A Weirdo's Top 20 Movies of All Time!!!!!!
Derrek Sypert
Here are my picks for the top 20 movies of all time (even though my
movies are all new...) they are not in any order...just my top 20..
- Hard Boiled....John Woo at his action best(Bullet in the Head dramitic
best)
- Kalifornia....Brad Pitt at his lowest....and best
- Resevoir Dogs...will the gritty and realistic Tarantino please stand up
- My Own Private Idaho...I live in Portland....nuff said
- Killing Zoe...Roger Avery...a much looser cannon than Tarantino
- Sleep with Me...Tarantino actually plays a good cameo in this one...
- Goodfellas...Martin Scorsese at his best.
- The Doors...Stone knows how to mix psychedelia and a real story...
- Natural Born Killers...Very funny...with some adreniline....
- Pulp Fiction...Tarantino's best work...probably will be forever
- Drugstore Cowboy...I live in Portland ...nuff said.
- Wild at Heart...David Lynch + Nicolas Cage = cool.
- Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me...I love my twin peaks (also a scene in
Portland..)
- La Femme Nakita...Luc Besson action movie...nuff said.
- The Professional....Luc Besson's can make great American films too..
- Before Sunrise...Richard Linklater + Julie Delpy = cool.
- Slacker...a great trip around the town with richard Linklater
- True Romance...a great Tarantino scrip with the Tony Scott treatment
- The Crow...I admit...Brandon's death made this movie cooler...
- Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down...Antonio Benderas at his finest..
Hows that??? Are there any cult movies in this list????
Marc Mccloud
>Well, apart from the fact that I can't spot a single film made before
>1990 (which neatly eliminates 95 years of film history at a single
>stroke), that has got to be the most ludicrous "greatest films of all
>time" list I've ever seen in my entire life.
Come on now, give the kid a break. He obviously needs to be
"educated." To whomever wrote this top 20 list, find the following films
and then let me know what you think...
Tetsuo the Iron Man
Sante Sangre
Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb
Curse of the Demon
The Devils
Man Bites Dog
Salo
Although, these aren't all of my favorite films, you should be
able to find these fairly easily. Just trying to expand your horizons.
THE DOORS???
marc mccloud
mcm...@delphi.com
Chris
> - Killing Zoe...Roger Avery...a much looser cannon than Tarantino
> - Sleep with Me...Tarantino actually plays a good cameo in this one...
> - Natural Born Killers...Very funny...with some adreniline....
Portland..)
Sorry, but these movies sucked big time.
Michael Brooke
: Here are my picks for the top 20 movies of all time (even though my
: movies are all new...) they are not in any order...just my top 20..
: - Hard Boiled....John Woo at his action best(Bullet in the Head dramitic
: best)
: - Kalifornia....Brad Pitt at his lowest....and best
: - Resevoir Dogs...will the gritty and realistic Tarantino please stand up
: - My Own Private Idaho...I live in Portland....nuff said
: - Killing Zoe...Roger Avery...a much looser cannon than Tarantino
: - Sleep with Me...Tarantino actually plays a good cameo in this one...
: - Goodfellas...Martin Scorsese at his best.
: - The Doors...Stone knows how to mix psychedelia and a real story...
: - Natural Born Killers...Very funny...with some adreniline....
: - Pulp Fiction...Tarantino's best work...probably will be forever
: - Drugstore Cowboy...I live in Portland ...nuff said.
: - Wild at Heart...David Lynch + Nicolas Cage = cool.
: - Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me...I love my twin peaks (also a scene in
: Portland..)
: - La Femme Nakita...Luc Besson action movie...nuff said.
: - The Professional....Luc Besson's can make great American films too..
: - Before Sunrise...Richard Linklater + Julie Delpy = cool.
: - Slacker...a great trip around the town with richard Linklater
: - True Romance...a great Tarantino scrip with the Tony Scott treatment
: - The Crow...I admit...Brandon's death made this movie cooler...
: - Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down...Antonio Benderas at his finest..
: Hows that??? Are there any cult movies in this list????
Oh my God.
Well, apart from the fact that I can't spot a single film made before
1990 (which neatly eliminates 95 years of film history at a single
stroke), that has got to be the most ludicrous "greatest films of all
time" list I've ever seen in my entire life.
'Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down'?
'Sleep with Me'?
'Kalifornia?
'Killing Zoe'?
What is this guy on? Weirdo isn't the half of it.
Michael
Fairall Dennis
> Date: 6 JAN 1996 20:47:41 GMT
> From: Chris <boog...@ucla.edu>
> Newgroups: alt.cult-movies
> Subject: Re: A Weirdo's Top 20 Movies of All Time!!!!!!
>
>
> > - Killing Zoe...Roger Avery...a much looser cannon than Tarantino
> > - Sleep with Me...Tarantino actually plays a good cameo in this one...
> > - The Doors...Stone knows how to mix psychedelia and a real story...
> > - Natural Born Killers...Very funny...with some adreniline....
> > - Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me...I love my twin peaks (also a scene in
> Portland..)
> > - Before Sunrise...Richard Linklater + Julie Delpy = cool.
>
>
> Sorry, but these movies sucked big time.
>
> I agree with you at least about Killing Zoe. It was a total Tarantino
knockoff even though it came from the co-writer of Pulp Fiction Roger
Avery.
Jer Fairall
fai...@server.uwindsor.ca
Michael Brooke
: Unfashionable though it may be, I find almost all old movies to be
: hopelessly dated and unable to compete with more recent films.
: I can't think of a Welles, or a Hitchcock, or most of the big names
: in black and white. The conventions of storytelling have just
: evolved so much that older movies can't really compete, imho...
A couple of months ago, on two successive days, I watched F.W.Murnau's
1927 film 'Sunrise' and a press show of the Richard Dreyfuss vehicle
'Mr.Holland's Opus' (for the second title I could substitute
practically anything else from last year, and my point would be
exactly the same).
There was absolutely no question which film had a more sophisticated
understanding of the potential of film as a narrative medium, or which
film was more complex and satisfying on EVERY SINGLE LEVEL (plot,
visuals, emotional impact, suspense, the works).
And it wasn't the film made in 1995.
Similarly, in July 1993 I saw 'Jurassic Park' and 'King Kong' in quick
succession (I was seeing the latter on the big screen for the first
time). Sure, the dinosaurs in the Spielberg film were amazing -no-one
can possibly deny that. But did the film have even the tiniest
fraction of the emotional power of 'King Kong'? I think not - and it's
a sad indictment of our supposedly more sophisticated era that the
human characters in 'Jurassic Park' are just as wooden and stereotyped
as their equivalents in 'King Kong' - though sadly without the ape to
act as a focus.
There are literally thousands of films from cinema's first
half-century that are light years ahead of today's formulaic
"tell-a-story-in-25-words-or-less" conveyor-belt crap. I can't in all
honesty think of a single living director who shows as complete a
mastery of the film medium as someone like Jean Renoir, who produced
his best work in the 1930s. Nor, with the possible exception of
Francis Coppola, is there a current director who shows the same kind
of ambition and technical farsightedness as Abel Gance, whose two
masterpieces 'La Roue' (1922) and 'Napoleon' (1927) are two of the
most physically thrilling films I've ever seen -as much for their
narrative sweep as for their action scenes and technical innovations.
This is not the rantings of some obsessive nostalgist who can't stand
the day that sound and colour came in - I enjoy modern films as much
as the next person. But as someone who's spent most of my adult life
trying to convince people (with some success, otherwise I'd have given
up long ago) that older films are worth taking seriously, I find such
blinkered prejudice more than a little depressing. And so would most
of the film-makers you praise on your list.
Michael
Jorn Barger
Michael S Ritchie <mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Please explain this odd remark. How are the conventions of
>storytelling employed in a movie like Citizen Kane any different
>from those employed in Wings of Desire?
It's not an easy thing to put into words.
> Perhaps you meant
>effects or style.
Certainly I include style in storytelling. Effects, no.
> Certainly, movies like Kane or Stairway
>to Heaven or Vertigo or even The Maltese Falcon are told
>just as well if not better than 90% of current movies.
Depends on how you define "well". Part of it is that people are so
much more 'cinematically sophisticated' these days-- there are
shorthands available now that make older movies seem to plod.
(What's "Stairway to Heaven"?)
> If
>you can't see past the black & white photography (which in
>many cases is stunning and works to better effect than color)
>and somewhat old-fashioned screen effects of those classic
>movies you denigrate, I feel sorry for you.
The two or three b&w's on my list ought to disprove that this is the
problem.
> If I were to post
>my own top 10 or 20, there would only be two movies on it past
>1980 (Angel Heart and Do the Right Thing), and I'd only put those
>on if I was in the right mood! :->
Now it's my turn to feel sorry for you. You can't allow yourself
to enjoy anything that's current or popular?
j
Jorn Barger
Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>Well, apart from the fact that I can't spot a single film made before
>1990 (which neatly eliminates 95 years of film history at a single
>stroke), that has got to be the most ludicrous "greatest films of all
Unfashionable though it may be, I find almost all old movies to be
hopelessly dated and unable to compete with more recent films.
My list goes back to the 60s, but even so I'm not sure these would
affect me the same way if I hadn't seen them when they first came out:
Help (and Lester in general)
McCabe and Mrs Miller (and all 68-73 Altman)
Black Orpheus (this movie always slays me)
Sleeper (my favorite WA by a long shot)
What's Up Doc? (sorry, I think this is hilarious)
Blue Velvet (and the Twin Peaks series)
Reservoir Dogs (but NOT Pulp Fiction)
The Big Chill (just saw it again-- brilliant script)
Full Metal Jacket (and Kubrick generally, with reservations)
Celine and Julie Go Boating (and most Rivette)
American Graffiti (brilliant direction)
Drugstore Cowboy (not Private Idaho)
High Hopes (and all Mike Leigh)
Absolute Beginners (which should be double featured with "The Girl Can't
Help It"-- Jayne Mansfield and Julie London)
Lawrence of Arabia (I only just saw this, so it may fade after a time)
Airplane (and Top Secret, at least)
Parenthood (sorry, I really liked this)
Raising Arizona (and Barton Fink, with reservations)
They Live by Night (maybe... this is 40s, and stretching it)
They Live (and all Carpenter)
Barbarella (the best 60s time capsule)
Goodfellas (almost forgot this)
Miracle Mile (a little gem-- has this come around again since ER?)
Wings of Desire
Straight Time (awesome realism)
Gone with the Wind (maybe)
The Long Good Friday (maybe)
the one about the Profumo scandal
Broadcast News (very smart script)
Blues Brothers
Romper Stomper
Manufacturing Consent ;^/ ...I think I'll stop here
I think there's some Ingmar Bergman I could add, but some are just
pretensious.
I can't think of a Welles, or a Hitchcock, or most of the big names
in black and white. The conventions of storytelling have just
evolved so much that older movies can't really compete, imho...
j
-==---
. hypertext theory : artificial intelligence : finnegans wake . _+m"m+_"+_
lynx http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/ ! Jp Jp qh qh
ftp://ftp.mcs.net/mcsnet.users/jorn/ O O O O
news:alt.music.category-freak Yb Yb dY dY
...do you ever feel your mind has started to erode? "Y_ "Y5m2Y" " no.
Jeffrey Apfel
mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie) writes:
>
>In article <4crb9t$i...@Mercury.mcs.com>, Jorn Barger <jo...@MCS.COM>
wrote:
>>Unfashionable though it may be, I find almost all old movies to be
>>hopelessly dated and unable to compete with more recent films.
>>I can't think of a Welles, or a Hitchcock, or most of the big names
>>in black and white. The conventions of storytelling have just
>>evolved so much that older movies can't really compete, imho...
>
>storytelling employed in a movie like Citizen Kane any different
>effects or style.
or just production values. . .
[snip]
>If I were to post
>my own top 10 or 20, there would only be two movies on it past
>1980 (Angel Heart and Do the Right Thing), and I'd only put those
>on if I was in the right mood! :->
>
> Michael Ritchie // mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Why not Diggstown, Fletch, The Golden Child or Divine Madness? Or are
you some other Michael Ritchie?
You must have this problem fairly often if you are a cinema buff, no?
Jeff
Bernie Adalem
>Derrek Sypert (vv...@nexbbs.com) wrote:
>: Here are my picks for the top 20 movies of all time (even though my
>: movies are all new...) they are not in any order...just my top 20..
[lotsa snips]
>: - My Own Private Idaho...I live in Portland....nuff said
>:
>: - Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me...I love my twin peaks (also a scene in
>: Portland..)
>Oh my God.
[snips]
>What is this guy on? Weirdo isn't the half of it.
>Michael
let me try to explain it with this quote Michael,
>"I live in Portland....nuff said
I have two lists of greatest movies ever made.
I separate fun "B" movies from "serious" and
my list changes week by week. But among my "B" faves are:
Reform School Girls (Sybil, WendyO, Pat Ast!)
Texas Chainsaw Masacre (1 AND II...Hopper in white!)
Faster Pussycat, Kill Kill
Reanimators
They Came From Beyond (same Lovecraft freaks as above)
Basket Case
Red Rock West
Toxic Avenger
Yojimbo
Sanjurno
Porklips Now
"serious"
American Friend
Aguirre, the Wrath of God
Kasper Hauser
Nosferatu (both Murnau and Herzog)
Stalingrad
Cross of Iron
The Wild Bunch
Kagemuisha
Straw Dogs
Barry Lyndon
Apocalypse Now
Throne of Blood
Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer
Henry IV (Branaugh)
Clockwork Orange
Someone help with suggestions for more....
"I live in San Franciscom, nuff said?"
Michael S Ritchie
>Unfashionable though it may be, I find almost all old movies to be
>hopelessly dated and unable to compete with more recent films.
>[...]
>I can't think of a Welles, or a Hitchcock, or most of the big names
>in black and white. The conventions of storytelling have just
>evolved so much that older movies can't really compete, imho...
Please explain this odd remark. How are the conventions of
storytelling employed in a movie like Citizen Kane any different
from those employed in Wings of Desire? Perhaps you meant
effects or style. Certainly, movies like Kane or Stairway
to Heaven or Vertigo or even The Maltese Falcon are told
just as well if not better than 90% of current movies. If
you can't see past the black & white photography (which in
many cases is stunning and works to better effect than color)
and somewhat old-fashioned screen effects of those classic
movies you denigrate, I feel sorry for you. If I were to post
my own top 10 or 20, there would only be two movies on it past
1980 (Angel Heart and Do the Right Thing), and I'd only put those
on if I was in the right mood! :->
Michael Ritchie // mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
----------
"I was praying for greater patience and understanding but I quit...
I was afraid I might get it."
--Lucy Van Pelt
Yet Another Steve
> [Michael Ritchie wrote:]
> >If I were to post
> >my own top 10 or 20, there would only be two movies on it past
> >1980 (Angel Heart and Do the Right Thing), and I'd only put those
> >on if I was in the right mood! :->
>
> Now it's my turn to feel sorry for you. You can't allow yourself
> to enjoy anything that's current or popular?
He didn't say he couldn't *enjoy* them; he just said that his own list of
the best movies of ALL TIME wouldn't be confined to the "current or popular."
I'd have to agree with him, BTW; there are a lot of movies that I think
are just great when I walk out of them, but the real test is -- would you
watch it again and again, two years after it comes out? A good example of
this might be FORREST GUMP. Man, when that came out, this "cult movie"
board was swamped with people excitedly going on and on about how it was
just the greatest movie ever, yadata yadata. But now that the hype has
long since died down, how many people are watching that one over and over?
Steve
Michael S Ritchie
>In article <4crg6h$6...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Michael S Ritchie <mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>storytelling employed in a movie like Citizen Kane any different
>>from those employed in Wings of Desire?
>
Try. ;-)
>> Certainly, movies like Kane or Stairway
>>to Heaven or Vertigo or even The Maltese Falcon are told
>>just as well if not better than 90% of current movies.
>
>Depends on how you define "well". Part of it is that people are so
>much more 'cinematically sophisticated' these days-- there are
>shorthands available now that make older movies seem to plod.
Again, try to put into words how Kane or Maltese Falson "plod."
A quick-moving storyline is not necessarily equal to a well-told
narrative. (And for fast-paced movies, very little from the last 20
years has anything on the screwball genre, or the early WB gangster
movies, which clip along quite speedily). I agree that, in general,
movie audiences (especially post-VCR) are probably more sophisticated,
which helps explain the wide popularity of something like Pulp Fiction,
but how does one explain the continuing popularity of formula thrillers,
action flims, and romantic comedies, many of which are told in
fairly straightforward, old-fashioned ways?
>> If I were to post
>>my own top 10 or 20, there would only be two movies on it past
>>1980 (Angel Heart and Do the Right Thing), and I'd only put those
>>on if I was in the right mood! :->
>
>Now it's my turn to feel sorry for you. You can't allow yourself
>to enjoy anything that's current or popular?
I didn't say I didn't enjoy current or popular movies; I loved
Toy Story, While You Were Sleeping, and Smoke. But very little
of what I see these days can match the great old movies or even
the great movies of the 70s, like The Godfather, Chinatown, and
Nashville. I know full well that part of that is my own
memories and prejudices, but part of it is Hollywood and today's
audiences.
--Michael
Michael S Ritchie
Jeffrey Apfel <tuck...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Why not Diggstown, Fletch, The Golden Child or Divine Madness? Or are
>you some other Michael Ritchie?
>
>You must have this problem fairly often if you are a cinema buff, no?
Yes, I frequently get asked if I am *the* Michael Ritchie. Actually,
I'm not crazy about his films, though Fletch and Divine Madness are
OK, and I hear that Smile is great (haven't seen it yet, though I
have it on tape somewhere).
--Michael
PJK
on Mon, 8 Jan 96 22:06:26 GMT,
Michael Brooke <Michael> writes:
>Jorn Barger (jo...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>
>: Unfashionable though it may be, I find almost all old movies to be
>: hopelessly dated and unable to compete with more recent films.
>
>: in black and white. The conventions of storytelling have just
>: evolved so much that older movies can't really compete, imho...
>
>
Plus, it seems to me nowadays the stars have such big salaries, there is no
money left over for really good supporting actresses and actors. So today's
movies, good as some are, sink or swim on the talent of one or two people.
You can watch a film like the Maltese Falcon just to see Elisha Cook, Jr.
or Sidney Greenstreet. I can watch For Whom the Bell Tolls just to watch
Akim Tamiroff and ??? Paxinou. Will there ever be another Vladimere Sololov
or C Audrey Smith?
There closest I can think where a modern movie made use of these kinds of
characters was The Cotton Club with the interplay of Fred Guynne and Bob
Hoskins, or Alien with Yaphet Kotto and what's-his-name, the other engine-
room guy.
Pjk
Michael Brooke
: > [Michael Ritchie wrote:]
: > >If I were to post
: > >my own top 10 or 20, there would only be two movies on it past
: > >1980 (Angel Heart and Do the Right Thing), and I'd only put those
: > >on if I was in the right mood! :->
: >
: > Now it's my turn to feel sorry for you. You can't allow yourself
: > to enjoy anything that's current or popular?
: He didn't say he couldn't *enjoy* them; he just said that his own list of
: the best movies of ALL TIME wouldn't be confined to the "current or popular."
: I'd have to agree with him, BTW; there are a lot of movies that I think
: are just great when I walk out of them, but the real test is -- would you
: watch it again and again, two years after it comes out? A good example of
: this might be FORREST GUMP. Man, when that came out, this "cult movie"
: board was swamped with people excitedly going on and on about how it was
: just the greatest movie ever, yadata yadata. But now that the hype has
: long since died down, how many people are watching that one over and over?
You've hit the exact reason why I profoundly distrust anyone who
claims that a recent film like 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Forrest Gump' is
"the greatest film of all time" - it should logically take years to
arrive at that kind of decision, in order to adequately gauge the film
in question's impact on world culture (a film cannot possibly be "the
greatest of all time" without having a truly colossal impact and
influence on the art form as a whole).
Now, 'Pulp Fiction' MIGHT develop that kind of stature (though I have
to say I don't think it'll be anything like as highly regarded in five
or so years' time), but it's far too early to tell. It did, after
all, take 'Citizen Kane' some considerable time to arrive at its
current stature (it may have topped every Sight & Sound international
critics' poll - the most wide-ranging of such attempts at gauging an
"all-time greats" canon - since 1962, but in 1952, when the film was
already eleven years old, it didn't even appear in the top ten).
Michael
Jorn Barger
>>>Please explain this odd remark. How are the conventions of
>>>storytelling employed in a movie like Citizen Kane any different
>>>from those employed in Wings of Desire?
>>It's not an easy thing to put into words.
>Try. ;-)
I've been thinking about this.... but I haven't got a very full answer
yet.
A big part of it is that the conventions of realism have expanded
enormously-- my *gut* doesn't take a movie as seriously if it
doesn't send the right signals.
Similarly, the censorship-taboos have relaxed, and the sorts of issue
that can be taken for granted are much broader.
And similarly, again, the world has changed, and the sorts of questions
we want to see explored have changed enormously...
[...]
>but how does one explain the continuing popularity of formula thrillers,
>action flims, and romantic comedies, many of which are told in
>fairly straightforward, old-fashioned ways?
'Fairly' is an overstatement. Action flicks are totally different,
especially.
j
Michael S Ritchie
tries to explain how "the conventions of storytelling employed in a
movie like Citizen Kane [are] any different from those employed in
Wings of Desire":
>A big part of it is that the conventions of realism have expanded
>enormously-- my *gut* doesn't take a movie as seriously if it
>doesn't send the right signals.
Meaning you want *more* or *less* "realism"? Isn't Kane far more
"realistic" than Wings of Desire or The Doors (for God's sake!) or
any other movie on the lists which have been posted? Not that
non-realism is always bad; it depends on the intention of the
film, obviously. I think you're talking about the nebulous concept
of film "style" more than anything else. Certainly moviemaking
style has changed greatly in the last 50 years, but I still don't
understand what that has to do with storytelling.
>Similarly, the censorship-taboos have relaxed, and the sorts of issue
>that can be taken for granted are much broader.
True, but certainly more graphic does not necessarily equal a
better movie (or a better told story). John Carpenter's remake
of The Thing is a cool flick taken on its own terms, but it can't
compare to the original, especially in the storytelling department.
And all the goopy body parts and fluids in Hollywood won't change
that.
>And similarly, again, the world has changed, and the sorts of questions
>we want to see explored have changed enormously...
Have they really? Don't we still want a good story, well told,
with some action, some romance, some humor, solid characters, and
a satisfying ending? What questions do any recent films address
that haven't been addressed before? And what older films address
questions that don't interest us at all anymore?
>[...]
>>but how does one explain the continuing popularity of formula thrillers,
>>action flims, and romantic comedies, many of which are told in
>>fairly straightforward, old-fashioned ways?
>
>'Fairly' is an overstatement. Action flicks are totally different,
>especially.
While You Were Sleeping? Terminator? The Alien movies? Rob Roy?
Aside from Tartentino (and perhaps Woo), what recent, popular genre films
are not "fairly straightforward" in terms of narrative and style?
--Michael
Michael Brooke
: Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> quotes me:
: >: I've been thinking about this.... but I haven't got a very full answer
: >: yet.
: >I suspect that's because - with apologies for being so blunt - you're
: >fundamentally wrong.
: On the other hand, maybe it's because I don't reduce my experiences
: to preconceived stereotypes...
As someone who's spent his entire adult life working in independent
distribution and exhibition, handling both new releases and reissues,
believe me, I know a preconceived stereotype when I see one - because
I've been fighting against them for years. I do NOT casually
pigeonhole films (or indeed anything) - in fact, a few months ago I
wrote an lengthy denunciation of someone who was saying that European
films were invariably superior to American films. Does that strike you
as being the actions of someone who believes in perpetuating
stereotypes?
: >: A big part of it is that the conventions of realism have expanded
: >: enormously-- my *gut* doesn't take a movie as seriously if it
: >: doesn't send the right signals.
: >If that's genuinely your attitude, I feel sorry for you (not least
: >because there are plenty of modern films you must miss out on).
: You said exactly this already, at least once. Do you agree, at least,
: that one's gut has to be the judge of credibility/realism?
It depends how you define 'credibility' or 'realism' - I maintain that
neither (particularly not realism) are essential to the
artistic success of a film. 'Pulp Fiction', for example, is neither
credible nor realistic - but people out there seem to like it.
: > But
: >what you say doesn't make sense - if you compare the average 1990s
: >Hollywood film with the average 1940s Italian neo-realist film, which
: >is more 'realistic' -the glossy expensive-looking colour one with
: >major stars essentially playing themselves, or the black-and-white
: >low-budget shot-on-location one with amateur actors genuinely playing
: >themselves? I know which I'd nominate.
: Yaah... you're falsifying the comparison. Restate that with
: Hollywood-1940 and Hollywood-1990, or.... Was there really such a
: thing as 'average' 40s Italian neorealist? Compare topnotch 40s
: realism with topnotch 90s realism.
There most certainly was such a thing as an 'average' 40s Italian
neo-realist film: historian Peter Bondanella has identified ninety
films from the period which he says could be classified under that
label. But why should you compare different eras? 1990s Hollywood
wouldn't exist without 1940s Hollywood - but that doesn't mean that
the original models should be brushed aside now that we've got these
supposedly "superior" later films. For example, how many modern
remakes can you think of that are INDISPUTABLY superior to the
original? And - ironically enough for someone who accuses me of
"fuzzy thinking" later on - I haven't the faintest idea what you
mean by "topnotch 90s realism" (a few examples might help here - but
I notice specific examples don't seem to be your strong point).
: >: Similarly, the censorship-taboos have relaxed, and the sorts of issue
: >: that can be taken for granted are much broader.
: >That doesn't mean these issues were ignored in earlier films (they
: >were usually treated more subtly and imaginatively) and if 'Showgirls'
: >is a symbol of censorship relaxation, then I know which I'd prefer.
: Again (and again) you're picking bad examples from the present to
: compare with the best of the past.
Well, you're not picking examples at all - any chance of a few?
: And, no, I'm not talking about nudity, I'm talking about the whole
: mental vocabulary of the time.
I'm not talking about nudity either. I picked 'Showgirls' because
it's just opened in the UK, so it's a current issue as far as I'm
concerned - but my citation of Luis Bunuel (which I notice you've
quietly deleted) concerned the SUBJECTS he filmed, not his use of
nudity (there are virtually no nude scenes in his films).
: >For the record - and this is perfectly true; I'm not just saying this
: >to make a point - the sexiest film I saw in the cinema last year was
: >the reissued 'The Big Sleep' (made in 1946) -there's a sexual charge
: >to the performances that you simply don't get these days. [...]
: I'm sure you *love* to tell this story. (It makes you sound so
: *elite*...)
It's the first time I've told it - and I'm far from the only one who
believes it. Just to put that particular example in context, 'The
Big Sleep' was reissued in a single London cinema last summer. It was
such a phenomenal success (the highest screen average by far) that
within a month the number of prints in circulation had passed twenty,
and it was playing in the kind of multiplexes that normally wouldn't
be seen dead showing a film older than 'Reservoir Dogs'. Elite? I
think not. But why do you think it did so well, when there were all
these wonderful modern blockbusters around? It wasn't just good
reviews, although it obviously got those in spades - it was that the
general public weighed up its merits against those of the competition
blockbusters and voted with their wallets.
: >: And similarly, again, the world has changed, and the sorts of questions
: >: we want to see explored have changed enormously...
: >If a film is basically sound, the historical and cultural context
: >should be almost completely irrelevant.
: "basically sound"?!?!
: This sort of fuzzy thinking suggests you must be totally clueless
: about moviemaking, and that your claims are *entirely* based on
: snobbism...
I won't even bother to reply to that - apart from recommending that
next time you want to make a complete dickhead of yourself and
challenge my knowledge of film history, you start looking at the
range of films tackled in my previous postings. Not to mention these
ones - I repeat: can we have some EXAMPLES, please?
: If all a film has to be is basically sound, why don't modern films
: satisfy this criterion?
Many do. The point I'm making - which you insist on distorting into
some reactionary rant against modern films - is that I'm objecting to
your labelling of everything made before the Sixties as being outdated
and worthless.
: > I saw 'Bicycle Thieves' (1948)
: >again recently, and although it was filmed and set in Rome in the
: >immediate post-war period it has things to say about poverty and
: >unemployment that completely transcend that setting -
: So does Homer's Iliad.
Aren't you just contradicting yourself here?
: > and it doesn't
: >take much imagination to transpose the themes to a big city with an
: >unemployment problem in 1995 (i.e. just about any major city you care
: >to name). We're talking about fundamental human truths here -and those
: >will never date.
: Sorry, but human understanding of social issues is *progressive*, at
: least in some ways. The Greeks didn't have a clue about economic
: laws. 1950s America couldn't conceive of a military-industrial complex.
: 1960s America was terrified of homosexuality.
So? That doesn't mean that gay issues weren't explored in Sixties
American films (or earlier). And if you look at world culture over the
centuries, the same basic themes keep cropping up again and again. I
notice you give yourself a convenient get-out clause when you dodge
the Shakespeare issue below, but many of the subjects that he tackles
are entirely relevant to today's society - and you don't have to
modernise them either (though I'm looking forward to the 1930s fascist
version of 'Richard III'). And as for homosexuality, what about
Marlowe's 'Edward II' (filmed four hundred years later by Derek
Jarman)?
: > What are your views on the current rash of
: >Shakespeare and Jane Austen adaptations?
: Haven't seen them. I think it might be possible to make a great
: Midsummer's Night Dream, or Romeo and Juliet, using modernized
: filmmaking conventions. Ditto for Austen. (But I can't abide most
: Shakespeare.)
Why does it have to be 'modernised'? (though I'd better go on record
and saying that I loved 'Clueless'!) In fact, just about the most
disastrous Shakespeare film of recent years was the 1993 'As You Like
It', which updated Shakespeare to a London slum.
: > Look at something like Buster Keaton's 'The General'
: >(1926). That's pretty much non-stop action (with a constantly moving
: >camera) and it looks remarkably modern by today's standards (albeit
: >considerably more inventive).
: You can only say this by totally closing your eyes to all differences.
: If you caricature modern action films with the two word phrase
: "non-stop action" then you can set an equals sign between the two
: examples. But if you look at the technique in detail, they're
: miles and miles and miles apart.
The TECHNOLOGY is different - the basic technique really isn't. What
the likes of James Cameron and John Woo are doing is very little
different to what people like Georges Melies and Abel Gance were
doing in terms of their use of the medium in terms of both special
effects and action scenes. Cruder: yes - but different: no. Look at
Gance's 'Napoleon' -in what way is the horseback chase shot
differently from a modern action movie? In what way is the tracking
shot where the camera zooms in on Napoleon just before he flees
Corsica essentially any different from today's Steadicam camerawork?
OK, maybe it's not in colour, widescreen or Dolby Stereo - but at base
they really are very similar.
: > Granted, the cinema has capitalised on
: >technological improvements throughout its history, and for various
: >reasons the likes of 'Terminator 2' would have been impossible in the
: >1920s - but you'd be surprised how far back the basic style goes.
: No, I'm reasonably literate in film history.
In that case, why don't you start quoting some concrete examples in
your defence, instead of resorting to vague generalisations ("I can't
abide most Shakespeare"), interspersed with personal (and hilariously
inaccurate) attacks on me?
Just to remind you - YOU started this by saying that older films were
outdated, and it's up to you to defend your position. With all due
respect, I'm not impressed by your arguments thus far.
Michael
Michael Brooke
: >Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> quotes me:
: >>For the record - and this is perfectly true; I'm not just saying this
: >>to make a point - the sexiest film I saw in the cinema last year was
: >>the reissued 'The Big Sleep' (made in 1946) -there's a sexual charge
: >>to the performances that you simply don't get these days. [...]
: >
: >I'm sure you *love* to tell this story. (It makes you sound so
: >*elite*...)
: I have to jump in here. If you think somebody liking 'The Big Sleep' makes
: them sound *elite* you need to seriously get a grip. That has to be one of
: the finest films I think I've ever seen, with, as Michael says, an amazing
: chemistry between the two leads. I know what your trying to say by your
: comment, there are plenty of film snobs out there (although IMHO not
: Michael). However, I think you picked the wrong film to make the comment
: on.
Thanks for the support!
May I direct you to my defence of 'Frankenhooker' in another current
thread just to provide conclusive proof that I'm not a film snob?
Michael
Michael S Ritchie
>Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> quotes me:
>>: yet.
>>I suspect that's because - with apologies for being so blunt - you're
>>fundamentally wrong.
>
>On the other hand, maybe it's because I don't reduce my experiences
>to preconceived stereotypes...
Yikes! Someone who pretty much flat out calls movies of the first three-
quarters of the century useless is dealing in some major "preconceived
stereotypes, methinks!
>You said exactly this already, at least once. Do you agree, at least,
>that one's gut has to be the judge of credibility/realism?
What is it with this "gut" thing? I think you're just using this
as a way to avoid trying to explain or critically examine your
feelings and opinions.
>Yaah... you're falsifying the comparison. Restate that with
>Hollywood-1940 and Hollywood-1990, or.... Was there really such a
>thing as 'average' 40s Italian neorealist? Compare topnotch 40s
>realism with topnotch 90s realism.
And "top-notch 90s realism" woule be...?? Just because it's glossy
looking and in shiny colors does not make it "realistic" or credible.
>>If a film is basically sound, the historical and cultural context
>>should be almost completely irrelevant.
>
>"basically sound"?!?!
>
>This sort of fuzzy thinking suggests you must be totally clueless
>about moviemaking, and that your claims are *entirely* based on
>snobbism...
"Basically sound" may be something of an over-generalization, but
what he means is that a well-made movie is a well-made movie. We
still watch Gone with the Wind, despite being light-years away
from its views on race, not to mention its ambigious view of
women.
>Sorry, but human understanding of social issues is *progressive*, at
>least in some ways. The Greeks didn't have a clue about economic
>laws. 1950s America couldn't conceive of a military-industrial complex.
>1960s America was terrified of homosexuality.
Name me a good movie about "economic laws." The things the Greeks
wrote about that make us still read them reach a little farther
inward than just supply-and-demand. As far as homosexuality, go
watch Maltese Falcon again <hint: Lorre, Greenstreet, and Cook>.
>Haven't seen them. I think it might be possible to make a great
>Midsummer's Night Dream, or Romeo and Juliet, using modernized
>filmmaking conventions. Ditto for Austen. (But I can't abide most
>Shakespeare.)
Yeah, that Shakespeare fellow is a little outdated; no military-
industrial complex stuff, nothing about communism, only love and
jealousy and family and war and hatred and hubris, all those
old-fashioned themes that we've dealt with already and are *so*
five minutes ago!
--Michael
Jeffrey Apfel
writes:
>Oh dear Mr Brooke, you do have the unhappy knack of getting into
>confrontations too often.
>
Ah yes, an unfortunate by-product of thoughtful people speaking their
mind.