all that. Maybe it's because of the setting or just because Marvel plays it so safe with it's property, but it's there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Timby posted:Of course, that also describes just about all of Cave's musical output pre-The Boatman's Call in 1997. Hey now, Christina the Astonishing isn't hateful. I didn't see your "just about" until I hit reply so this post is staying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Bale's Batman growl is already ridiculous, but that's not because of the film tone. Yeah I sorta liked that about the movie. It was a clunker, and they probably played it too traditional (LET THE HERO GET THE loving GIRL FOR ONCE), but I really appreciated the intent. Actually in full honesty, Batman isn't the best example either. He has more moral boundaries than, say, the Transformers. And on Cave, it doesn't bother me in his music. Not sure why. Probably because it's only 3-5 minute songs instead of a sprawling 90+ minute production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Hey now, Christina the Astonishing isn't hateful. Indeed: It's beautiful. Of course, it comes on the same album as "Papa Won't Leave You, Henry," "When I First Came to Town," "John Finn's Wife" and "Jack the Ripper."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Bale's Batman growl is already ridiculous, but that's not because of the film tone. That is the way he has always been in the main Universe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Timby posted:Indeed: It's beautiful. Of course, it comes on the same album as "Papa Won't Leave You, Henry," "When I First Came to Town," "John Finn's Wife" and "Jack the Ripper." Well, if someone had just spared a couple of pennies so he could buy another cup of whiskey, maybe he wouldn't have been so hateful when he went on home. penismightier posted:And on Cave, it doesn't bother me in his music. Not sure why. Probably because it's only 3-5 minute songs instead of a sprawling 90+ minute production. His music has a sense of humor (even if extremely bleak in most instances) that the movie completely lacks. It goes a long way. I wouldn't be able to handle his albums* if they didn't have that humor. *The Boatman's Call isn't hateful, so it doesn't need the humor. I'm sure there are other contradictions I'm missing as well, but gently caress it. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
SubG posted:I disagree that the great westerns just happened to be westerns. In the classic era of the studio western, and to a somewhat lesser extent in the first big wave of revisionist westerns, one of the central facts of the western as a genre was that it was how film talked about America---and in particular America's mythology about itself. Films like Stagecoach (1939) or My Darling Clementine (1946) or The Searchers (1956) or The Wild Bunch (1969) have narratives that you just can't remove from the western genre without doing tremendous violence to them. But about that topic - are there any writers/directors currently who are bucking the trend of complex characters as a crutch? Pixar films immediately jump to my mind, but that's probably a whole different territory. fenix down fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Dec 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:While I don't think the movie is poo poo, I do agree with you on this. I watched it again a year ago and I liked it much, much less than I remembered liking the film back in 2006. I was just thinking about The Proposition a couple nights ago (while listening to a Nick Cave CD) and pondering why it never worked for me. I remember seeing it when it came out and being really disappointed. I've always been a massive Cave fan, and with the cast and director I was expecting a slam dunk. I think the problem for me was that it wasn't particularly funny - many of Cave's songs always had a terrific sense of humor, and in his best stuff there's a mastery of tone that perfectly straddles the line between the comic and the ghastly, with neither element undercutting the other. The Proposition felt impossibly leaden in comparison, no theatricality to it. Hillcoat's pretty talented and I think he's got a great movie somewhere in him (depending on how you feel about Ghosts of the Civil Dead). The funny thing about his work on the Proposition is how clearly it evoked Cormac McCarthy, and well...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
What is considered to be the first movie "twist"? I know a twist is kind of hard to quantify, but is there anything commonly seen as the first?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 13:23
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:What is considered to be the first movie "twist"? I know a twist is kind of hard to quantify, but is there anything commonly seen as the first? The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari? Since we are dealing with a movie that is (probably) very old, would you mind going into a little depth (year of release, general story line, twist)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Since we are dealing with a movie that is (probably) very old, would you mind going into a little depth (year of release, general story line, twist)? But my description does not do the film justice, it's a well-regarded classic and everyone should watch it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
I also believe it's on Netflix instant. Seriously, it's a fantastic movie and if if you have any love of film at all, you should give it a shot. Fake edit: Even if you don't' have netflix you can watch it right here in this very thread! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrg73BUxJLI
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:Seriously, it's a fantastic movie and if if you have any love of film at all, you should give it a shot. Agreed, I'm not a film buff like many here but I still found it to be a highly entertaining movie with a great surreal and creepy atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
Distant Mist posted:Agreed, I'm not a film buff like many here but I still found it to be a highly entertaining movie with a great surreal and creepy atmosphere. German Expressionism is awesome and after you finish that watch the other classic Nosfaratu. A movie that should have been lost due to Mrs. Stroker. You can see a huge influence on the classic horror films and Tim Burton also loves to homage them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:German Expressionism is awesome and after you finish that watch the other classic Nosfaratu. A movie that should have been lost due to Mrs. Stroker. You can see a huge influence on the classic horror films and Tim Burton also loves to homage them. Is there any news of a BR of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in the works? I am hoping that it gets treatment on par with Metropolis. Also, one for Nosfaratu. I've only seen it in crappy 50 movie collections. Besides the aforementioned films, is there any other German Expressionist films that should be checked out? I've been trying to get a copy of M, but i'm at a loss of any others to check out. Speaking of old silent films, Birth of A Nation. We got a copy in the store recently, and the back paints it as a portrait of the US Civil war, a great film that was the first blockbuster. Both of which is true, but it then goes into about how the NAACP tried to suppress the film, that censorship was heaped upon it, but dammit, it had to be shown! It kind of bothers me that a film that is in no small part is responsible for the resurgence of the KKK, and all that resulted of that, is painted as some kind of underdog that was unfairly attacked. I haven't seen it in like a decade, but while praiseworthy for its technical merits, the story and message of the film is reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Is there any news of a BR of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in the works? I am hoping that it gets treatment on par with Metropolis. Also, one for Nosfaratu. I've only seen it in crappy 50 movie collections. The Last Laugh and The Golem. Night of the Hunter also captures the spirit of that movement eerily well. quote:Speaking of old silent films, Birth of A Nation. We got a copy in the store recently, and the back paints it as a portrait of the US Civil war, a great film that was the first blockbuster. Both of which is true, but it then goes into about how the NAACP tried to suppress the film, that censorship was heaped upon it, but dammit, it had to be shown! It kind of bothers me that a film that is in no small part is responsible for the resurgence of the KKK, and all that resulted of that, is painted as some kind of underdog that was unfairly attacked. I haven't seen it in like a decade, but while praiseworthy for its technical merits, the story and message of the film is reprehensible. That's really loving sleazy of them. A blurb like that belongs on the back of Within Our Gates, not Birth of a Nation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
Is this it:quote:More than 75 years after its initial release, The Birth of a Nation remains one of the most controversial films ever made and a landmark achievement in film history that continues to fascinate and enrage audiences. It is the epic story of two families, one northern and one southern, during and after the Civil War. D. W. Griffith's masterful direction combines brilliant battle scenes and tender romance with a vicious portrayal of African-Americans. It was the greatest feature-length blockbuster yet to be produced in the United States and the first to be shown in the White House. After seeing it, President Woodrow Wilson remarked it was "like writing history with lightning!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Is this it: quote:There was a time when critics sought to de-emphasize the film's content and celebrate the picture as kitsch, but from today's perspective, such an approach seems less tenable. However flawed WIthin Our Gates now seems as an historical epic, it is undeniable that the film itself made history. In cities and states across the country, it energized the state censorship boards, which tried to have the film banned, or at least the most gruesome scenes censored. The film also inspired African-Americans to move into filmmaking as a way to offer their own cultural images and stories. Seriously, save that blurb for a movie that deserves it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The Last Laugh and The Golem. Night of the Hunter also captures the spirit of that movement eerily well. Ah cool, I never thought of the Golem as being one. I think one of my favorite things about the genre is how dreamy all the sets look. The painted on shadows, the angular designs, its just incredible. quote:That's really loving sleazy of them. A blurb like that belongs on the back of Within Our Gates, not Birth of a Nation. The abstract Peaceful Anarchy is exactly it. The DVD just shows some heroic shots of Civil War soldiers, forgetting the hoards of klansmen that feature promenintnely in the film, or the horrible african-american characters. The only thing more racist I've seen that's not directly from a racist group are those old cartoons of southern blacks eating watermelon. I would not be surprised if i dug around, the dvd's makers are connected to the Koch brothers or other shitheel conservative groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
Camera question: In Rushmore, there is an effect used throughout the film where the camera quickly transitions from a fisheye view to a "flat" view (deep focus?). How was this effect achieved? Here's an extremely crappy video but maybe you can sort of see what I'm talking about - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XCqtcFMomU&t=0m25s
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Is there a precursor to this camera technique used in Magnolia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQKre8_v1_Y In the first shot in the video, the camera moves from characters to a painting on the wall and as it does, a magnifying lens is slid over the frame and it outlines the tiny text in the corner of the painting. I've never seen this technique used anywhere and I'm pretty enamored with it in this movie/scene. Also, is my description accurate? It literally looks like a magnifying glass being moved in front of the camera. That has to be quite a pain to pull off and get the proper focus you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
fenix down posted:Camera question: In Rushmore, there is an effect used throughout the film where the camera quickly transitions from a fisheye view to a "flat" view (deep focus?). How was this effect achieved? If you're referring to the title reveal, that's actually a rack focus. Early Panavision anamorphics exhibit really heavy lens breathing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 08:42
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:If you're referring to the title reveal, that's actually a rack focus. Early Panavision anamorphics exhibit really heavy lens breathing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 10:46
|
|
|
During the studio system era how did they go about choosing what films got made? Was it like Barton Fink where some monster of an executive would bark an order at some poor hack to write up a wrestling film in a week? If a writer had a neat idea could he pitch it to the studio like they do today?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I would not be surprised if i dug around, the dvd's makers are connected to the Koch brothers or other shitheel conservative groups. I think its more likely that the DVD makers made the abstract deceptive because no one would want to buy what is essentially a KKK propaganda film, and they were just looking for a quick buck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
therattle posted:English please. All camera lenses exhibit focus breathing (some less than others since it can be engineered out). What this means is when focusing between something close and something far away, the focal length changes slightly so it looks like the lens is zooming in/out when it focuses. Rushmore was shot using Panavision anamorphic lenses, which means the glass squeezes a really wide image onto the frame; the image looks vertically stretched, which needs another lens to make it look normal when projecting it. Due to this characteristic, anamorphic lenses have a weird thing where lens breathing is really prominent horizontally due to squeezing a wider image into the same size frame, but not so much vertically. Another example of this shot is in the movie "Event Horizon". It's in the shot when Sean Pertwee finds the bomb on the ship right before it blows up. EDIT: Cleared some things up and corrections. VoodooXT fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:All camera lenses exhibit focus breathing (some less than others since it can be engineered out). What this means is when focusing between something close and something far away, the focal length changes slightly so it looks like the lens is zooming in/out when it focuses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
I clicked on the first page of this thread by accident. The first question was:Satch posted:What was the first movie to be remade? Peaceful Anarchy posted:A quick search through wikipedia lead me to this Marked Men (1919) There may be earlier remakes though. I want to bring this question back up. The first remake I'm aware of is The Kiss in the Tunnel from 1899, which was remade that same year. The two versions fascinate me because the original has a really great opening shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frd0xrRfUrg but the remake has a much more passionate kiss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sswWb_u-hI I was shocked when I discovered one this old - is there any earlier one that I'm not aware of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The two versions fascinate me because the original has a really great opening shot: Hasn't the trend always been for remakes to be more exciting, more passionate, more over the top that their originals? I had never seen those films before, but the first one is in my opinion without a doubt superior in every way. Opening zoom into the tunnel is great, and the characters have a lot more, well, character. Snak fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:I think its more likely that the DVD makers made the abstract deceptive because no one would want to buy what is essentially a KKK propaganda film, and they were just looking for a quick buck. Point I'm making is that there are reasons to watch the film other than its racist message. Indeed, I doubt three hour silent films figure very prominently in any current white supremacists' propaganda efforts. Or many people's schemes for making a quick buck. That's not to defend the rather breathless blurb copy, but if we were to conclude that overexuberant cover blurbs were intentionally deceptive because nobody would otherwise want to buy the films whose covers they are found upon, we'd have to conclude that nobody would ever want to buy any films at all. SubG fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
SubG posted:It's really only been since the '90s that discussion of Griffiths---a major figure in early film---shifted from regarding The Birth of a Nation to be the defining film of his career and started considering Intolerance (1916) to be it. I'm not sure I find this convincing. Maybe it's true in America, but Intolerance has been held in ridiculously high esteem in Europe for decades. It was Intolerance that made the inaugural S&S poll, not Birth of a Nation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 12:19
|
|
|
DNS posted:I'm not sure I find this convincing. Maybe it's true in America, but Intolerance has been held in ridiculously high esteem in Europe for decades. It was Intolerance that made the inaugural S&S poll, not Birth of a Nation. It also replaced BOAN on the revised AFI 100 list. Same list that took The Third Man off (unforgivable), but did add The General and Sunrise. For what it's worth, I believe Intolerance is a vastly more important and better made film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
SubG posted:I think that's pushing it a little too far. The Birth of a Nation (1915) is a legitimately important film. Film students and scholars have been watching it for reasons other than KKK propaganda for approximately a century. It's really only been since the '90s that discussion of Griffiths---a major figure in early film---shifted from regarding The Birth of a Nation to be the defining film of his career and started considering Intolerance (1916) to be it. Well, blurbs are meant for people who don't know what a movie is about, when I say nobody I meant the people making a purchase based off what it says on the blurb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
The back of the DVD also give us the wonderful quote from Woodrow Wilson "Its like history written with lightning!" which is clearly trying to make Birth of a Nation seem like a historically accurate film. But you cannot say that the movie's success is purely for its technical merits; its subject matter was very appealing to white Americans of the time. The Klan had been resurrected by Walter Simmons on Thanksgiving Day 1912, and its membership grew exponentially after BOAN was released. Discounting its racist message is disingenuous. It was strange, at the same time I was viewing the film in a film class, we were talking about the Klan in my American history class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:For what it's worth, I believe Intolerance is a vastly more important Why? Real motherfuckers watch Broken Blossoms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 19:37
|
|