Top 50 Movies of the Decade
Master_DY...@juno.com
By Donlee Brussel
1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme
2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
4. Schindler’s List – Steven Spielberg
5. The Player - Robert Altman
6. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
7. The Sweet Hereafter - Atom Egoyan
8. Trainspotting - Danny Boyle
9. In the Company of Men - Neil LaBute
10. L.A. Confidential - Curtis Hanson
11. The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer
12. The Thin Red Line - Terrence Mallick
13. American Beauty – Sam Mendes
14. A Simple Plan - Sam Raimi
15. Glengarry Glen Ross - James Foley
16. The Crying Game - Neil Jordan
17. Boyz N The Hood - John Singleton
18. Fargo - Joel Coen
19. American History X - Tony Kaye
20. The Truman Show - Peter Weir
21. Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino
22. Seven - David Fincher
23. The Celebration - Thomas Vintenberg
24. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Guy Ritchie
25. Kids - Larry Clark
26. Eyes Wide Shut - Stanley Kubrick
27. The Shawshank Redemption - Frank Darabont
28. Sling Blade - Billy Bob Thornton
29. Dark City - Alex Proyas
30. Saving Private Ryan - Steven Spielberg
31. Chungking Express - Wong Kar-wai
32. Short Cuts - Robert Altman
33. Boogie Nights - Paul Thomas Anderson
34. The Grifters - Stephen Frears
35. The Blair Witch Project - Eduardo Sanchez and
Daniel Myrick
36. Pi - Darren Aronofsky
37. Wag The Dog - Barry Levinson
38. There’s Something About Mary - Farrely Brothers
39. Hurly Burly - Anthony Drazan
40. Election - Alexander Payne
41. JFK - Oliver Stone
42. Go - Doug Liman
43. Proof - Jocelyn Moorhouse
44. Scream - Wes Craven
45. Out of Sight - Steven Soderbergh
46. The Matrix – Wachowski Brothers
47. Clerks - Kevin Smith
48. El Mariachi - Robert Rodriguez
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
KBusby2256
>By Donlee Brussel
pretty good list. I would agree with most of it. Although I would have
Shawshank Redemption at number one over Silence of the Lambs.
"Hope is a good thing. Probably the best of things. And no good thing ever
dies"
-- Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)
natch
For what it's worth I like your list. I agree with most, with the
exception of only about 5. Some films like 7, Kids and Shawshank I
think are overrated but I recognize why others hold them up. But The
Matrix? It seems so out of place with your list. That to me goes with
films like Armagedon, Speed and Deep Impact. Am I wrong or is this
just what you would call a guilty pleasure? I have a few of those like
Jacobs Ladder.
James M
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
bi...@no.mates
>>Top 50 Movies of the 90s
>>By Donlee Brussel
>
>pretty good list. I would agree with most of it. Although I would have
>Shawshank Redemption at number one over Silence of the Lambs.
>
>"Hope is a good thing. Probably the best of things. And no good thing ever
>dies"
> -- Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)
Personally I would swap Reservoir Dogs with Pulp Fiction. And I would
get rid of Pi altogether. Does anybody else agree with me that his was
one of the most overrated pieces ever? It was just riding on the "hip"
hype generated by it's soundtrack.
David Kirkpatrick
on your list that I've seen and disliked or that there are any films on
the list that I haven't seen and haven't heard something good about, but
a list of almost exclusively "R" rated films seems a bit skewed to me.
Does this list reflect your favourite movies of the decade or are you
reluctant to praise movies that your grandmother might also enjoy?
"Shakespeare In Love", "The English Patient", "Titanic", "Howard's End",
"The Remains of the Day", "Apollo 13", "Contact", "Forest Gump", "Life
is Beautiful", "Unforgiven" -- if any one of these were on your list, it
would have more credibility.
I enjoy playing the list game myself, occasionally. But "Top 50 Movies
of the 90s" seems too ambigious a title. In my opinion, you should
either entitle your list "My favourite movies", to indicate that the
list is a reflection of your taste, "The best movies", to indicate that
you are trying to transcend your tastes a little bit, "The most
influential movies", "The most underrated movies", "The most innovative
movies", etc.
I'm not questioning your right to an opinion or to express it, but it
just strikes me that misanthropy seems to be a dominant characteristic
of almost every film on the list. (I've put an asterisk next to films I
haven't yet seen.) I'm also not trying to analyze your personality based
on the content of the films you list (after all, sometimes opposites
attract); I'm just commenting that the list seems to be a bit, well,
skewed.
David
"Maste...@juno.com" wrote:
>
> Top 50 Movies of the 90s
> By Donlee Brussel
>
> 1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme
> 2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
> 3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
> 4. Schindler's List - Steven Spielberg
> 5. The Player - Robert Altman
> 6. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
> 7. The Sweet Hereafter - Atom Egoyan
> 8. Trainspotting - Danny Boyle*
> 9. In the Company of Men - Neil LaBute*
> 10. L.A. Confidential - Curtis Hanson
> 11. The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer
> 12. The Thin Red Line - Terrence Mallick*
> 13. American Beauty - Sam Mendes*
> 14. A Simple Plan - Sam Raimi*
> 15. Glengarry Glen Ross - James Foley
> 16. The Crying Game - Neil Jordan
> 17. Boyz N The Hood - John Singleton*
> 18. Fargo - Joel Coen
> 19. American History X - Tony Kaye*
> 20. The Truman Show - Peter Weir
> 21. Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino
> 22. Seven - David Fincher*
> 23. The Celebration - Thomas Vintenberg*
> 24. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Guy Ritchie*
> 25. Kids - Larry Clark*
> 26. Eyes Wide Shut - Stanley Kubrick
> 27. The Shawshank Redemption - Frank Darabont
> 28. Sling Blade - Billy Bob Thornton
> 29. Dark City - Alex Proyas*
> 30. Saving Private Ryan - Steven Spielberg
> 31. Chungking Express - Wong Kar-wai*
> 32. Short Cuts - Robert Altman
> 33. Boogie Nights - Paul Thomas Anderson*
> 34. The Grifters - Stephen Frears
> 35. The Blair Witch Project - Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick*
> 36. Pi - Darren Aronofsky*
> 37. Wag The Dog - Barry Levinson
> 38. There's Something About Mary - Farrely Brothers
> 39. Hurly Burly - Anthony Drazan*
> 40. Election - Alexander Payne*
> 41. JFK - Oliver Stone
> 42. Go - Doug Liman*
> 43. Proof - Jocelyn Moorhouse
> 44. Scream - Wes Craven*
> 45. Out of Sight - Steven Soderbergh*
> 46. The Matrix – Wachowski Brothers*
> 47. Clerks - Kevin Smith*
Michael Brooke
> I'm not questioning your right to an opinion or to express it, but it
> just strikes me that misanthropy seems to be a dominant characteristic
> of almost every film on the list. (I've put an asterisk next to films I
> haven't yet seen.) I'm also not trying to analyze your personality based
> on the content of the films you list (after all, sometimes opposites
> attract); I'm just commenting that the list seems to be a bit, well,
> skewed.
Skewed is the word - I couldn't take it seriously because its
overwhelming bias towards English-language films in general and US-made
films in particular shows that its compiler has a very narrow range.
Any list of "movies of the decade" that totally ignores the work of
Krzysztof Kieslowski, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige, Shinya Tsukamoto, Jan
Svankmajer, Aki Kaurismäki, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Pedro Almodovar or
Lars Von Trier (to name just ten directors who have genuinely attempted
something new and adventurous over the past decade) can't possibly be
taken seriously in my book.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE GROVE - a film about life, death and the bit in the middle
starring Ron Moody, Rula Lenska, Lee Blakemore and Leyland O'Brien
http://www.filmsite.co.uk/paradisegrove
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Wiggers
> Skewed is the word - I couldn't take it seriously because its
> overwhelming bias towards English-language films in general and US-made
> films in particular shows that its compiler has a very narrow range.
>
> Any list of "movies of the decade" that totally ignores the work of
> Krzysztof Kieslowski, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige, Shinya Tsukamoto, Jan
> Svankmajer, Aki Kaurismäki, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Pedro Almodovar or
> Lars Von Trier (to name just ten directors who have genuinely attempted
> something new and adventurous over the past decade) can't possibly be
> taken seriously in my book.
I've never been a fan of lists... and this particular one definitely
dosen't interest me... but in Donlee's defense I would point out that
in North America (especially the U.S.) it is almost impossible to see
non-U.S. films unless one lives near a major city such as New York or
L.A. -- and even then the selection is terrible compared with most
cities around the world. This includes video distribution AND tv. And
what does get distributed is pretty much limited to Krzysztof
Kieslowski, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige, Shinya Tsukamoto, Jan Svankmajer,
Aki Kaurismäki, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Pedro Almodovar or Lars Von
Trier... so I can't take seriously someone who only lists filmmakers
that appear in the "Foreign Film" or "Art" section of their local video
store... there's a world of fabulous films that blow these away,
unfortunately most of us never get to see them. Except me. If you live
in Canada you can see some of these gems on TV through channels like
Showcase, Vision, TVO and Bravo.
dw
Darryl Wiggers
> Please, could someone explain to me, why "Pulp Fiction" is such a great
> movie ? For me, frankly, it´s a collection of inhumanity and disgusting
> violence. I tried to watch it to the end the second time, but still...i
> can´t convince myself to completly watch this brutal scum.
I think you answered your own question. The content was clearly
unappealing to you. Fair enough. I think what struck a cord with so
many people is the energy of the film, the crisp & funny dialogue, and
the non-linear storyline that is still fairly uncommon in American
cinema. For many of us who only have exposure to the mostly bland U.S.
cinema that had been coming out of the U.S. for so many years during
the late 80s and early 90s, Tarantino was a refreshing change. The
filmmakers of the 70s (Scorsese, Spielberg, Schrader, Bogdanovich,
Altman, Penn, Friedkin and so forth) were gradually making
less-and-less interesting films. And not too many new stars arose in
the 80s (certainly none that compared with the staggering excitement of
their 70s counterparts). There was very much a politially-correct
attitude (lots of flicks about racial injustice for example). Then
Tarantino came on the scene and didn't pull any punches. He let his
characters fly in all their violent, sexist and racist glory (and gave
them wonderful, though abusive, dialogue to play with)... but this
"brutal scum" as you say is not for everyone... and Tarantino's flame
seems to have burned out since (you'll be happy to know)
> I of course *do* respect other people´s taste and judgment, but could
> someone *please* give me just a few ideas, what makes this movie a
> masterpiece for him (e-mail ok, to not use this group) ?
A masterpiece? Not too many films (other than Kubrick's) warrant that
label, if one is inlined to slap one on, but I certainly remember the
charge I felt when I saw Pulp Fiction opening day... it was the first
time in years that I remembered an audience applauding when the closing
credits came up. Like Reservoir Dogs before it, it was clearly a film
made by someone who was having great fun with the medium. The visuals
were exciting but not overly flambuoyant (as someone like DePalma has a
tendancy to do). The characters were not black & white, and the
dialogue wasn't cliche. Tarantino had the confidence to let a simple
scene carry a whole section of the film (i.e. gangsters trying to
dispose of a blood-stained car might have taken a minute of screen time
in an ordinary film). This was something relatively new, and it
definitely wasn't boring... I've never bothered doing a "reading" of
the film 'cause it didn't seem worth it. Tarantino simply seemed to
like telling stories and creating robust & exciting characters... not
too many filmmakers are capable of that anymore.
darryl
David Kirkpatrick
Quite true -- since the local repertory cinema closed down, those
networks have become the most reliable source for foreign films. The
foreign film section of every video rental store I've ever seen has been
pathetic.
That's why I focused on a content analysis of the movie list in my
critique of it, although I came close to mentioning the
American/non-American issue. Personally, I'm suspicious of any list
which is either less than 1/3 American or more than 2/3 American.
David
point
Maste...@juno.com <Master_DY...@juno.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
098c81cc...@usw-ex0108-060.remarq.com...
> Top 50 Movies of the 90s
> By Donlee Brussel
>
> 1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme
> 2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
> 3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
I know, it´s getting off-topic...but i simply don´t know wherelse to ask my
question:
Please, could someone explain to me, why "Pulp Fiction" is such a great
movie ? For me, frankly, it´s a collection of inhumanity and disgusting
violence. I tried to watch it to the end the second time, but still...i
can´t convince myself to completly watch this brutal scum.
I of course *do* respect other people´s taste and judgment, but could
someone *please* give me just a few ideas, what makes this movie a
masterpiece for him (e-mail ok, to not use this group) ?
I simply don´t get it.
Thomas
Michael Brooke
> I've never been a fan of lists... and this particular one definitely
> dosen't interest me... but in Donlee's defense I would point out that
> in North America (especially the U.S.) it is almost impossible to see
> non-U.S. films unless one lives near a major city such as New York or
> L.A. -- and even then the selection is terrible compared with most
> cities around the world. This includes video distribution AND tv. And
> what does get distributed is pretty much limited to Krzysztof
> Kieslowski, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige, Shinya Tsukamoto, Jan Svankmajer,
> Aki Kaurismäki, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Pedro Almodovar or Lars Von
> Trier... so I can't take seriously someone who only lists filmmakers
> that appear in the "Foreign Film" or "Art" section of their local video
> store...
Nor can I (indeed, one of my favourite hobbies when running a repertory
cinema was to stand in the foyer and wind up our stuffier patrons by
suggesting that maybe, just maybe, 'Clueless' was more enjoyable than
the new Eric Rohmer film that opened the same week) - but equally,
anyone who ignores all these film-makers (note that I'm not necessarily
advocating that *all* get listed, just that it would be mildly
surprising if a serious list left them all out) is clearly ignoring a
substantial chunk of the best of 1990s cinema.
Incidentally, neither Ken Loach nor Mike Leigh are regarded as "art"
filmmakers in the part of the world where I live - both have made
massive impacts on British popular culture (with 'Cathy Come Home' and
'Abigail's Party' respectively).
> there's a world of fabulous films that blow these away,
> unfortunately most of us never get to see them. Except me. If you live
> in Canada you can see some of these gems on TV through channels like
> Showcase, Vision, TVO and Bravo.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you (I doubt I would!), but I can't help
noticing you don't actually *name* any of these "fabulous films that
blow these away"...
point
Darryl Wiggers <dar...@pathcom.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
160919992321270165%dar...@pathcom.com...
<snipped very well detailed post for shortness...>
>
> I think you answered your own question. The content was clearly
> unappealing to you. Fair enough. I think what struck a cord with so
> many people is the energy of the film, the crisp & funny dialogue, and
> the non-linear storyline that is still fairly uncommon in American
> cinema. For many of us who only have exposure to the mostly bland U.S.
> cinema that had been coming out of the U.S. for so many years during
> the late 80s and early 90s, Tarantino was a refreshing change. The
> filmmakers of the 70s (Scorsese, Spielberg, Schrader, Bogdanovich,
> Altman, Penn, Friedkin and so forth) were gradually making
> less-and-less interesting films. And not too many new stars arose in
> the 80s (certainly none that compared with the staggering excitement of
> their 70s counterparts). There was very much a politially-correct
> attitude (lots of flicks about racial injustice for example). Then
> Tarantino came on the scene and didn't pull any punches. He let his
> characters fly in all their violent, sexist and racist glory (and gave
> them wonderful, though abusive, dialogue to play with)... but this
> "brutal scum" as you say is not for everyone... and Tarantino's flame
> seems to have burned out since (you'll be happy to know)
>
> > I of course *do* respect other people´s taste and judgment, but could
> > someone *please* give me just a few ideas, what makes this movie a
> > masterpiece for him (e-mail ok, to not use this group) ?
>
> A masterpiece? Not too many films (other than Kubrick's) warrant that
> label, if one is inlined to slap one on, but I certainly remember the
> charge I felt when I saw Pulp Fiction opening day... it was the first
> time in years that I remembered an audience applauding when the closing
> credits came up. Like Reservoir Dogs before it, it was clearly a film
> made by someone who was having great fun with the medium. The visuals
> were exciting but not overly flambuoyant (as someone like DePalma has a
> tendancy to do). The characters were not black & white, and the
> dialogue wasn't cliche. Tarantino had the confidence to let a simple
> scene carry a whole section of the film (i.e. gangsters trying to
> dispose of a blood-stained car might have taken a minute of screen time
> in an ordinary film). This was something relatively new, and it
> definitely wasn't boring... I've never bothered doing a "reading" of
> the film 'cause it didn't seem worth it. Tarantino simply seemed to
> like telling stories and creating robust & exciting characters... not
> too many filmmakers are capable of that anymore.
>
> darryl
first of all, thanks for your long and detailed answer. I do indeed better
understand now, that mainly, it was something like cinematic freshness, that
BANGED out of the ordinary...i can understand that. And, of course, it´s a
well done *pulp fiction*, indeed... what troubles me is the question, how
much violence do i accept, as long as there´s any artistic value to it ...
should we allow a movie, where the main figure behaves extremly violently
and there´s no critical remark made about it by the story (no inhaerent
"moral" so to speak), if only it´s "good" from an artistic standpoint ? Is
artistic quality enough to justify *everything* ? I don´t think so. Yet, i
don´t have the perfect solution for that; of course; violence is in the
world, so it would be silly to falsify reality on screen ... but isn´t there
an increase of *unneccessary* violence in the movies, that has, by it´s
sheer amount, an subconscious effect on the viewer ? I don´t think it´s
possible (nor a good idea...) to "forbidd" something to grown ups, but,
opposed to former, "harmless" times, when i had the position, that in the
end the viewer stays responsible, and cannnot be "conditioned" to violence
*that* easy, i´m afraid, that, from a certain level of obvious violence on,
we *do* have some effects in reality ... increase of fear, and, maybe
consequently, of violence...
I think, that ACO is a good counterexample; even if some idiots may have
imitated the guys in reality, still the overall message for sure is not
"violence is fun". In "Pulp fiction ...? When a critical mass of violence is
reached, i can no longer think about an inventive style, a good story, good
actors, lighting, whatever...it then is a matter of priorities to me, and
not at all "taste"...i hope, nobody likes violence "by taste"; and if so, i
hope he reads this in jail ;-).
Anyway, i like "realistic" films, and would encourage filmmakers to be
"realistic", but i *definitely* refuse to admire artistic elements, if they
"transport" inhumanity as a concentrate, as something obvious.
Thanks
Thomas
Darryl Wiggers
> Nor can I (indeed, one of my favourite hobbies when running a repertory
> cinema was to stand in the foyer and wind up our stuffier patrons by
> suggesting that maybe, just maybe, 'Clueless' was more enjoyable than
> the new Eric Rohmer film that opened the same week)
But Clueless IS more enjoyable... than ANY Rohmer snooze-fest, uh, film.
> - but equally,
> anyone who ignores all these film-makers (note that I'm not necessarily
> advocating that *all* get listed, just that it would be mildly
> surprising if a serious list left them all out) is clearly ignoring a
> substantial chunk of the best of 1990s cinema.
A chunk... not sure I would call it "substantial"
> Incidentally, neither Ken Loach nor Mike Leigh are regarded as "art"
> filmmakers in the part of the world where I live - both have made
> massive impacts on British popular culture (with 'Cathy Come Home' and
> 'Abigail's Party' respectively).
"Massive impacts on British popular culture"?!!! Now there's a
mouthfull. I've never been to the U.K. so I can't really comment but I
know there are many here in Canada who consider themselves film-savvy
and would make a similar statement about Atom Egoyan. I can assure you
it's nonsense. About two years ago the Canadian media went nuts over
The Sweet Hereafter. More copy was generated for that film than
probably ALL films made in the history of Canada. It won a major award
at Cannes. Even the Prime Minister of Canada (a first) stood up in the
House of Commons and made a special plee to Canadians to watch the
film! About a million dollars was spent campaigning the film for the
Oscars. The ruse worked and it secured two nominations... for 6 months
the film was force-fed to Canadians in movie theatres (particularly
Toronto)... when it was over, the film's producer and distributor
announced that The Sweet Hereafter was the first Canadian film in over
a decade to make a profit... and the grand box office return? A gross
of about $1 million in ALL of Canada (worldwide was about $10
million)... yet there are French-language films that are only
distributed in the province of Quebec that made more than that -- in
ONE WEEKEND! And David Cronenberg -- who makes truly daring films --
has consistently made unique films that are also a "popular" success,
attracting box office in the tens of millions... not just one. The fact
is, the general public dosen't give a shit about Atom Egoyan. His
audience is "limited" not "popular." His films bear no reflection on
the diverse mileau of this nation, or even a section of it. It is
merely self-conscious "art" with all its pretentious trappings... but
that, of course, is only an opinion... normally I wouldn't care about
such things... nor would I begrudge ANY film of this nature... except
when it's financed by taxpayer's money, which includes my money.
Especially in a time when too much money has already been taken away
from the arts.
> Not that I'm disagreeing with you (I doubt I would!), but I can't help
> noticing you don't actually *name* any of these "fabulous films that
> blow these away"...
*sigh*
At the risk of turning this into a "my dad can beat up your dad" debate,
here are 50 non-U.S. examples (in no particular order):
Charlot and Charlotte (Denmark, 1996)
The Stockholm Marathon (Sweden, 1997)
The Bride With White Hair (Hong Kong, 1993)
Agnes (Iceland, 1997)
The Chekist (Russia, 1992)
The Stendhal Syndrome (Italy, 1996)
Wing Chun (Hong Kong, 1994)
Blessed Are Those Who Thirst (Norway, 1997)
The Horseman on the Roof (France, 1995)
The Eighth Day (France, 1996)
Twin Town (Wales, 1997)
Peculiarities of the National Hunt (Russia, 1995)
Once Were Warriors (New Zealand, 1994)
Broken English (New Zealand, 1997)
Segurista (Phillipines, 1996)
La Haine (France, 1995)
Perfect Circle (Bosnia, 1996)
The White Lioness (Sweden, 1996)
Hyenas (Senegal, 1992)
Lost in Siberia (U.K./USSR, 1991)
Window To Paris (France, 1996)
Krapatchouk (France/Belgium/Spain, 1992)
Diary of a Rapist (Italy, 1995)
The Hunters (Sweden, 1996)
Freakin' Beautiful World (Finland, 1997)
The Sugar Factory (Australia, 1997)
Wildside (Denmark/Iceland, 1998)
Guantanamera (Cuba/Spain, 1994)
City Unplugged (Estonia, 1993)
1-900 (Netherlands, 1994)
The Vanishing (France, 1993)
Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg (Sweden, 1990)
Dreaming of Rita (Sweden, 1992)
Beneath the Surface (Sweden , 1997)
Sekal Has To Die (Czechoslovakia, 1998)
Bandits (Germany, 1997)
House of Angels (Sweden, 1992)
Luna e L'altra (Italy, 1996)
Cruel Train (U.K., 1995)
Two Deaths (U.K., 1994)
The Investigator (U.K., 1997)
Bent (U.K., 1997)
Edward 2 (U.K., 1991)
You, Me and Marley (U.K., 1992)
Sweet Nothing (U.K., 1990)
Alive and Kicking (U.K., 1991)
Killing Me Softly (U.K., 1995)
Brothers in Trouble (U.K., 1995)
Crossing the Floor (U.K., 1996)
Under the Skin (U.K., 1997)
Darryl Wiggers
> first of all, thanks for your long and detailed answer. I do indeed better
> understand now, that mainly, it was something like cinematic freshness, that
> BANGED out of the ordinary...i can understand that. And, of course, it´s a
> well done *pulp fiction*, indeed...
Good point. It, of course, reminds me of 1950s when the whole culture
was suffering from a similar era of bland, and gave rise to the "pulp"
books and magazines.
> what troubles me is the question, how
> much violence do i accept, as long as there´s any artistic value to it ...
> should we allow a movie, where the main figure behaves extremly violently
> and there´s no critical remark made about it by the story (no inhaerent
> "moral" so to speak), if only it´s "good" from an artistic standpoint ?
If I recall, you said you were never able to watch the whole film. Too
bad because the final scene makes a marvelous statement about violence.
In a sense, a character "redeems" himself and chooses "the path less
travelled." His counterpart refuses to accept the "sign" he has
received and carries on with a life of crime... as we later deduce, one
of them ends up dead. You can probably guess which one... similar
scenes deal with characters who suffer, or are rewarded, for their
respective actions and inactions... maybe a "reading" of this flick has
some merit after all.
Is
> artistic quality enough to justify *everything* ? I don´t think so. Yet, i
> don´t have the perfect solution for that; of course; violence is in the
> world, so it would be silly to falsify reality on screen ... but isn´t there
> an increase of *unneccessary* violence in the movies, that has, by it´s
> sheer amount, an subconscious effect on the viewer ?
Oh, dear. You've biten off a big topic to chew on... not sure I have
the energy to write an essay on this, but this is a topic that has
consumed my life nearly every day for the last 3 years (I'm not
kidding, either. It very much affects the job I'm paid to do). In short
I've ome to the conclusion that the "violence in media" argument --
that it begets violence in our society -- will, in a 100 years or so,
been viewed as nonsense like those those who believed the world was
flat.
> I don´t think it´s
> possible (nor a good idea...) to "forbidd" something to grown ups, but,
> opposed to former, "harmless" times, when i had the position, that in the
> end the viewer stays responsible, and cannnot be "conditioned" to violence
> *that* easy, i´m afraid, that, from a certain level of obvious violence on,
> we *do* have some effects in reality ... increase of fear, and, maybe
> consequently, of violence...
I wonder if people worried about this "fear" when Mary Shelley and Bram
Stoker wrote their novels... or when Shakespeare wrote his tragedies...
or the Greeks... what scares me is that people read the newspapers, or
watch the TV news, and believe that what they're seeing is the "truth"
(which reminds me, again, of Kidman's dialogue in the final EWS scene).
As for the media causing violence, think about this: Japan airs some of
the most violent telvision in the world (ever see Japanimation?). Yet
their murder rate is almost nil. Go figure.
> I think, that ACO is a good counterexample; even if some idiots may have
> imitated the guys in reality, still the overall message for sure is not
> "violence is fun". In "Pulp fiction ...? When a critical mass of violence is
> reached, i can no longer think about an inventive style, a good story, good
> actors, lighting, whatever...it then is a matter of priorities to me, and
> not at all "taste"...i hope, nobody likes violence "by taste"; and if so, i
> hope he reads this in jail ;-).
Committing violence is a crime. Watching fake violence (and unless it's
a "snuff" film, all film violence is "fake") is not. I think you would
have to agree that that's an important distinction, right?
> Anyway, i like "realistic" films, and would encourage filmmakers to be
> "realistic", but i *definitely* refuse to admire artistic elements, if they
> "transport" inhumanity as a concentrate, as something obvious.
Frankly I would hope filmmakers AVOID "realistic" films. It creates the
illusion that it's real, but it's not. A lot of people were thoroughly
impressed with the "realistic" protrayal of violence in Saving Private
Ryan. So much so that they gladly watched the film again... but I never
met a WWII vet who wanted to go back to battle. Which is more
realistic?.. I'm not sure if this relates to the point you're driving
at but, overall, if you don't like something, don't watch. The only
time I would fret about the media "transporting inhumanity" is if
people watched too much... that they didn't turn off the tv and comuter
and socialized... that they never left the house to hang out with
friends, and family... speaking of which, I think I'll head out to the
pub and have a pint or two.
darryl
Master_DY...@juno.com
newspaper didn't have room, I ended up cutting a lot of
indies/imports that just weren't, well, up to par. Here's
a list of what got cut (IN NO PARTICULAT ORDER)
1. Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood
2. Shine – Scott Hicks
3. Hard Boiled – John Woo
4. Run Lola Run – Tom Tykwer
5. Heat - Michael Mann
6. My Name Is Joe – Ken Loach
7. Thelma & Louise - Ridley Scott
8. Bullets Over Broadway - Woody Allen
9. Bound - Wachowski Brothers
10. Swingers - Doug Liman
11. Cape Fear - Martin Scorsese
12. Les Miserables - Claude Lelouch
13. South Park - Trey Parker
14. Summer of Sam - Spike Lee
15. Red – Kryzsztof Kieslowski
16. Gods and Monsters – Bill Condon
17. In The Name of the Father – Jim Sheridan
18. True Romance - Tony Scott
19. Smoke – Wayne Wang
20. Happiness – Todd Solondz
21. Four Weddings and a Funeral – Mike Newell
22. Grosse Point Blank - George Armitage
23. Your Friends & Neighbors - Neil LaBute
24. The Piano - Jane Campion
25. Raise The Red Lantern – Yimou Zhang
26. Freeway - Matthew Bright
27. Menace II Society – Hughes Brothers
28. Fresh – Boaz Yakin
29. Get Shorty – Barry Sonnenfield
30. Misery – Rob Reiner
31. Quiz Show – Robert Redford
32. Much Ado About Nothing – Kenneth Brannagh
33. Breaking The Waves - Lars von Trier
34. Fallen Angels – Wong Kar-wai
35. The Rainmaker – Francis Ford Coppola
36. Welcome to the Dollhouse – Todd Solondz
37. Felicia’s Journey – Atom Egoyan
38. The Opposite of Sex – Don Roos
39. Natural Born Killers – Oliver Stone
40. Insomnia – Erik Skjoldbjaerg
41. Twelve Monkeys – Terry Gilliam
42. Casino – Martin Scorsese
43. Hate – Mathieu Kassovitz
In article <1dy8jdh.k4g...@everyman.demon.co.uk>,
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
> David Kirkpatrick <dak...@home.com> wrote:
> > I'm not questioning your right to an opinion or to
> express it, but it
> > just strikes me that misanthropy seems to be a
> dominant characteristic
> > of almost every film on the list. (I've put an
> asterisk next to films I
> > haven't yet seen.) I'm also not trying to analyze
> your personality based
> > on the content of the films you list (after all,
> sometimes opposites
> > attract); I'm just commenting that the list seems to
> be a bit, well,
> > skewed.
> Skewed is the word - I couldn't take it seriously
> because its
> overwhelming bias towards English-language films in
> general and US-made
> films in particular shows that its compiler has a very
> narrow range.
> Any list of "movies of the decade" that totally
> ignores the work of
> Krzysztof Kieslowski, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige, Shinya
> Tsukamoto, Jan
> Svankmajer, Aki Kaurismäki, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh,
> Pedro Almodovar or
> Lars Von Trier (to name just ten directors who have
> genuinely attempted
> something new and adventurous over the past decade)
> can't possibly be
> taken seriously in my book.
> Michael
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> PARADISE GROVE - a film about life, death and the bit
> in the middle
> starring Ron Moody, Rula Lenska, Lee Blakemore and
> Leyland O'Brien
> http://www.filmsite.co.uk/paradisegrove
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
john_...@my-deja.com
spot on a list of top films of the decade.
On 16 Sep 1999 04:21:08 GMT, kbusb...@aol.com (KBusby2256) wrote:
>>Top 50 Movies of the 90s
>>By Donlee Brussel
>
Michael Brooke
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> > Nor can I (indeed, one of my favourite hobbies when running a repertory
> > cinema was to stand in the foyer and wind up our stuffier patrons by
> > suggesting that maybe, just maybe, 'Clueless' was more enjoyable than
> > the new Eric Rohmer film that opened the same week)
>
> But Clueless IS more enjoyable... than ANY Rohmer snooze-fest, uh, film.
My point exactly.
> > Incidentally, neither Ken Loach nor Mike Leigh are regarded as "art"
> > filmmakers in the part of the world where I live - both have made
> > massive impacts on British popular culture (with 'Cathy Come Home' and
> > 'Abigail's Party' respectively).
>
> "Massive impacts on British popular culture"?!!! Now there's a
> mouthfull.
In those cases, it's perfectly true. 'Cathy Come Home' had a seismic
impact on British culture, British social attitudes and - apparently -
British laws regarding homelessness when it was shown on BBC1 in the
mid-1960s. And 'Abigail's Party' is so much a part of popular British
culture that it was even given an entire theme night on a national TV
channel a couple of years ago!
I could also have given more recent examples - 'Secrets and Lies' was a
substantial hit in the UK, and went on to gross $40 million worldwide
(not bad for a low-budget British film with no stars).
> I've never been to the U.K. so I can't really comment but I
> know there are many here in Canada who consider themselves film-savvy
> and would make a similar statement about Atom Egoyan. I can assure you
> it's nonsense.
I'm sure it is, but since Atom Egoyan has never (to the best of my
knowledge) directed anything with the cultural and social impact of
'Cathy Come Home', 'Abigail's Party' or 'Secrets and Lies', the
comparison is meaningless. Or, if you prefer, nonsense.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Wiggers
> > "Massive impacts on British popular culture"?!!! Now there's a
> > mouthfull.
>
> In those cases, it's perfectly true. 'Cathy Come Home' had a seismic
> impact on British culture, British social attitudes and - apparently -
> British laws regarding homelessness when it was shown on BBC1 in the
> mid-1960s. And 'Abigail's Party' is so much a part of popular British
> culture that it was even given an entire theme night on a national TV
> channel a couple of years ago!
Our regulatory body (CRTC) demands a certain percentage of Canadian
content (CanCon) on the airwaves. Theme nights? We have theme weeks.
The few Cdn films made receive perpetual exposure (that's partly why SH
stayed in theatres so long -- CanCon requirements). Not to mention our
tv and radio industry. In general this has an effect (generally a
positive one, IMO) on our culture. But I can't think of a ONE
production that has single-handedly altered culture... still sounds
more than a tad exaggerated but, perhaps, another Brit can confirm that
their social attitude, and the world around them, was altered by one
particular film... I mean, the U.S. is constantly charging into smaller
countries with guns blazing, and bombs dropping, in the name of
"democracy." Yet every time they pack up leave, with thousands of
corpses left in their wake, the country always rubber bands back to its
old ways. Maybe they should just increase their film distribution.
> I could also have given more recent examples - 'Secrets and Lies' was a
> substantial hit in the UK, and went on to gross $40 million worldwide
> (not bad for a low-budget British film with no stars).
Not bad, indeed. Of course The Blair Witch Project has set a new scale
for low-budget success stories.
> I'm sure it is, but since Atom Egoyan has never (to the best of my
> knowledge) directed anything with the cultural and social impact of
> 'Cathy Come Home', 'Abigail's Party' or 'Secrets and Lies', the
> comparison is meaningless. Or, if you prefer, nonsense.
Here's a thought. Can anyone list an American film that has
single-handedly had a "seismic impact" on American culture and social
attitudes? Or a TV show? Star Wars? The Simpsons? Star Trek: The Next
Generation? Titanic?... maybe an American example can give me a better
grasp of what kind of effect is being discussed here.
dw
Michael Brooke
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> > > "Massive impacts on British popular culture"?!!! Now there's a
> > > mouthfull.
> >
> > In those cases, it's perfectly true. 'Cathy Come Home' had a seismic
> > impact on British culture, British social attitudes and - apparently -
> > British laws regarding homelessness when it was shown on BBC1 in the
> > mid-1960s. And 'Abigail's Party' is so much a part of popular British
> > culture that it was even given an entire theme night on a national TV
> > channel a couple of years ago!
>
> Our regulatory body (CRTC) demands a certain percentage of Canadian
> content (CanCon) on the airwaves. Theme nights? We have theme weeks.
OK, I'll be more detailed - the BBC's 'Abigail's Party' theme night
consisted of an entire Saturday evening's peak viewing schedule being
given over to one single production, featuring the show itself plus
associated documentaries about Mike Leigh, the cast, the background (the
1970s), and so on.
Theme nights are nothing new for British TV (indeed, they've been on the
increase in recent years) - but I honestly can't think of another one
based around a single individual one-off work, which is a clear
indication of the rather unusual position 'Abigail's Party' has within
British popular culture.
> The few Cdn films made receive perpetual exposure (that's partly why SH
> stayed in theatres so long -- CanCon requirements). Not to mention our
> tv and radio industry. In general this has an effect (generally a
> positive one, IMO) on our culture.
This is another irrelevant side issue - we don't have quotas in Britain
(indeed, we tried them out in the 1930s, with generally disastrous
results). In general, if you look at the UK TV ratings for any random
week, you'll find that by far the most popular shows are British in
origin, with American imports lagging a fair way behind (I've just
checked this claim against last week's listings, and it stands up -
indeed, rather better than I was expecting!)
We've always had an unusually strong domestic TV industry compared with
many other countries, and for the most part it has genuine popular
appeal. God knows we get enough imported US stuff, but with very few
exceptions it occupies a significantly lower place on the ratings than
home-grown shows - indeed, the likes of 'Seinfeld' are generally
confined to a post-midnight ghetto, and even 'Friends' (the most
successful current US import) only manages around half the ratings of
British equivalents.
> But I can't think of a ONE
> production that has single-handedly altered culture... still sounds
> more than a tad exaggerated but, perhaps, another Brit can confirm that
> their social attitude, and the world around them, was altered by one
> particular film...
To explain the context: 'Cathy Come Home' was broadcast on BBC1 at a
time when there were only three TV channels (one of them brand new and
little-watched), and the vast majority of people watched BBC1. The film
showed how an ordinary woman was forced into homelessness, an issue that
up until then had been largely brushed under the carpet on the
assumption that it only applied to tramps and dossers.
Its impact was immediate and enormous - a substantial majority of the
TV-owning population watched it, both the programme and the issues it
raised were splurged all over the newspapers (readership of which was
considerably higher back then), and either directly or indirectly led to
a change in the law regarding homelessness.
That was the social impact, and the cultural impact was arguably even
greater in the long term. For the first time, a film shot on the
streets with a hand-held camera, cinema-verite style, had achieved
genuine popular success, and it changed the face of British television
overnight.
I bet if you asked people to sum up the style of a typical British TV
programme, someone will come up with the words "gritty realism" almost
immediately - that's one of the side-effects of 'Cathy Come Home'.
Obviously, it wasn't the only or even the first TV film to make use of
these techniques - which Loach himself had already explored in earlier
productions - but it was the first to achieve that degree of success.
Incidentally, I haven't actually seen it myself - and I suspect the same
is true of most people under the age of 45 (or at least those who didn't
do media studies at school, where it's apparently one of the key
"texts") - but the mere fact that I'm well aware of its impact is a
clear sign of just how great that impact was. Indeed, it's mentioned in
today's Daily Telegraph - something I spotted *after* I made my original
postings!
> I mean, the U.S. is constantly charging into smaller
> countries with guns blazing, and bombs dropping, in the name of
> "democracy." Yet every time they pack up leave, with thousands of
> corpses left in their wake, the country always rubber bands back to its
> old ways. Maybe they should just increase their film distribution.
It wouldn't work, because the impact of 'Cathy Come Home' was based on
very particular social circumstances (widespread TV ownership but very
few things worth watching, general lack of awareness about the social
issues being discussed and so on).
In today's multi-channel multi-media multi-cultural society, it's almost
impossible to imagine one single low-budget film (or indeed *any* film)
having anything like the same impact - indeed, 'Cathy Come Home' is
frequently brought up as an example of a phenomenon that is probably
unrepeatable: where the entire country watched the same thing en masse
and talked about it with total strangers the next day.
> > I could also have given more recent examples - 'Secrets and Lies' was a
> > substantial hit in the UK, and went on to gross $40 million worldwide
> > (not bad for a low-budget British film with no stars).
>
> Not bad, indeed. Of course The Blair Witch Project has set a new scale
> for low-budget success stories.
True, but I suspect that that's going to be a one-off in the long term.
Indeed, much like 'Cathy Come Home' it happened to be in the right place
and the right time.
>
> > I'm sure it is, but since Atom Egoyan has never (to the best of my
> > knowledge) directed anything with the cultural and social impact of
> > 'Cathy Come Home', 'Abigail's Party' or 'Secrets and Lies', the
> > comparison is meaningless. Or, if you prefer, nonsense.
>
> Here's a thought. Can anyone list an American film that has
> single-handedly had a "seismic impact" on American culture and social
> attitudes? Or a TV show? Star Wars? The Simpsons? Star Trek: The Next
> Generation? Titanic?... maybe an American example can give me a better
> grasp of what kind of effect is being discussed here.
As I said above, it would be very hard to come up with an exact
equivalent in an American context (not least for reasons of geography
and cultural diversity: Britain was much more homogeneous in the
mid-1960s) - which is why such comparisons are meaningless.
How on earth did we get onto all this?
point
> <po...@knuut.de> wrote:
>
>
> If I recall, you said you were never able to watch the whole film. Too
> bad because the final scene makes a marvelous statement about violence.
> In a sense, a character "redeems" himself and chooses "the path less
> travelled." His counterpart refuses to accept the "sign" he has
> received and carries on with a life of crime... as we later deduce, one
> of them ends up dead. You can probably guess which one...
hmmm...but how does that fit into the "well, it has to be violent, because
it should be seen as pulp fiction" concept? It suddenly turns "responsible",
so to speak? Anyway, then the movie might be inconsequent, but i´d have to
correct my impression.
> I've ome to the conclusion that the "violence in media" argument --
> that it begets violence in our society -- will, in a 100 years or so,
> been viewed as nonsense like those those who believed the world was
> flat.
Yes, so did i - some years ago, without beeing involved professionally.
Mainly i think the consum of violence reinforces, whatever is already in the
viewer - disgust in some, and lust in others. Maybe, as i´m getting older
(42 now), i´m getting more and more tired of all this lost chances for a
peacefull, creative and pleasant living ... and i accuse it´s "mirror" in
the cinema instead... ;-)
>
> I wonder if people worried about this "fear" when Mary Shelley and Bram
> Stoker wrote their novels... or when Shakespeare wrote his tragedies...
> or the Greeks...
>what scares me is that people read the newspapers, or
> watch the TV news, and believe that what they're seeing is the "truth"
> (which reminds me, again, of Kidman's dialogue in the final EWS scene).
You describe the missing critical distance from adults. O.K., but aren´t the
effects of *additional*, "artifical" and "not-already-in-reality"-violence,
if encounterd too much, an additional load on the already challenged souls
of children/young persons ? See, i don´t blame those movies to bring
violence to the world. Reality was first, no doubt. We all have the
potential for violently freaking out in *ourselves*. But, since some years,
there´s such a load of violence in all arts (for example, gangsta-rap), it´s
a certain "violence is cool"-culture for the kids....in Germany we have an
definite increase of violence at schools, of (legal!) drug abuse (the
valium-kind) from even young kids, raising brutality in youngster´s
crimes... of course, there´s no monocausal explanation, and the media are
just one factor.
> As for the media causing violence, think about this: Japan airs some of
> the most violent telvision in the world (ever see Japanimation?). Yet
> their murder rate is almost nil. Go figure.
The japanes culture indeed is a special case. From their tradition, they
still - though "amercanised" - tend to put an harmonic society over
individuality (i admit, it´s getting less...). As far as i know, the number
of suicides is extremly high... violence as well.
Just had the idea: Maybe, in case of Japan, the violence in the media is the
expression of personal violence, supressed by society. In other, more
indivualistic societies, it serves for getting bored viewers a more intense
"kick"...
>
> Committing violence is a crime. Watching fake violence (and unless it's
> a "snuff" film, all film violence is "fake") is not. I think you would
> have to agree that that's an important distinction, right?
Sure. And, as i said before, i´m far from oversimplistically blaming the
media alone... We all have "lust for murder" sometimes, but don´t do it. I
know the difference, yes (thanks god ...;-). But you still wouldn´t
recommend to let all children see whatever cinema-brutality they want, do
you ;-)?
>
> > Anyway, i like "realistic" films, and would encourage filmmakers to be
> > "realistic", but i *definitely* refuse to admire artistic elements, if
they
> > "transport" inhumanity as a concentrate, as something obvious.
>
> Frankly I would hope filmmakers AVOID "realistic" films.
>It creates the
> illusion that it's real, but it's not. A lot of people were thoroughly
> impressed with the "realistic" protrayal of violence in Saving Private
> Ryan. So much so that they gladly watched the film again...
> but I never
> met a WWII vet who wanted to go back to battle.
> Which is more
> realistic?..
But that has to do with the missing of true adventure in our today´s
society, i guess. We (most, at least) have no connection to real violence
whatsoever. No killing for the food, no neighbours assaulting (usually;-)...
but we as humans have this ability to fight in emergency, and it wants to
get out of it´s "prison for society´s sake"...if it´s not "used" in reality,
we quench our thirst in movies ... which is fine for somewhat mature
persons.
>I'm not sure if this relates to the point you're driving
> at but, overall, if you don't like something, don't watch.
Sure, for me, it´s no problem. I just wouldn´t categorically exclude the
possible influence on young people and their behaviour in reality.
>The only
> time I would fret about the media "transporting inhumanity" is if
> people watched too much... that they didn't turn off the tv and comuter
> and socialized... that they never left the house to hang out with
> friends, and family... speaking of which, I think I'll head out to the
> pub and have a pint or two.
>
Hope, you have a peacefull way home...cheers ;-) !
Thomas
Bilge Ebiri
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dybt59.pv...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>OK, I'll be more detailed - the BBC's 'Abigail's Party' theme night
>consisted of an entire Saturday evening's peak viewing schedule being
>given over to one single production, featuring the show itself plus
>associated documentaries about Mike Leigh, the cast, the background (the
>1970s), and so on.
>
>Theme nights are nothing new for British TV (indeed, they've been on the
>increase in recent years) - but I honestly can't think of another one
>based around a single individual one-off work, which is a clear
>indication of the rather unusual position 'Abigail's Party' has within
>British popular culture.
>
Michael, I'm curious...Now, I'm a huge fan of Leigh's work, and I love
Abigail's Party. And I even worked at the BBC (the US office), and had the
Abigail's Party theme night in my catalog for a long time. But can you (or
any other Brits on the ng) explain to me why this work had such an impact on
British culture at the time? It's a marvelous film (play? drama? TV show?
I don't know what the hell to call it...), but it doesn't seem like the kind
of thing to come around and bite a generation in the ass. Maybe it's the
American in me, but I'm just genuinely puzzled. Encouraged, perhaps, but
puzzled nonetheless.
love,
Bilge
Michael Brooke
> Michael, I'm curious...Now, I'm a huge fan of Leigh's work, and I love
> Abigail's Party. And I even worked at the BBC (the US office), and had the
> Abigail's Party theme night in my catalog for a long time. But can you (or
> any other Brits on the ng) explain to me why this work had such an impact on
> British culture at the time? It's a marvelous film (play? drama? TV show?
> I don't know what the hell to call it...),
It started out as a stage play at the Hampstead Theatre in (I think)
1975, but most people will of course know it from the legendary BBC
version, which was broadcast in (I think) 1977. "TV play" would have
been the technical term at the time, and although it's more or less
obsolete today, it's as good as any.
> but it doesn't seem like the kind
> of thing to come around and bite a generation in the ass. Maybe it's the
> American in me, but I'm just genuinely puzzled. Encouraged, perhaps, but
> puzzled nonetheless.
There's no doubt as to why it was a success at the time - as you know,
it's a beautifully written and acted, wincingly accurate portrait of
lower-middle-class suburbia, with Alison Steadman arguably giving a
career-best performance as the grotesque Beverly. And of course it was
broadcast at a time when we only had three TV channels, and the 'Play
For Today' slot in which it was shown was religiously watched by
millions - a far greater audience share than something similar would get
today.
As to why it's lasted so well, I suspect it may have been thanks to the
ascent of Margaret Thatcher - she became leader of the Conservative
Party in 1975 and prime minister in 1979, and immediately set about
championing precisely those "virtues" that the characters in 'Abigail's
Party' hold so dear: rampant consumerism, an obsession with money as the
only thing that really matters, social climbing, painfully crass
philistinism, you name it.
As a result, 'Abigail's Party' metamorphosed from being very much a play
of its time to being an incisive comment on the values of the 1980s -
which is why it not only retained its relevance (indeed, it had already
become a set text in schools by the early 1980s - I first watched it in
an O-Level English Literature class) but also seemed *more* relevant as
the decade wore on.
(This is one of the reasons why it's pointless trying to come up with
Canadian or US equivalents - I doubt very much there are any!)
Andrew Foley
Darryl Wiggers wrote in message <180919990626292116%dar...@pathcom.com>...
>mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
>> > "Massive impacts on British popular culture"?!!! Now there's a
>> > mouthfull.
>>
>> impact on British culture, British social attitudes and - apparently -
>> British laws regarding homelessness when it was shown on BBC1 in the
>> mid-1960s. And 'Abigail's Party' is so much a part of popular British
>> culture that it was even given an entire theme night on a national TV
>> channel a couple of years ago!
>
>Our regulatory body (CRTC) demands a certain percentage of Canadian
>content (CanCon) on the airwaves. Theme nights? We have theme weeks.
>stayed in theatres so long -- CanCon requirements). Not to mention our
>tv and radio industry. In general this has an effect (generally a
>production that has single-handedly altered culture... still sounds
>more than a tad exaggerated but, perhaps, another Brit can confirm that
>their social attitude, and the world around them, was altered by one
>particular film...
Michael is possibly a little too young to actually remember the original
screening of Cathy Come Home on BBC. I'm a bit older than him, and even I
was too young to see it at the time (it was on just past my bedtime, around
nine o'clock in the evening). But I do remember that it did have a
remarkable effect. The papers and the television news and current affairs
programmes were constantly on about it for weeks (even months) afterwards.
The homelessness charity Shelter was set up at that time, and press reports
often claim that it was Loach's film that led to the founding of that
charity (although Shelter claim that they were already getting organised
before then). In the months that followed the show, Parliament made
substantial changes in the homelessness laws, as a result of the changes in
public opinion that CCC had created, and the lobbying pressure that Shelter
brought to bear.
I didn't see it until it got a theatrical screening in the mid-80s, when it
was shown in a 16mm print. The cinema was forced to show it at 24fps, so it
ran a little slow (the BBC's film cameras are all set to the British
television speed of 25fps, and the cinema's projector didn't have a 25fps
setting). But it was quite evident why it had caused such a sensation
twenty years earlier, and had made its young director famous (well, as
famous as television directors can get in this country).
Rod Munday
broadcast on a night when ITV workers went on strike and as a
consequence the channel shutdown transmissions. As Michael said, there
were only 3 TV channels in the UK in those days, and some 16 million
families tuned in.
Regards Rod Munday
Andrew Foley
Michael Brooke wrote in message
>Bilge Ebiri <eb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Michael, I'm curious...Now, I'm a huge fan of Leigh's work, and I love
>> Abigail's Party. And I even worked at the BBC (the US office), and had
the
>> Abigail's Party theme night in my catalog for a long time. But can you
(or
>> any other Brits on the ng) explain to me why this work had such an impact
on
>> British culture at the time? It's a marvelous film (play? drama? TV
show?
>> I don't know what the hell to call it...),
>
>It started out as a stage play at the Hampstead Theatre in (I think)
>1975, but most people will of course know it from the legendary BBC
>version, which was broadcast in (I think) 1977. "TV play" would have
>been the technical term at the time, and although it's more or less
>obsolete today, it's as good as any.
>
The BBC had a tradition of producing single "plays" (usually recorded onto
videotape in a studio, filmed - in 16mm, at 25fps - on location, or a
combination of both) grouped into series so that their stand-aloneness
wouldn't hurt. Cathy Come Home was first shown in "The Wednesday Play", and
when the BBC decided in the early 70s to move the slot to a Thursday, they
renamed it "Play for Today", and Abigail's Party first aired in that slot.
But Abigail's Party was unusual for "Play for Today", in that it wasn't an
original script, but an adaptation of Mike Leigh's original stageplay. Very
few of these shows were adaptations (I can think of only one other, a play
by Haclav Havel - though its title has disappeared into the recesses of my
memory). The television version of AP was videotaped in a BBC studio. BTW,
many people (including a lot who saw it) don't realise that Abigail doesn't
appear: she's the neighbour's daughter who's having her first teenage party
next door.
>> but it doesn't seem like the kind
>> of thing to come around and bite a generation in the ass. Maybe it's the
>> American in me, but I'm just genuinely puzzled. Encouraged, perhaps, but
>> puzzled nonetheless.
>
>There's no doubt as to why it was a success at the time - as you know,
>it's a beautifully written and acted, wincingly accurate portrait of
>lower-middle-class suburbia, with Alison Steadman arguably giving a
>career-best performance as the grotesque Beverly. And of course it was
>broadcast at a time when we only had three TV channels, and the 'Play
>For Today' slot in which it was shown was religiously watched by
>millions - a far greater audience share than something similar would get
>today.
>
"Play For Today" finally disappeared in the early 80s, round about the time
when we got a fourth channel. Channel Four still "made" single dramas (as
we've explained before, C4 doesn't make its programmes, but commissions them
from independent producers), but they were called "Film on Four", and were
mostly made as feature films for theatrical distribution (nearly always shot
in 35mm, with widescreen as a viable option, and at 24fps). The reasoning
being that a cinema release would create a visible profile for the programme
that would create a larger audience for its TV screening (and might generate
some extra income if the theatrical release made a profit). "Film on
Four's" one experiment with electronic imaging in this slot, Peter Wollen
and Laura Mulvey's adaptation of Emma Tennant's book The Bad Sister, was
dismissed as an aberration.
The audiences for "Play for Today" had been steadily decreasing, and the
costs of producing different shows with different casts week after week were
becoming prohibitive. Miniseries were a better way to reach and build an
audience: "Wednesday Play"/"Play for Today" stalwart Dennis Potter showed
the way with Pennies From Heaven, which occupied six weeks of the "Play for
Today" slot in the mid-70s (when PfT wasn't airing) to large and
appreciative audiences. Some years later, the BBC made an attempt at
creating an ongoing continuous serial, EastEnders, which borrows some
elements from soap opera, and some from the perceived tradition of PfT. The
attempt was outrageously successful, and EastEnders is still going strong,
thirteen years on. Belatedly, and half-heartedly, the BBC has tried to
follow C4 into the movie business (half-heartedly, because many of these
efforts are shot full-frame, 16mm, 25fps - astonishingly, some of these get
theatrical release).
>As to why it's lasted so well, I suspect it may have been thanks to the
>ascent of Margaret Thatcher - she became leader of the Conservative
>Party in 1975 and prime minister in 1979, and immediately set about
>championing precisely those "virtues" that the characters in 'Abigail's
>Party' hold so dear: rampant consumerism, an obsession with money as the
>only thing that really matters, social climbing, painfully crass
>philistinism, you name it.
>
>As a result, 'Abigail's Party' metamorphosed from being very much a play
>of its time to being an incisive comment on the values of the 1980s -
>which is why it not only retained its relevance (indeed, it had already
>become a set text in schools by the early 1980s - I first watched it in
>an O-Level English Literature class) but also seemed *more* relevant as
>the decade wore on.
>
I saw it on its original broadcast: I was about 18 or 19. Everybody, but
everybody, in the University I was attending at the time, was talking about
it the next day.
>(This is one of the reasons why it's pointless trying to come up with
>Canadian or US equivalents - I doubt very much there are any!)
>
I think the only place to look for anything like an equivalent is the
"Golden Age" of US television, in the 50s, when original plays were
performed live. But the sheer scale of the country would prevent these from
having the impact that some of the BBC's original one-off dramas had in
Britain.
Darryl Wiggers
> OK, I'll be more detailed - the BBC's 'Abigail's Party' theme night
> consisted of an entire Saturday evening's peak viewing schedule being
> given over to one single production, featuring the show itself plus
> associated documentaries about Mike Leigh, the cast, the background (the
> 1970s), and so on.
>
> Theme nights are nothing new for British TV (indeed, they've been on the
> increase in recent years) - but I honestly can't think of another one
> based around a single individual one-off work, which is a clear
> indication of the rather unusual position 'Abigail's Party' has within
> British popular culture.
That gives me a much better perspective. Thanks.
> This is another irrelevant side issue - we don't have quotas in Britain
> (indeed, we tried them out in the 1930s, with generally disastrous
> results). In general, if you look at the UK TV ratings for any random
> week, you'll find that by far the most popular shows are British in
> origin, with American imports lagging a fair way behind (I've just
> checked this claim against last week's listings, and it stands up -
> indeed, rather better than I was expecting!)
Oh, I know that very well. I read your TV news all time to keep
up-to-date on the latest TV shows and mini-series... and, here in
Canada, we're especially grateful to the BBC in their help in reviving
our home-grown series Due South, which seems to enjoy better sucess in
the U.K. than many of the big-name U.S. series.
> We've always had an unusually strong domestic TV industry compared with
> many other countries, and for the most part it has genuine popular
> appeal. God knows we get enough imported US stuff, but with very few
> exceptions it occupies a significantly lower place on the ratings than
> home-grown shows - indeed, the likes of 'Seinfeld' are generally
> confined to a post-midnight ghetto, and even 'Friends' (the most
> successful current US import) only manages around half the ratings of
> British equivalents.
I'm also quite familiar with the quality of your product. Our channels
Showcase, Bravo, TVO and the CBC continually acquire your productions
as an alternative to U.S. programming, and they always receive good
ratings from viewers.
> To explain the context: 'Cathy Come Home' was broadcast on BBC1 at a
> time when there were only three TV channels (one of them brand new and
> little-watched), and the vast majority of people watched BBC1. The film
> showed how an ordinary woman was forced into homelessness, an issue that
> up until then had been largely brushed under the carpet on the
> assumption that it only applied to tramps and dossers.
>
> Its impact was immediate and enormous - a substantial majority of the
> TV-owning population watched it, both the programme and the issues it
> raised were splurged all over the newspapers (readership of which was
> considerably higher back then), and either directly or indirectly led to
> a change in the law regarding homelessness.
>
> That was the social impact, and the cultural impact was arguably even
> greater in the long term. For the first time, a film shot on the
> streets with a hand-held camera, cinema-verite style, had achieved
> genuine popular success, and it changed the face of British television
> overnight.
>
> I bet if you asked people to sum up the style of a typical British TV
> programme, someone will come up with the words "gritty realism" almost
> immediately - that's one of the side-effects of 'Cathy Come Home'.
> Obviously, it wasn't the only or even the first TV film to make use of
> these techniques - which Loach himself had already explored in earlier
> productions - but it was the first to achieve that degree of success.
This explains a lot. Of course it illustrates that the impact of the
film (and others) was not so much its outstanding quality, but its
dissemination. Had it aired in a, say, 75 channel universe (which
Canada is at now) its impact, if any, would have been diluted
considerably. And you've been frank enough to point out that other
factors (independant of the film) may have influenced the social,
cultural and politial changes you refer to. Still, it's clear it had an
impact and it's certainly worth noting.
> It wouldn't work, because the impact of 'Cathy Come Home' was based on
> very particular social circumstances (widespread TV ownership but very
> few things worth watching, general lack of awareness about the social
> issues being discussed and so on).
>
> In today's multi-channel multi-media multi-cultural society, it's almost
> impossible to imagine one single low-budget film (or indeed *any* film)
> having anything like the same impact - indeed, 'Cathy Come Home' is
> frequently brought up as an example of a phenomenon that is probably
> unrepeatable: where the entire country watched the same thing en masse
> and talked about it with total strangers the next day.
Well, things may be changing in the U.S. Right now there's legislation
being proposed that would allow one company to broadcast in up to 50%
of all American homes (the current limit is about 30%). With many of
these companies also owning film studios , radio, magazine and now
internet services, the threat of monopoly is staggering... and you can
be damn sure that a socially-conscious film like Cathy Came Home would
NEVER be produced, distributed or broadcast (unless it's content can be
diluted).
> As I said above, it would be very hard to come up with an exact
> equivalent in an American context (not least for reasons of geography
> and cultural diversity: Britain was much more homogeneous in the
> mid-1960s) - which is why such comparisons are meaningless.
I didn't think such an example was possible either, that's why I
couldn't fathom the claims you were stating. Now I can. Thanks.
> How on earth did we get onto all this?
I don't know, but I'm ready for another pint. Cheers.
dw
Darryl Wiggers
>
>You describe the missing critical distance from adults. O.K., but
>effects of *additional*, "artifical" and
"not-already-in-reality"-violence,
>if encounterd too much, an additional load on the already challenged
souls
>violence to the world. Reality was first, no doubt. We all have the
>potential for violently freaking out in *ourselves*. But, since some
years,
gangsta-rap), it叫
>a certain "violence is cool"-culture for the kids....in Germany we
have an
>definite increase of violence at schools, of (legal!) drug abuse (the
>crimes... of course, there叫 no monocausal explanation, and the media
are
>just one factor.
There are criminalogists who have determined that, throughout the
centuries, man has become less-and-less violent... locally, I know
crime figures have proven that violene has gone down. Things like
family violence, rape and so forth has gone up, but that's mainly
because there's been greater awareness, and less shame, attached to the
victims of such crimes. As to the troubles with youths, no one seems to
focus on poor parenting skills, an economy that has lowed the standard
of living, the inrease in consumerism that tempts people to spend more
than they need, so mothers AND fathers are forced to work, further
distancing positive influence on their children, cuts to education that
create a decline in the quality of our schools... this can go one
forever. There are innumerable factors that acount for these problems,
but all too often we have a media and a political environment that is
driven to finding ONE answer. And, all to often, the blame rests on the
media. When the recent spat of killings in U.S. schools occurred,
movies were immediately blamed. But no one thought to ask: "What da
hell were these kids doing with guns in the first place?" There is no
easy answer to this phenomenon either. For that I recommend Elliott
Leyton's book Hunting Humans. Written about 15 years ago, it has some
startling conclusions that are remarkably linked to these contemporay
examples.
>The japanes culture indeed is a special case. From their tradition,
they
>still - though "amercanised" - tend to put an harmonic society over
>individuality (i admit, it叫 getting less...). As far as i know, the
number
>of suicides is extremly high... violence as well.
The suicides, as I understand it, are mostly a factor of a culture that
places too stress on work-related performance. There are currently
pressures to change this situation.
>Just had the idea: Maybe, in case of Japan, the violence in the media
is the
>expression of personal violence, supressed by society. In other, more
>indivualistic societies, it serves for getting bored viewers a more
intense
>"kick"...
Violence in film can have a cathartic effect. I remember vividly the
day i was plunged into poverty. A number of people had schemed to
betray me, and stab me in the back. I was bitter and angry. I wanted
blood to spill. I wanted these people to pay for the needless grief
they caused me. I needed something to get my mind off these troubles so
I went to the theatre where Reservoir Dogs was playing. When I emerged
from the theatre 2 hours later I was sated and relaxed. My violent
impulses were gone... years later, after rebuilding my life and finding
MUCH better employment, I discovered that my betrayers had finally been
exposed and all had lost their jobs. Time heals all wounds. Time wounds
all heels.
>Sure. And, as i said before, i叮 far from oversimplistically blaming
the
>media alone... We all have "lust for murder" sometimes, but don另 do
it. I
>know the difference, yes (thanks god ...;-). But you still wouldn另
>recommend to let all children see whatever cinema-brutality they want,
do
>you ;-)?
I don't have kids, but I've had the pleasure of watching other parents.
Some of the "best" spend their time watching films with their kids.
Afterwards they have a dialogue about what they watched. They give the
experience context. More importantly, it helps build a bond with their
kids. Ultimately the kids follow the examples set by their parents, not
by the films they watch. But if the parents don't spend the time with
them, I see very different results.
>But that has to do with the missing of true adventure in our today叫
>society, i guess. We (most, at least) have no connection to real
violence
>whatsoever. No killing for the food, no neighbours assaulting
(usually;-)...
>but we as humans have this ability to fight in emergency, and it wants
to
>get out of it叫 "prison for society叫 sake"...if it叫 not "used" in
reality,
>we quench our thirst in movies ... which is fine for somewhat mature
>persons.
I think it's also fine for youngsters, especially teenagers who have
hormones that tend to provoke all kinds of behaviour that accent their
frustrations. In general I find that young people are smarter than we
give them credit (I think Peter T. is an excellent example -- I
constantly find it hard to believe he's only 16!). If given a healthy
context, and an awareness (which most of them reognize) that "it's only
a movie," they can continue living rich lives. Only those who are given
no direction, and no inspiration for creativity, tend to resort to
imitation (e.g. "I did it 'cause I saw it in a movie").
>> friends, and family... speaking of which, I think I'll head out to
the
>> pub and have a pint or two.
>>
>Hope, you have a peacefull way home...cheers ;-) !
Oh, I did, and will again. Thanks. I live downtown without a car, and
the pub is only a few minutes away. It's the only way to live. Speaking
of which... time for another. Cheers to you :-)
darryl
Michael Brooke
> I heard an interview with Mike Leigh, Abigail's Party was first
> broadcast on a night when ITV workers went on strike and as a
> consequence the channel shutdown transmissions. As Michael said, there
> were only 3 TV channels in the UK in those days, and some 16 million
> families tuned in.
Thanks, Rod - I knew it had done well, but I didn't know it had done
*that* well!
Just to put those figures in perspective, 16 million viewers would
amount to nearly half the adult population of the entire country...
Tom May
and Lies, Dead Man, Night on Earth, The Hudsucker Proxy, The Big
Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink...
Tom
point
Thanks for your great post. My answer to it is short and simple- i have to
fully agree with everything you said, especially the part, that it愀 more
important in what parental context (if any...) violence in media is
recieved, than the content itself. That愀 where i see the "main key", too.
Have a good time (oh, i guess, i shouldn愒 say that; everytime i said
something like that, you went and had a beer ... guess, i惴 unintentionally
causing alcoholism ! )
:-)
bye
Thomas
Darryl Wiggers <dar...@pathcom.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
180919992259055879%dar...@pathcom.com...
>
> There are criminalogists who have determined that, throughout the
<snip>
>
> darryl
Andrew Foley
Darryl Wiggers wrote in message <180919992140332431%dar...@pathcom.com>...
>
>Oh, I know that very well. I read your TV news all time to keep
>up-to-date on the latest TV shows and mini-series... and, here in
>Canada, we're especially grateful to the BBC in their help in reviving
>our home-grown series Due South, which seems to enjoy better sucess in
>the U.K. than many of the big-name U.S. series.
>
The BBC seem to be regretting their decision to back Due South. It had
gradually moved from a mid-week prime time slot on BBC1, to early evening on
Saturday. Then, when the new series was available (the one they had partly
funded), it played for about three or four weeks in this slot, and was then
dropped. Okay, the FIFA World Cup was taking up much of the schedule for
about six weeks, but Due South didn't come back after that.
After many months, two episodes turned up on BBC1 on consecutive early
Sunday afternoons, and then nothing again for more months. The series
finally appeared on BBC2, on Mondays, at 6.45 in the evening, thus
guaranteeing it an audience about a tenth or less of what it would have got
on BBC1 prime time. Even putting it on 45 minutes earlier (a favourite slot
for BBC2, because it's up against BBC1's early evening news, and ITV's
regional news programmes), could have doubled or tripled the audience it's
now getting.
I can only assume that they were taken aback by the replacement of David
Marciano by Callum Keith Rennie, and decided that the show was now missing
one of the ingredients which had made it a success in Britain, and didn't
know how to schedule it.
Bilge Ebiri
Andrew Foley wrote in message <37e3...@news2.prserv.net>...
>
>The BBC had a tradition of producing single "plays" (usually recorded onto
>videotape in a studio, filmed - in 16mm, at 25fps - on location, or a
>combination of both) grouped into series so that their stand-aloneness
>wouldn't hurt. Cathy Come Home was first shown in "The Wednesday Play",
and
>when the BBC decided in the early 70s to move the slot to a Thursday, they
>renamed it "Play for Today", and Abigail's Party first aired in that slot.
>
Ahh, The Wednesday Play and Play for Today... Before I left the BBC, I told
my tape guy that I had a client interested in reviving the format, so I had
him make dozens of tapes of Mike Leigh and Dennis Potter plays and other
gems from these series. Which are now sitting on my shelf at home. Heh
heh...
love,
Bilge
Master_DY...@juno.com
into a debate about sex, violonce, TV, parenting, and the
UK?
Barry Lyndon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bart : "I can't believe Krusty's really gone."
Homer : "Don't worry son. I'm sure he's up in heaven right now laughin'
it up with all the other celebrities - John Dillinger, Ty Cobb, Josef
Stalin, (sigh) I wish I were dead."
point
> How did my list of the "Top 50 Movies of the Decade" turn
> into a debate about sex, violonce, TV, parenting, and the
> UK?
>
Well, life has it´s moments, hasn´t it ?
;-)
Thomas
Master_DY...@juno.com
Master_DY...@juno.com
By Donlee Brussel
1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme
2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
4. Schindler’s List – Steven Spielberg
5. The Player - Robert Altman
6. The Sweet Hereafter - Atom Egoyan
7. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
8. American Beauty – Sam Mendes
9. Trainspotting - Danny Boyle
10. In the Company of Men - Neil LaBute
11. L.A. Confidential - Curtis Hanson
12. The Thin Red Line - Terrence Mallick
13. The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer
14. A Simple Plan - Sam Raimi
15. Glengarry Glen Ross - James Foley
16. The Crying Game - Neil Jordan
17. Boyz N The Hood - John Singleton
18. Fargo - Joel Coen
19. American History X - Tony Kaye
20. The Truman Show - Peter Weir
21. Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino
22. Seven - David Fincher
23. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Guy Ritchie
24. The Celebration - Thomas Vintenberg
25. Kids - Larry Clark
26. Eyes Wide Shut - Stanley Kubrick
27. The Shawshank Redemption - Frank Darabont
28. Dark City - Alex Proyas
29. Sling Blade - Billy Bob Thornton
30. Saving Private Ryan - Steven Spielberg
31. Chungking Express - Wong Kar-wai
32. Short Cuts - Robert Altman
33. Boogie Nights - Paul Thomas Anderson
34. The Grifters - Stephen Frears
35. Hurly Burly - Anthony Drazan
36. Pi - Darren Aronofsky
37. Proof - Jocelyn Moorhouse
38. The Blair Witch Project - Eduardo Sanchez and
Daniel Myrick
39. Wag The Dog - Barry Levinson
40. There’s Something About Mary - Farrely Brothers
41. JFK - Oliver Stone
42. Go - Doug Liman
43. Out of Sight - Steven Soderbergh
44. Election - Alexander Payne
45. Scream - Wes Craven
46. The Matrix – Wachowski Brothers
47. Clerks - Kevin Smith
48. El Mariachi - Robert Rodriguez
Reply to this message only with suggestions of things I
should add/remove. Also, if you think something on my list
is too low or too high, lemme know. BTW, Bruce Willis
plays a ghost in "The Sixth Sense", a very shitty movie in
my opinion. KIR!
Master_DY...@juno.com
Master_DY...@juno.com
do you guys think of my list?
Master_DY...@juno.com
should add/remove. Also, if you think something on my list
is too low or too high, lemme know.
Top 50 Movies of the 90s
Michael Brooke
> Darryl Wiggers wrote in <180919992140332431%dar...@pathcom.com>:
>
> >Well, things may be changing in the U.S. Right now there's legislation
> >being proposed that would allow one company to broadcast in up to 50%
> >of all American homes (the current limit is about 30%). With many of
> >these companies also owning film studios , radio, magazine and now
> >internet services, the threat of monopoly is staggering... and you can
> >be damn sure that a socially-conscious film like Cathy Came Home would
> >NEVER be produced, distributed or broadcast (unless it's content can be
> >diluted).
>
> This begs the question of whether anyone should have his consciousness
> raised by made for TV melodrama, or similarly moist moral tales
> packaged for film.
It depends entirely on the integrity of the work in question - I can
certainly think of numerous examples where public consciousness has been
raised through intelligent dramatisation of current issues than through
dry news reports.
The key word here, of course, is the word "intelligent", which isn't
often applied to glossy, superficial US TV movies, but is still to be
found in the best British dramatisations (we don't consider 'TV movie'
to be an automatic term of abuse!), where the dramatic content is more
important than "the package".
Just to give a very recent example, I'd certainly argue that the general
public here in Britain was made far more aware of the issues raised by
the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence via the televised stage adaptation
'The Colour of Justice' and the TV movie 'The Stephen Lawrence Story'
than by court transcripts or news stories.
And virtually the entire output of Alan Clarke, one of the greatest (if
least appreciated) directors that Britain has ever produced, tackled
contemporary social issues head-on, whether the death penalty ('To
Encourage the Others'), treatment of young offenders ('Scum', 'Made in
Britain'), Northern Ireland ('Contact', 'Elephant') or football
hooliganism ('The Firm'). No-one who has seen even one of these films
(most of which were made for TV) could possibly describe them as "moist
moral tales"!
Michael Brooke
> I don't have much experience with British social uplift, although I
> remember a showing of some imported production about a Labor (or was
> it socialist) PM who is conspired against by various heavily breathing
> rightists but who heroically prevails in the end. (Laughable.)
If that description is of 'A Very British Coup' (and I strongly suspect
it is from the context), it's distorted in the extreme - the ending is
nowhere near as unambiguous as you make out. And since it was broadcast
at a time when it was revealed (via Peter Wright's 'Spycatcher') that
the Labour government of the 1970s was *genuinely* being undermined by
right-wing factions working in the security services, it's nowhere near
as laughable as you make out.
The only thing that was fairly implausible was that someone like Harry
Perkins would ever have been elected Prime Minister in the first place -
with only a few exceptions, the British people have tended to vote with
their wallets rather than their social consciences.
> That
> is the kind of dripping wet leftist fantasy that I think of when I
> hear of "socially conscious" television drama.
For me, the best "socially conscious" drama is the kind that dramatises
universal issues rather than specific political ones. Alan Clarke's and
Ken Loach's films work because they don't offer any idealised political
solutions - they merely show exactly what effect things like poverty and
unemployment and certain government policies have on ordinary people.
Anyone who thinks that films like 'Scum', 'Raining Stones' or 'My Name
Is Joe' are "dripping wet leftist fantasies" needs their head examined!
> (I'll just bet some drama on the death penalty isn't going to be for
> it.)
For the record, the best film I've ever seen on the subject of the death
penalty is Krzysztof Kieslowski's 'A Short Film About Killing', which
refuses to adopt a moral standpoint - it merely shows, in the most
graphic detail imaginable exactly what the act of killing involves,
whether the act is illegal (a clumsy, almost botched murder) or legal (a
meticulously-planned execution). I don't think there's any doubt where
Kieslowski's own views lie, but some right-wing critics in Britain have
argued that the film is actually a persuasive argument in favour of the
death penalty!
I can't comment on Alan Clarke's 'To Encourage the Others', because I
haven't seen it - but that particular (true) story would be virtually
impossible to dramatise without slanting it firmly against the death
penalty, because it was about a young man who was indisputably hanged
for a crime he didn't commit (though he was only formally exonerated a
year or so ago). And of course that's the ultimate argument against the
death penalty - one so strong that to me it negates any possible
argument in favour.
> Perhaps it is just my bias from living in America, where political
> entertainment is left mostly in the hands of loonies and retards.
In Europe, things are very different - you won't find too many people
describing the likes of Ken Loach, Alan Clarke, Lindsay Anderson, Claude
Chabrol, Gillo Pontecorvo, Francesco Rosi, Bernardo Bertolucci,
Margarethe Von Trotta, Costa-Gavras, Krzysztof Kieslowski as either
loony or retarded (possibly Bertolucci for some of his later films, but
absolutely not for his early work!).
Or indeed, come to that, John Sayles - one of the most intelligent and
committed political film-makers currently working today, though from
what I gather he's rather more highly thought of in Europe.
> Sit
> through something like Strange Justice and tell me there were no brain
> cells harmed in the making of that movie.
Since I've never heard of 'Strange Justice' before (and can't find it in
any of my film guides), I can't comment.
robin
be higher....there are some great films there,but does no one else think
"lock,stock and two smoking barrells" is an absolutely appaling film?....i
really really hated it,but seem to be alone in this reaction...
cheers
robin
"Maste...@juno.com" wrote:
> I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures or Barton Fink. What else
> do you guys think of my list?
>
Jeffrey Blyde Noel
Well, BOOGIE NIGHTS, the best movie of the 90s, is far too low. Though I
guess I forgive you since you seem to be one of the few who would even put
it in your top 50.
: Top 50 Movies of the 90s
Master_DY...@juno.com.invalid
offbeat characters, snappy dialogue, and the direction, I
mean come on, Guy Ritchie PERFECTLY blended style &
substance. Both were there in abundance and for good
reason. As far as Smoke goes, it was on my original list,
and got cut off by a smudge. I'm a little bit skeptical
about Wayne Wang after seeing the trailer for "Anywhere But
Here", the story line seems tired, but as usual, Wang's
known to make miracles happen and the one person I know who
saw it says he's done it again.
In article <37EFE44C...@tinet.ie>, robin
<rla...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> well personally my favourite film from the 90's is
> smoke,so that would certainly
> be higher....there are some great films there,but does
> no one else think
> "lock,stock and two smoking barrells" is an absolutely
> appaling film?....i
> really really hated it,but seem to be alone in this
> reaction...
> cheers
> robin
> "Maste...@juno.com" wrote:
> > I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures or Barton Fink.
> What else
> > do you guys think of my list?
> >
> > Top 50 Movies of the 90s
> > By Donlee Brussel
> >
> > 1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme
> > 2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
> > 3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
> > 4. Schindler’s List – Steven
> Spielberg
> > 5. The Player - Robert Altman
> > 6. The Sweet Hereafter - Atom Egoyan
> > 7. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
> > 8. American Beauty – Sam Mendes
> > 40. There’s Something About Mary -
> Farrely Brothers
> > 41. JFK - Oliver Stone
> > 42. Go - Doug Liman
> > 43. Out of Sight - Steven Soderbergh
> > 44. Election - Alexander Payne
> > 45. Scream - Wes Craven
> > 46. The Matrix – Wachowski Brothers
Master_DY...@juno.com.invalid
Top 50 Movies of the 90s
By Donlee Brussel
1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme
2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
4. Schindler’s List – Steven Spielberg
5. The Player - Robert Altman
6. The Sweet Hereafter - Atom Egoyan
7. American Beauty – Sam Mendes
8. Trainspotting - Danny Boyle
9. In the Company of Men - Neil LaBute
10. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
11. L.A. Confidential - Curtis Hanson
12. The Thin Red Line - Terrence Mallick
13. The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer
14. A Simple Plan - Sam Raimi
15. Glengarry Glen Ross - James Foley
16. The Crying Game - Neil Jordan
17. Boyz N The Hood - John Singleton
18. Fargo - Joel Coen
19. American History X - Tony Kaye
20. The Truman Show - Peter Weir
21. Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino
22. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Guy Ritchie
23. The Celebration - Thomas Vintenberg
24. Kids - Larry Clark
25. Seven - David Fincher
26. Eyes Wide Shut - Stanley Kubrick
27. The Shawshank Redemption - Frank Darabont
28. Dark City - Alex Proyas
29. Boogie Nights - Paul Thomas Anderson
30. The Grifters - Stephen Frears
31. Short Cuts - Robert Altman
32. Chungking Express - Wong Kar-wai
33. Sling Blade - Billy Bob Thornton
34. Hurly Burly - Anthony Drazan
35. Saving Private Ryan - Steven Spielberg
36. Pi - Darren Aronofsky
37. Proof - Jocelyn Moorhouse
38. The Blair Witch Project - Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel
Myrick
39. Wag The Dog - Barry Levinson
40. There’s Something About Mary - Farrely Brothers
41. JFK - Oliver Stone
42. Go - Doug Liman
43. Out of Sight - Steven Soderbergh
44. Election - Alexander Payne
45. Scream - Wes Craven
46. The Matrix – Wachowski Brothers
47. Clerks - Kevin Smith
48. El Mariachi - Robert Rodriguez
Chances are I'll move it higher, depends on one of these
movies (or all of these movies)
1. Fight Club
2. The Hurricane
3. The Talented Mr. Ripley
4. Bringing Out The Dead
5. The Insider
6. Felicia's Journey
7. The End of the Affair
8. Magnolia
9. Anywhere But Here
10. Man On The Moon
11. Dogma
12. Any Given Sunday
13. The Green Mile
14. The Cider House Rules
15. Snow Falling on Cedars
In article <7sqe48$q8h$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
k87...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Jeffrey Blyde Noel) wrote:
> Well, BOOGIE NIGHTS, the best movie of the 90s, is far
> too low. Though I
> guess I forgive you since you seem to be one of the
> few who would even put
> it in your top 50.
QBRICK15
Naked Lunch deserves to be included.
Q
Master_DY...@juno.com.invalid
updates before the end of the year for the following films
1. Magnolia
2. The Talented Mr. Ripley
3. The Cider House Rules
4. The Green Mile
5. Man On The Moon
Thank you all for your suggestions, if you have any more for my list,
let me know and feel free to post your own, but remember, mine was the
first and therefore the BEST.
Top 50 Movies of the 90s
By Donlee Brussel
1. The Silence of The Lambs - Jonathan Demme (1991)
2. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese (1990)
3. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994)
4. Schindler’s List - Steven Spielberg (1993)
5. Boogie Nights - Paul Thomas Anderson (1997)
6. Fight Club - David Fincher (1999)
7. The Thin Red Line - Terrence Malick (1998)
8. The Sweet Hereafter - Atom Egoyan (1997)
9. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
(1995)
10. Short Cuts - Robert Altman (1993)
11. In the Company of Men - Neil LaBute (1997)
12. The Player - Robert Altman (1992)
13. Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino (1992)
14. American Beauty - Sam Mendes
(1999)
15. L.A. Confidential - Curtis Hanson (1997)
16. A Simple Plan - Sam Raimi (1998)
17. The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer (1995)
18. Boyz N The Hood - John Singleton (1991)
19. Fargo - Joel Coen (1996)
20. Eyes Wide Shut - Stanley Kubrick (1999)
21. Chungking Express - Wong Kar-wai (1994)
22. The Grifters - Stephen Frears (1990)
23. Exotica - Atom Egoyan
(1994)
24. Glengarry Glen Ross - James Foley (1992)
25. The Shawshank Redemption - Frank Darabont (1994)
26. The Crying Game - Neil Jordan
(1993)
27. Trainspotting - Danny Boyle (1996)
28. The Truman Show - Peter Weir
(1998)
29. Seven - David Fincher
(1995)
30. Sling Blade - Billy Bob Thornton (1996)
31. Proof - Jocelyn Moorhouse (1991)
32. Metropolitan - Whit Stillman (1990)
33. American History X - Tony Kaye
(1998)
34. Dark City - Alex Proyas
(1998)
35. Three Kings - David O. Russel (1999)
36. Saving Private Ryan - Steven Spielberg (1998)
37. Jackie Brown - Quentin Tarantino (1997)
38. The Insider - Michael Mann (1999)
39. Wag The Dog - Barry Levinson
(1997)
40. Hate - Matthieu Kassovitz (1995)
41. Pi - Darren Aronofsky (1998)
42. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Guy Ritchie (1999)
43. There’s Something About Mary - Farrely Brothers
(1998)
44. Scream - Wes Craven (1996)
45. Hurlyburly - Anthony Drazan (1998)
46. Out of Sight - Steven Soderbergh (1998)
47. Clerks - Kevin Smith (1994)
48. Go - Doug Liman
(1999)
49. Your Friends & Neighbors - Neil LaBute
(1998)