|
Bergman watching question: I recently received quite a few dvds as an engagement present from my fiance's family friend, I think based somewhat on the condition that he was going to watch them as well so we could talk about them (I think he is happy to have found another film dork). - For Scenes From a Marriage, neither of us has ever seen it. Should we watch the theatrical version or the 5 hour television first. Does your answer change if we might not ever see the other version? - For Fanny and Alexander, I have only seen the theatrical version, and he has seen neither - same question, which one should he watch first? SubG posted:I don't care much for the Cinematic Orchestra score, and am fairly indifferent to the Nyman score. I recently watched the film with the Alloy Orchestra score for the first time and while I'm not particularly fond of the overuse of faux diagetic effects, overall I think it's my favourite score for the film. The Alloy Orchestra score is definitely my favorite, but it was the first score I heard the first time I saw the film, performed live at the Academy Theater in Los Angeles, so I know my impression is completely biased.
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2008 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Definitely the television version for Fanny & Alexander. I actually prefer the shorter cut of Scenes From a Marriage. However, if you might not get another chance to see the longer version (why would this be?) then go for that. He can be a busy person - if he didn't like the shorter version, I doubt he would spend the time watching the longer version after. Thanks for the answers though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2008 16:07
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:I remember Casey Affleck being sort of a punchline before The Assassination Of Jesse James came out, though I'm not sure if he was considered a lovely actor, or just unknown. Maybe not mainstream known, but I don't know anyone who considered him a lovely actor. Hell, even in To Die For he got some recognition. What roles of his would he be considered a lovely actor, or even a punchline, from? Lonesome Jim?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:I watched the Man Who Wasn't There last weekend and one things been bothering me since. At the end of the movie Crane explains that he's being paid two cents a word to write his story for a magazine and that he may have said too much in places. I think the short answer is (1) yes it is a dark joke, and (2) it is a dark joke that it is sort of at the core of absurdism, which heavily, heavily influenced The Man Who Wasn't There. I'm not in any way qualified to explain all of the tenents of the absurdist (and related) movements, and while I really, really love Camus' writing, I'm also no expert on him. Here is my very, very, oversimplistic illustration of the absurdism elements of the ending: 1. Is it absurd to try and earn more money right before your execution? Of course (lets assume the money can't go to some other person/charity/whatever). 2. Is it only abusrd because you know you will die imminently, and your death is out of your control? Probably. 3. Is it then absurd to ever earn money, when you might die any second? Perhaps. 4. If you can die at any time, and that death is probably out of your control, is there any reason to do anything? I don't know. 5. In that case, does anything matter at all? Was Cain any more absurd for worrying about money at that point than any other time in his life? He obviously went through life with very little purpose or plan, and didn't seem to find much enjoyment in it, so why not try to fleece a few extra bucks for your story? Again, way, way oversimplified, and despite all the other points, it is also a (drat funny to me) dark joke. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:Thanks, I've been meaning to read some Camus for a while. Is The Stranger a good place to start, I've heard a lot of the films based on it? I started with the Stranger, and I think it is probably as good a place as any to start. You will definitely notice some similarities to The Man Who Wasn't There / almost all of the Coen's work.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
lost in postation posted:You should read The Myth of Sisyphus while or after reading The Stranger; it's an essay which clarifies greatly the philosophical point(s) Camus was trying to make in his fiction, as well as a stunning piece of writing. You should also read Caligula because it's like the raddest French-language play ever. Have to second The Myth of Sisyphus, but I think after the Stranger is better - you can form your own opinions then realize how little you managed to pick up in the deceptively simple story. Also, I think you meant Visconti's The Stranger. Would you find existence pointless when Anna Karina was in your bed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Green Vulture posted:EDIT: Forgot about another story. Gene Hackman did not enjoy working with Wes Anderson on The Royal Tenenbaums, felt the role was beneath him, and at one point called Anderson a oval office. Know that scene in the movie where Hackman and Ben Stiller yell at each other in the closet? That was reportedly based on an argument between Hackman and Anderson (that happened in the same closet, no less). Do you know where you got this from? I'm not trying to attack your credibility, I had just never heard this before, despite the fact that it seems like you repeatedly hear about how Gene Hackman's "Don't write it for me, I won't do it if you do" response when Wes Anderson originally told Hackman he was writing a part for him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
Green Vulture posted:Sure: that anecdote comes from Rebels on the Backlot. I checked the list of sources at the end, and all it says is "confidential source." I do remember that when the film came out, I read a number of articles on it, and many of them mentioned or hinted at tensions between Anderson and Hackman, with one specifically mentioning the argument in the closet. Thanks. I think this is just more proof of my theory that Anderson needs to work with established, hardass actors who will fight him on stuff rather than just sort of accept his vision, because I think Gene Hackman's, Danny Glover's and Angelica Huston's performances in that film are still far and away the most dynamic performances Anderson has ever captured, and I'm sure it is because those actors were willing to voice their disagreements. Hopefully it was a healthy tension of co-workers rather than Russel-esque dickery that went on between them. ClydeUmney posted:A couple of years ago, I saw Tony Kaye present Lake of Fire, and afterward I got to talk to him about stuff he was working on. He said that one thing he was trying to edit together was the behind the scenes footage of AMX that he shot himself during the whole process. He mentioned that he was putting it together for a feature length documentary, but I don't know what ever happened to it. I would love to see that some time. While it would probably be fascinating to watch, I wish Kaye would just sort of move past all of the AMX poo poo and keep focusing on new projects. It seems time has been kind to him, and people have been willing to forgive his career-suicide attempts at retaliation, but I think continuing to drag it back up over a decade later would probably erase any of that good-will. This is of course my own selfish desire, as I want to see more new movies from him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Gonna be kind of a stupid question, but I didn't spend enough time in Europe to really figure this one out and google is failing me: Goal isn't really kids absurdism, but its a tad absurd and is a movie for kids (or at least kid friendly-ish, I saw it on a plane so maybe things got cut). I can't say I recommend it, but if it is your thing, I think there are a couple sequels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Posting in the right thread this time: I'll give you my condensed take, which is probably more informed from my overall experiences with the Coens and McCarthy than the individual movie itself. All of this should be preferenced with "I think the movie, among other things, is about . . ." Spoilered just in case. This is a about a man's realization of the absurdity of evil, whether in pure or human form. It ends with Tommy Lee Jones because it is his story - him coming to terms with the fact that the world is an evil place and evil often doesn't follow any rhyme or reason. He has wrestled with this his whole life, with his Dad (?) being shot down in cold blood, his abandoning of his fellow troops out of fear, and his views that the world keeps becoming more uncivilized before his very eyes. It is just this scenario that is the final nail in the coffin, so to speak. I tend to think the story is really a response to the idea that we live in a more evil time than the past, as it is set twnety years or so in the past itself, in that the world has always been evil, you just recognize it more the older you get. I don't remember who Woody Harrelson's character was working for, but I always considered him someone who recognized the absurdity of fate and realized it didn't matter if he was on the good or bad side, so he might as well make a buck. That is a fairly vague recap of my feelings on the story. I don't think you are supposed to have a right or wrong answer for most of it (the Coens, and McCarthy, are both strong enough storytellers that you would know every last detail if they intended for you to know those details). I might have mixed up a couple things from the movie with the book, as I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters and haven't read the book since a couple years before that. Basically, though, it fits pretty square in the Coen's consistent fascination with nihilism/absurdity/fatalism, as well as McCarthy's themes (at least from his later work) on the humanity (or lack thereof) that resides at the core of different people (I don't really know how to phrase McCarthy's themes).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 02:25
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Ok, I can buy this. I've read The Road so I was sort of prepared for a statement on humanity rather than a real story, but it still didn't really click. The Tommy Lee Jones character being the perspective of the story was somewhat more apparent in the book, since the book has (from what I remember) brief passages of his conversations with someone to start and sporadically throughout the rest of the book. I think that is actually a reason I prefer the movie, as the movie clues you in on his perspective from the start, but in a much more subtle fashion that becomes more clear as the movie goes on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
The Lucas posted:Can someone explain the shooting stars in Jaws? From what I remember, it was just pure random luck that they were filming during a meteor shower, and they kept them in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
therattle posted:I watched and enjoyed Exit Through The Gift Shop recently, and, until a colleague told me, didn't realise that Mister Brainwash was probably a brilliant hoax perpetrated by Banksy - which makes the film even better. My interpretation is that it completely does not matter. For the record, I vividly remember the Mr. Brainwash show. A couple of people that work with my friend went to it, bought some stuff, and then were raving about it. We both thought they were/are sort stupid art snobs who just buy whatever they think is hot, and that hasn't changed based on the movie (to be fair to them, all of us had gone to the earlier Banksy show, and those same two bought a bunch of stuff at his show as well). However, like I said, I do not care at all whether the movie, or any part, is less than 100% true. I'm almost certain that the truth lies somewhere in between (I believe Thierry really was filming all that stuff, and got interested in making art, and then they realized they had a chance to do something even better, fabricating some of the later elements). Either way, though, I don't care. Whatever was fake was brilliant in its creation and presentation. Whatever was real was also equally brilliant in realizing what was going on and how to spin it into something amazing. I'm sad this movie isn't being talked about for directing. They directed the gently caress out of this movie, and nothing changes whether it was real or fake. The way they handle the story, the way they manage the footage and edit together something coherent, it is absolutely brilliant. Then there are the performances - regardless of whether it was real or not, the way they captured some of those lines and actions was perfect for the story (I mean, lets face it, Banksy's character was nothing but performance). On a closing note, just take your question one step further: How do you know that Theirry isn't actually Banksy all along? We never see Banksy. We have know way of knowing, from the film, whether he is even a real person. I mean, we know he is a real person from outside knowledge, but maybe the Hoax was creating an "honorable" street artist persona for Mr. Brainwash, not the other way around. I don't actually believe this, but I love that you can even contemplate it. Who knows. Who cares. The movie is brilliant and easily my favorite film of the year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Can anybody recommend books or even videos online that I could watch to understand better the language of film? I'm not interested in making movies, I just want to be able to better understand the thought process behind shots. I do my own armchair analysis but I'd like to speed up my education instead of simply absorbing more movies and winging it. Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art: An Introduction is almost universally used for intro film classes, and if you are starting out you could do a lot, lot worse than this book. Plus, because it is so common you can buy it dirt cheap online used, as thousands of students try to get rid of it each semester. Edit: Also, Hitchcock by Truffaut is always informative and worthwhile, and would allow you to hear two masters discuss all of the choices and thought processes behind just about every Hitchcock film. Like Bordwell and Thompson, it is assigned in so many film classes that there are plenty of cheap used copies floating around online. Edit2: Looks like The audio for the Truffaut interviews are available for free. I'm going to hop on these tomorrow. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Thanks. Gonna recommend this to my friend too as he wants to learn how a movie comes to be. I thought about it again. Hitchcock by Truffaut is still the single best book I can think of to understand film (from many different angles). But if you can grab a book from your friend, do it. It sounds like you are already learning on your own, so any book will help strengthen your own appreciation. If you disagree with the book, just go to the next chapter. quote:Saw this one in the book store actually. Not completely sold on it because it looked like a lot of sketches rather than real examples, but I'll check it out again. Katz is a great writer. I'm not sure I've read this particular book, but I've read a few excerpts from books of his before, and all were worthwhile (gotta love those old xeroxed college book readers stealing from everywhere). scary ghost dog posted:A good book for both of you is Sidney Lumet's Making Movies. This is a great book for anyone who wants to understand the process of making movies, or who wants to read a great book. I definitely second. Only reason I left it off was it looked like the first person wanted more of a theory book. Again, though, I'm sticking with Hitchcock by Truffaut as the best book to read. I still think of passages from that book all of the time when I think about movies. Plus, they are both funny guys.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but it kinda looks like it. It's a question about a completely unimportant minor point of The Dark Knight, but it's not too bad guys, I promise. It's more about the US Justice system I guess, than the intricacies of masked vigilante vs clown terrorism. This might not be plot specific, since I haven't seen The Dark Knight since it was in theaters. That said, it is more that the District Attorney (as in the elected or appointed figurehead, not just "a" district attorney who works in the office) is a political figure. He needs money and approval for most of his actions, and he has a political career. If he is going to start a pressure campaign, he will need backers, and probably need to force people into siding with him who otherwise would like to have nothing to do with his actions. Anything to discredit him, as a political figure, would derail his campaign. He would lose funding, political support, political allies, and would open the door to people undercutting his actions with personal attacks. You simply can't take on a powerful mob in a corrupt city without a lot of support. Legally, though, unless they could prove it affected a particular case, him being charged or convicted would have no affect on matters he already tried.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:The specific lines are: "If anyone saw this, everything would be undone. All the criminals you pulled off the streets would be released." It does seem to imply that Dent's actions would cause the release of everyone he put away which is basically what Fat Turkey was asking about. Yeah, I'd just chalk that up to dramatics; either intended with Batman trying to convince Dent, or simply for the sake of the screenplay itself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
therattle posted:This is an amazing book about film picture and sound editing, film in general, and the creative process. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Agreed. An absolutely amazing book. Also, Tom Holman's books aren't the most well written things I've ever read, but are extremely informative. Sound for Film and Television was the bible for sound design when I was in film school, and wikipedia states it still is now.* You can almost certainly pick up used copies online. *Strangely, we didn't use it in his class.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
csidle posted:I'm becoming more and more interested in the art of filmmaking, and aside from that book, are there any others you would recommend? Specifically, some books about directing would be appreciated. We talked about it about a month ago, starting here. Edit: Also, I'll say it again. Hitchcock by Truffaut is always a great place to start, especially if you want to know about directing. It literally is an entire book about Hitchcock explaining what his job is a director and why he chose to do things in each of his films the way he did. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
I think the main reason people don't value comedy as much as drama and tragedy is just historical. It has been that way since arguably Aristotle. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it will ever change. However, I think there is one legit reason why there are less "classic" comedic films than dramatic films: comedy is often much more topical, and as such it often doesn't age as well as drama. That isn't to say that there aren't great timeless comedies - there are just less of them. Edit: that is also why I probably overrate great classic comedies as well. Trouble in Paradise is better than any Hitchcock film. It is also better than any Kubrick film. I said it. I just picked Hitch and Kubrick because I know they both have multiple films that would probably appear on a Sight and Sound-ish top 20 Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Regarding sex scenes: 1. I don't think it's different than analyzing whether to add any other scene. I'd do the whole "is it essential to moving the story forward" mantra, but that mantra is one of those rules that is meant to be broken. Basically if the sex scene's additions to the movie outweigh the cost of its length, it is probably worth it. For the record, I find many, many scenes in many, many movies fail that simple little equation. As I said, sex scenes are no different. 2. Sex scenes are, however, awesome for film students. We had a smoking hot girl in our class who was also extremely fun and laid back (sort of that perfect dream girl). She seemed to be slightly into me at one point, and thankfully we decided to sit next to each other for our classes. Cue The Marriage of Maria Braun, which has a lot of (damned fine) sex and nudity scenes. If it wasn't for those scenes, I would never have realized that said smoking hot chick had some serious baggage. In that movie, and every other movie I ever watched with her in the remaining three years of school, she covered her eyes in every single sex scene. My friend did end up dating her for a couple of years, and it did not end well. Poor guy. Poor girl. Lucky loving me! Thank you sex scenes!!!
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Sex scenes really have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the relationship can be expressed without one - but, like, look at Terminator 1. Reese has such an aching, desperate love for Sarah that we need to see it consummated to get enough closure to move onto the next phase in their relationship. I'm sorry, when I think of Terminator 1 the first sex scene that comes to mind is the dude pumping away while the bored chick zones out to her walkman.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Like they said, theatrical first. There are new portions of Redux that I wish were in the original, but those are far outweighed by the those portions of Redux which, while perhaps interesting, really break the flow and pace of the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I've never seen any of Jean Renoir's American films. How urgently should I rectify this? I am a happier person for having seen The Southerner.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
csidle posted:Why are the credits to One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest listed in alphabetical order? It is a practice that probably falls somewhere between rare and uncommon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Do movie studios which are part of media conglomerates have to pay for the advertising on their own networks? When Rise of the Planet of the Apes was being promoted the last few weeks, they had ads all over FOX, FX, FOX News, etc. Does 20th Century Fox pay these stations ad revenue, or what? Same goes for Viacom when promoting films on their own channels, MTV, CBS, etc. Very short answer: yes, because technically each of those sibling companies is a separate legal entity, and there are many, many, many legal issues that arise when you don't treat each of them as being separate and distinct. However, there are many, many ways in which these companies legally give breaks to one another.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:It's all part of the very elaborate "Hollywood accounting" system of moving money around and hiding true income and profits. Not to defend accounting in Hollywood, but this isn't true. Every corporation does this, and every industry has a few (or more than a few) people guilty to some extent of using this system to shift profits for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. For instance, when I was practicing law as a sole practitioner, I rented my guest bedroom to my legal practice as an office for the tax deductions and to otherwise keep my legal practice's assets separate from my own assets for liability issues. I paid it from my legal practice bank account to my personal bank account. This is just a tip of all of the separate and duplicate things I had for, and exchanged between, Me and Me, Esq. There is no doubt that the system of maintaining corporate separateness is extremely useful if you want to gently caress people over by hiding profits/losses, but the system itself is often required by law for most entities.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:I know it isn't unique to the movie studios - never claimed it was. That's why I take issue with his first statement that "it isn't true." Maybe I was just feeling pissy?! Felt like he was opening his post by trying to contradict me. Whatever, I can be cantankerous about semantics. Didn't mean to try and call you wrong or contradict you, just to clarify to the original answer (which seemed to jump immediately to "it is a nefarious scheme"). To put it simply, this is a common accounting practice that is often required by law. The practice itself is not part of "Hollywood Accounting" and isn't by nature an attempt to gently caress people over. Does it get used to gently caress people over through various "Hollywood Accounting" schemes? Absolutely. Redirecting profits is the oldest trick in the book for loving over business partners - today I think the most obvious examples are in the sports world (team runs at a loss while the owner's cable company, catering service, parking service and stadium management service are rolling in profits). I just didn't want the original question (do you pay a related company for advertising) to be answered with "yes because the system is for loving people over" instead of "Yes, and they are (probably) using the system to gently caress people over."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:GBU is a big one, but the "directors cut" that always pisses me off is Amadeus. One scene changes the audience's sympathy for one character for a good part of the movie for the worse, and it's a really unpleasant change. Yeah, I didn't realize that I was watching a "directors cut" when I saw that on DVD a couple of years ago. I was really put off when that scene came on and couldn't believe I didn't remember it from before. I then got really pissed after the movie was over when my friend told me you can't get the original cut on DVD. Plus, the movie doesn't need to be 20 minutes longer in the first place. NGL: It shows Salieri exchanging/blackmailing/forcing Mozart's wife to have sex with him in return for recommending Mozart to, um, something important. He first tells her to show up at his home, alone, that night. When she shows up, she strips and he has her thrown out of his house. If I remember correctly, in the original she asks for help, and he just flatly walks out of the room on her.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:In defense of the change in Amadeus, Salieri never intended to actually sleep with her (or for her to show up at all). He figured his offer would be so insulting that she would never ask for his help again. This is indicated by him then praying to god to show him a sign that he is in favor, and then becoming immediately mortified when his doorbell rings. It's a nuanced moment that can easily be misinterpreted as Salieri just being a vindictive sleazebag. Fair enough, I think I was so jarred that I sort of lost concentration. I remember him praying to god for a sign, I actually remember liking that scene, but I didn't remember at all that it was in connection with her showing up that night. I hardly even remember the dogs scene - I think I was already somewhat saddened by my friend telling me there was now way to see the original cut. I think by that point I just felt the entire director's cut pushed all of the characters farther into extremes. I liked wondering if Salieri was truly an evil bastard or simply was so conflicted with the divine coming from the (perhaps) vile. Maybe I should give it another chance, because I like semi-liking Salieri. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It must be OOP. I have the original cut on DVD. Cool, I'm guessing you are right about it being OOP. This is what happens when I listen to friends.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
Spermando posted:I'm trying to think of any instances of remakes that were a lot more successful than the originals. The Maltese Falcon is the correct answer. Other more successful remakes: The Man Who Knew Too Much Gold Diggers of 1933 A Star is Born (I think both the Judy Garland and Barbara Streisand versions were more successful than the first)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
morestuff posted:The Wizard of Oz and Ben Hur also come to mind. Not sure why I forgot The Wizard of Oz. I'm sure I forgot Ben Hur because I hate that movie. That said, those probably deserve to challenge The Maltese Falcon. The Maltese Falcon is still the correct answer, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Noxville posted:I got the Blu-Ray of Touch of Evil today and not having seen the film I'm wondering which version I should watch; There's the original theatrical in 1.37 and 1.85 ratios, a 1958 Preview Version (which I assume is a rough cut and included for curiousity's sake) and the 1998 reconstructed version in 1.37 and 1.85. What's the preferred version and aspect ratio? If I remember correctly, the Touch of Evil aspect ratio question is a big debate with no apparent right answer. 1.85 is what was shown in theaters, but I believe there is at least decent evidence to suggest that Welles shot the film with a ~1.33, or similar, frame in mind. I've only ever seen it in 1.85.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Any theatrical presentation would be 1.85:1. The argument for 1.37:1 is based mostly on some historians preferring how the unmatted VHS edition looked, rather than documentation by Welles or Universal. The negative itself is 1.37:1, which is standard for regular 35mm films. The only problem is that films shot for 1.85:1 tend to have equipment and set edges visible in the area usually cropped in projection. That's probably why the 1.37:1 MoC versions are cropped on the sides slightly instead of fully open matte. So the "historical evidence" part I remember is much flimsier than I thought. Like I said, all I knew is that there was a pretty large debate about whether the unmatted 1.37:1 version or the matted 1.85:1 was the proper format. I've almost always just gone with "how people saw it originally" in those debates. Isn't there a similar debate with Kubrick films, or was he alive when they decided to use the unmatted ~1.33:1 versions on most of the DVDs?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Huh, that's pretty interesting. The strange thing about Unforgiven, for me, is that Gene Hackman's sheriff has become more and more sympathetic for me over time. It could just be that he gives one hell of a performance. If we go beyond that: - Running with penismightier's theme, Unforgiven shows that the gunfighters are villains. Hackman knows that. He might not be fair, and he is most definitely cruel, but he is trying to fight against the villainy of the west. He wants to keep violence out of his town and out of those people's lives. Whether or not he solved the whore-slicing correctly, he did try to solve it with justice rather than vengeance. - He just wanted to build a house - much like Clint. Both had seen horrible times, and had left their former lives to try and find safety, and salvation. I don't want to play into any Christ references (they abound in the film, and not always coherently), but despite Hackman's methods I do believe he was trying to bring order and happiness to the town's population as a whole. - While he may have ultimately succumbed to the lust for fame with the writer, it appeared that Hackman, like Clint, knew exactly how unheroic it was to be a gunfighter, let alone good at it. Just from the small details of his stories you know he had a life that would have been Wyatt Earp level epic for a western mythology. His rejection of the lifestyle, and the myth, is right in line with the movie's entire ideology of deconstruction - except he doesn't get his final coda of badassness to ride out on. - He beat the poo poo out of Richard Harris, that no good, limey, Duck of Death. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
penismightier posted:So's the movie itself. Is the score part of the movie? If so, we are going to have words.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
penismightier posted:It feels pointlessly nihilistic. Dark for dark's sake turns me off. It's too easy. 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. It is pretty, it is well acted, it has a great score, and it is fairly pointless and empty by the end. Without the score and the natural beauty of the Australian outback, it would be completely forgettable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
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
|
|