TOP TEN BEST MOVIES
Tony
<rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote:
>Enough is enough! I've had it up to here with worst movies list.
>So many movies panned, geez isn't there a single movie we can all
>agree on that is actually good ? Seems like everytime we have a movie
>which everybody likes, somebody says that movie's crap and not
>worth liking. Isn't there a single movie that we can all agree
>on that is a good movie ? ?
Ron, movies are like music, everyone has different tastes so there
will never be uniform agreement. It's like asking everyone to like the
Spice girls!
Cal Rice
: > Isn't there a single movie that we can all agree
: > on that is a good movie ? ?
There are no exceptions.
-cr
--
Mike Mariano
> Yes, 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a good movie. Everyone agrees.
> There are no exceptions.
My English class didn't think so when they were forced to watch it, but
personally I find Gregory Peck to be hilarious!
************************************************
* http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/4213 *
* Mike Mariano's Online Anthology *
************************************************
William Pora
>
> Enough is enough! I've had it up to here with worst movies list.
> So many movies panned, geez isn't there a single movie we can all
> agree on that is actually good ? Seems like everytime we have a movie
> which everybody likes, somebody says that movie's crap and not
> on that is a good movie ? ?
Heh!
i know make a list and we'll tell you. :)
--
To reply to my email type: wporaATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
changing the AT's and DOT's to the appropriate
symbols of course.
Jay Wolfe
Cal Rice wrote:
: <rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote:
: > Isn't there a single movie that we can all agree
: > on that is a good movie ? ?
uh...hold the phone. i think that it is just terrible what they are doing to helpless lillte mockingbirds. what a disgrace. the SPCA or PITA should ban this filth. i, for one, will not support the killing of any mockingbirds. what's next? to kill a budgie? to cripple a condor? to spank a chicken?Yes, 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a good movie. Everyone agrees.
There are no exceptions.
DCO
> Does anybody, here hate
> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
Yes, I do. It's a cold, cold film.
Sp00x
>> Seems like everytime we have a movie
>> which everybody likes, somebody says that movie's crap and not
>> on that is a good movie ? ?
Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
I would think as the title suggests we're not discussing which ARE the
10 best, but rather which are the ten best in our opinion.
- Sp00x -
The Lady In The Wall Is Watching You.
T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg
wrote:
>uh...hold the phone. i think that it is just terrible what they are
>doing to helpless lillte mockingbirds. what a disgrace. the SPCA or PITA
>should ban this filth. i, for one, will not support the killing of any
>mockingbirds. what's next? to kill a budgie? to cripple a condor? to
>spank a chicken?
gee, i thought you were dead, NICOLAS COLOVOS! :P There is a KEY on
your KEYBOARD, probably next to the QUESTION MARK (?), and it is
called the SHIFT KEY. Spelt like SHIT with an F between the I and T.
When you learn how to use this, you will be MUCH BETTER at changing
your identity at will to get off killfiles!!
SPOCK: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5883/
Locutus: http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/tpringspace/
Gay Rights: http://members.tripod.com/~HeteroGirl4GayRights/
KTSL: http://www.freetown.com/Hollywood/HollywoodBlvd/1024/ (Kill The Scream League)
----------------------
"And to all others in this story profound shooms of lipmusic brrrrrr. And they can kiss my sharries."
----------------------
hmmm. I wonder what you should remove from this email address?
T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg
Some might, but most don't -- I absolutely love that film. You
probably won't find many here who hate it; this is alt.FAN.kubrick,
not alt.FLAME.kubrick.
Gary Jones
wrote
>Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
No it doesn't.
--
Gary Jones (Remove SSPPAAMMBLOCK from e-mail address)
PGP public keys available from servers
RSA Key ID: 0x6AFBEAA1
DSS/Diffie-Hellman Key ID: 0x11EAE903
Terry Scott
Ronald J. Whalen wrote in message <36007...@cti-md.com>...
>Gonigal wrote:
>>
>> In article <35FF48...@cti-md.com>, "Ronald J. Whalen"
<rjwh...@cti-md.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Enough is enough! I've had it up to here with worst movies list.
>> >So many movies panned, geez isn't there a single movie we can all
>> >agree on that is actually good ? Seems like everytime we have a movie
>> >which everybody likes, somebody says that movie's crap and not
>> >worth liking. Isn't there a single movie that we can all agree
>> >on that is a good movie ? ?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Some people are so anti-mainstream (i.e., the ones who tend to spell
>> "Spielberg" with a dollar sign) that any film that garners universal
critical &
>> popular acclaim must in their minds be over-rated pap designed to appeal
to the
>> lowest comon denominator. Others have a bug up their asses about
intellectual
>> snobs and so will tear down all works of the critic's darlings like
Bergman,
>> Kurosawa & Kubrick, claiming that anything they don't understand is
"Boring" or
>> "Pretentious Crap" (This reaction is also common among intellectual snobs
>> themselves when discussing the work of an artist other than their pet
>> favorite). And of course any film that has a particualrly rabid cult
>> following, be it a trendy Tarrantino Gangster pic or a Lynch art house
>> wierd-fest will get some people who speak out against it just to show
that
>> they're not "taken in" by the latest trend.
>>
>> I'll admit, I"ve never heard anyone actually say that Citizen Kane sucks,
but
>> they have said it's "overrated", that "people like it because they feel
they're
>> supposed to", and that "there are X number of films that are better".
And the
>> worst that I've heard about Casablanca is "It's just a forgettable little
>> potboiler, I don't see what everyone sees in it". But every other film I
can
>> think of will draw some people who will claim it's in some way absolute
crap.
>>
>
>Then, if all you say is true, then please tell me what the bloody hell
>is the point of making these top ten best movies list, when any movie
>we list as great or the best is immediately hated by somebody else ?
>This is hard, especially for people like me who often try to fit
>in with the crowd and be accepted and friendly with people.
>I'm a person who actually tries to understand why people like
>this movie or the other movie. And the problem is whenever
>I like a movie, somebody will tell me it sucks and I should
>watch some other movie, which somebody else will say sucks
>and then...god, why can't I just watch one movie that everybody
>can say, I'm good for liking because everybody thinks
>it's a great movie. I swear, the only movie I hate that everybody
>else seems to like is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. That is Kubrick's worst movie,
>the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the 70's and
>utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen. I hate it, hate it, hate it.
>Enough with the cries of "who hates Titanic ?" Does anybody, here hate
>A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
Michael Brooke
>
> Then, if all you say is true, then please tell me what the bloody hell
> is the point of making these top ten best movies list, when any movie
> we list as great or the best is immediately hated by somebody else ?
There's no point at all, unless you're doing it for your own personal
enjoyment. People who take these lists seriously - and I don't care
whether the lists were compiled by one person or 1500 - are rather
missing the point: you can't come up with any absolute definition of
what constitutes a good film, and one man's masterpiece may be another
man's pretentious and overblown rubbish. Both points of view are
equally valid, unless you go down the route of absurd hyperbole (it is
transparently ridiculous, for instance, to call '2001' "one of the worst
films ever made", for instance, as this is obvious nonsense).
> This is hard, especially for people like me who often try to fit
> in with the crowd and be accepted and friendly with people.
I really don't understand your reasoning here. If you like a film, you
like it. If you don't, you don't. What on earth has it got to do with
fitting in with the crowd and being accepted?
> I'm a person who actually tries to understand why people like
> this movie or the other movie.
Which is usually a pretty futile exercise, as people respond to things
in different ways and for different reasons. Things may be deeply
important to some people but immaterial to others - for instance, the
guy who was claiming that 'The Killing' was a bad film and trying to
explain this by itemising what to me were irrelevant nit-picks but which
he obviously thought were crucial mistakes that prevented him from
appreciating the film.
> And the problem is whenever
> I like a movie, somebody will tell me it sucks and I should
> watch some other movie, which somebody else will say sucks
> and then...god, why can't I just watch one movie that everybody
> can say, I'm good for liking because everybody thinks
> it's a great movie.
Your major problem here is that you're trying to fuse "being accepted"
(whatever than means) with personal taste, which I've always found to be
a big mistake. Personally, I respect someone for holding an opinion,
sticking to it, and defending it vigorously and intelligently -
regardless of whether or not I personally share that opinion.
Think about it - if we all thought the same thing about everything, the
world would be a very dull place indeed (and we'd have very little use
for these newsgroups, or indeed conversation in general!).
> I swear, the only movie I hate that everybody
> else seems to like is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. That is Kubrick's worst movie,
> the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the 70's and
> utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen. I hate it, hate it, hate it.
No, you hate the first portion of the first third of it - assuming you
were telling the truth when you admitted elsewhere in this thread that
you stopped watching during the assault on Mr.Alexander and his wife,
which occurs relatively early on.
And your choice of adjectives shows that you really have very little
idea of what it was Kubrick (and Anthony Burgess) were trying to say or
do. In fact, some of your comments are just plain bizarre (given that
'A Clockwork Orange' was released in the same year as 'Deep Throat',
calling it the "nudest" film of the 1970s seems ever so slightly wide of
the mark).
'A Clockwork Orange' is very far from being a personal favourite of
mine, but at least I did it the courtesy of watching it all the way
through before drawing my own conclusions. Although I would certainly
defend your right to dislike the film, rather too much of what you've
written about it has been demonstrably wrong in matters of fact as
opposed to opinion - and that's far less defensible.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
star7cy...@ecch.spam.lycosmail.com (T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg) wrote:
> > Does anybody, here hate A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
> probably won't find many here who hate it; this is alt.FAN.kubrick,
> not alt.FLAME.kubrick.
Funny. It looks like alt.MOVIES.kubrick from where I'm sitting.[1]
--Jekke
[1]All right, technically, it's alt.cult-movies from where I'm sitting, but
the pedantery felt good.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demonSSPPAAMMBLOCK.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> wrote
> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
>
> No it doesn't.
I'm afraid it does.
--Elocutus
Gordon Dahlquist
> Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>
> Enough is enough! I've had it up to here with worst movies list.
> So many movies panned, geez isn't there a single movie we can all
> agree on that is actually good ? Seems like everytime we have a movie
> which everybody likes, somebody says that movie's crap and not
> worth liking. Isn't there a single movie that we can all agree
> on that is a good movie ? ?
Sure we can Ronie ... it's called A Clockwork Orange.
Gordon Dahlquist
> Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> > Does anybody, here hate
> > A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
> Yes, I do. It's a cold, cold film.
Well, it's a cold, cold world, too, scout.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> Then, if all you say is true, then please tell me what the bloody hell
> is the point of making these top ten best movies list, when any movie
> we list as great or the best is immediately hated by somebody else ?
> This is hard, especially for people like me who often try to fit
> in with the crowd and be accepted and friendly with people.
> I'm a person who actually tries to understand why people like
> this movie or the other movie. And the problem is whenever
> I like a movie, somebody will tell me it sucks and I should
> watch some other movie, which somebody else will say sucks
> and then...god, why can't I just watch one movie that everybody
> can say, I'm good for liking because everybody thinks
> it's a great movie. I swear, the only movie I hate that everybody
> else seems to like is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. That is Kubrick's worst movie,
> the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the 70's and
> utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen. I hate it, hate it, hate it.
> Enough with the cries of "who hates Titanic ?" Does anybody, here hate
> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
Superb. Ronie is actually harry shearer. Very funny. (Nudest?!)
Really, Ronie - as Michael challenged you on it, did you ever watch the
second half of the movie? Granting that the first half made a strong
impression on you, maybe you can credit the second half with the same
power, from a different point of view?
Christina Stanley
: Think about it - if we all thought the same thing about everything, the
: world would be a very dull place indeed (and we'd have very little use
: for these newsgroups, or indeed conversation in general!).
As flawed a concept as the top ten list is, at least it sparks
conversation, and for me, more than once, reminded me of films I need to
go see.
christina
--
______________________________________________________________
cris...@blarg.net
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing..if you can
fake that, you've got it made. Groucho Marx
Jay Wolfe
Gary Jones wrote:
> In article <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> wrote
> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
>
> No it doesn't.
yes it does.
Christopher M. Stangl
> god, why can't I just watch one movie that everybody can say, I'm good
> for liking because everybody thinks it's a great movie.
The best you're going to do is to track down one of those dozens
of national polls of "Most Beloved Films", and watch them all... but they
usually end up being "E.T.", "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone With The Wind",
"Singin' in the Rain", and the like. Naturally, you're not going to find
100% consensus on any film, but you can at least get some kind of
majority-of-persons-polled endorsement.
> I swear, the only movie I hate that everybody else seems to like is A
> CLOCKWORK ORANGE. That is Kubrick's worst movie,
Spoken like a man who's never seen "Flying Padre".
> the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the 70's and
> utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen.
Are you confusing character misogyny with director misogyny? Might
there not be some content in the other 2/3 of the film which justifies,
or explains the violence and cruelty, or more importantly, might have some
vital social commentary to make on the same? You couldn't possibly know,
could you?
And is it just me, or do the rest of the adjectives in no way mesh
with "boring"?!
> I hate it, hate it, hate it.
It seems to me that you hate the behavior the characters were
engaging in up to the point when you walked out... You've neither seen nor
understood enough of "A Clockwork Orange" to really say you hate it, have
you?
-Chris Stangl
Christopher M. Stangl
> Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> > Does anybody, here hate A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
> Yes, I do. It's a cold, cold film.
Which is entirely the point, so I'm not sure that's a criticism.
-Chris Stangl
T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg
DOH!
I subscribe to so many alt.fan.ng's it's starting to blur. Sorry.
*T'Pring blushes bright green.*
Michael Brooke
> In article <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> wrote
> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
>
> No it doesn't.
I disagree. If someone has a radically different opinion of something,
and you're both intelligent enough to be able to argue your own
particular viewpoints articulately, you usually end up having a far more
interesting discussion than you would if you simply agreed about
everything.
Being forced to defend your position against criticism should help you
understand just why it is that you hold that position - whether it's
something that you honestly believe or whether it's just the product of
innate prejudice or just going with the herd.
Of course, this gets problematic if you're up against someone with an
either/or mentality - i.e. "if it isn't a masterpiece it must
automatically be crap", and I've come across plenty of examples of that
in my time!
Michael Brooke
wrote:
> > Does anybody, here hate A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
> Some might, but most don't -- I absolutely love that film. You
> probably won't find many here who hate it; this is alt.FAN.kubrick,
> not alt.FLAME.kubrick.
Actually, it's alt.MOVIES.kubrick - which seems to invite opinions from
both sides of the fence.
And why not? Hugely impressive though many of his films are, I can't
think of a single one that strikes me as a genuinely flawless
masterpiece (on the order of, say, Robert Bresson's 'A Man Escaped',
which is my yardstick for cinematic perfection), but flawed films are
usually so much more interesting.
Gary Jones
<mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demonSSPPAAMMBLOCK.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x <Sp...@lemm.wox>
>> wrote
>> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>I disagree. If someone has a radically different opinion of something,
>and you're both intelligent enough to be able to argue your own
>particular viewpoints articulately, you usually
>
Errr... it was a joke.
Person A: "Conflict make life more interesting."
Person B: "No it doesn't."
Geddit?
Sorry about that.
cine...@hknet.com
>
> Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demonSSPPAAMMBLOCK.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> > wrote
> > >Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> I disagree. If someone has a radically different opinion of something,
> and you're both intelligent enough to be able to argue your own
> interesting discussion than you would if you simply agreed about
> everything.
Michael, although I agree with you, I think the *No it doesn't* was actually
a Pythonesque witticism, as in Conflict makes things more interesting!
No it doesn't! Yes it does! Oh, this is boring. No it isn't! ... or, You always
disagree with me. No I don't! Yes you do. I do not!
;-]
derek
Nina Stoessinger
Well... I believe truly good films are always controversial (and must
be), because they are complex and not so easy to understand, and
sometimes experiment with new ideas. Kubrick's movies provoke a lot
of negative reactions by their experimental nature. For instance, I
thought 2001 was a great film because it left open so much for
imagination and thoughts, and didn't just bluntly state some message. On
the other hand, I know a whole bunch of people who think it's crap
because they don't understand it.
So I think whoever is looking for movies we all agree on, might just be
in the wrong ng.
*Nina*
toby alderson-smith
>
> T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg <star7cy...@ecch.spam.lycosmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Does anybody, here hate A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
> >
> > Some might, but most don't -- I absolutely love that film. You
> > probably won't find many here who hate it; this is alt.FAN.kubrick,
> > not alt.FLAME.kubrick.
>
> Actually, it's alt.MOVIES.kubrick - which seems to invite opinions from
> both sides of the fence.
>
> And why not? Hugely impressive though many of his films are, I can't
> think of a single one that strikes me as a genuinely flawless
> masterpiece (on the order of, say, Robert Bresson's 'A Man Escaped',
> which is my yardstick for cinematic perfection), but flawed films are
> usually so much more interesting.
>
At last, someone else (of course Mr Brooke...), who thinks this is a
masterpiece. I have to say I can watch it time and time again and still
be amazed at how brillaint and tense it is depsite knowing what happens
- it's even given away in the title!
Its difficult to see why more movies aren't this good - I suppose that
the apparent *simplicity* of the film to untrained eyes like mine masks
an awful lot of clever bits like editing, plot structure, timing, etc.
Its also great because it's short as well, something that more modern
films could choose to emulate....
Toby
ALON
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dfgkr1.1hw...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>>Actually, it's alt.MOVIES.kubrick - which seems to invite opinions from
>both sides of the fence.
>
>And why not? Hugely impressive though many of his films are, I can't
>think of a single one that strikes me as a genuinely flawless
>masterpiece (on the order of, say, Robert Bresson's 'A Man Escaped',
>which is my yardstick for cinematic perfection), but flawed films are
>usually so much more interesting.
I don`t understand , are you
saying that films in general are usually more interesting than
genuinely flawless masterpieces like " A Man Escaped ? "
respect ,
alon
Rod Munday
>
> Ronald J. Whalen <rjwh...@cti-md.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Then, if all you say is true, then please tell me what the bloody hell
> > is the point of making these top ten best movies list, when any movie
> > we list as great or the best is immediately hated by somebody else ?
>
> enjoyment. People who take these lists seriously - and I don't care
> whether the lists were compiled by one person or 1500 - are rather
> missing the point: you can't come up with any absolute definition of
> what constitutes a good film, and one man's masterpiece may be another
> man's pretentious and overblown rubbish. Both points of view are
> equally valid, unless you go down the route of absurd hyperbole (it is
> transparently ridiculous, for instance, to call '2001' "one of the worst
> films ever made", for instance, as this is obvious nonsense).
This tendency for posters on USENET to compile endless lists, reflects a
similar tendency in culture as a whole to categorise and then place in
hierarchies everything which it touches, including things that really
don't want to be placed in such boxes, like the subjective idiosyncratic
and individual expressions of human creativity called art. This is in
turn is symptomatic of a post enlightenment style of thinking which
seeks to quantify, abstract and objectify the world into objects that
can be possessed and controlled, or else disposed of.
It has been said before, notably by Norman O. Brown, that a greater
reliance on money for barter and exchange helped to promoted the
abstract thinking on which the Age of Enlightenment was built. But
reality check time - categories and qualitative hierarchies although
very useful for pursuits such as say, the buying and selling of cattle,
are a very poor way of reaching a personal understanding of what makes a
great work of art - for that understanding is ultimately subjective.
> > This is hard, especially for people like me who often try to fit
> > in with the crowd and be accepted and friendly with people.
>
> I really don't understand your reasoning here. If you like a film, you
> like it. If you don't, you don't. What on earth has it got to do with
> fitting in with the crowd and being accepted?
Ronie would dearly love someone to tell him what he should like and also
why he should like it, he seems to lack his own centre of gravity, so it
is really not surprising that he should be drawn by the pull and the
warmth of the crowd.
I think it takes a genuine love of art, be it cinema or painting or
whatever, not to fall into the trap of becoming a consumer of indeed a
connoisseur - let's tear up those lists!
Regards Rod
Michael Brooke
> At last, someone else (of course Mr Brooke...), who thinks this is a
> masterpiece. I have to say I can watch it time and time again and still
> be amazed at how brillaint and tense it is depsite knowing what happens
> - it's even given away in the title!
The French title is even more explicit - it translates as "A Man
Condemned To Death Has Escaped". Bresson wanted you to be in no doubt
whatsoever as to the eventual outcome - so why the film is such a
riveting experience (and I mean riveting: it gives just about any
Hitchcock film a run for its money) is one of life's eternal mysteries.
I'm intrigued, though, by your use of the phrase "at last", because
round these parts (i.e. London art movie circles) 'A Man Escaped' has
always been considered one of the few absolute cinema masterpieces - one
that hardly anyone has managed to find fault with.
I can pick holes in all sorts of classics, very much including the likes
of 'Citizen Kane', 'Battleship Potemkin' and '2001', but 'A Man Escaped'
is about as close to perfection as I've ever seen. There is not a
single false note anywhere - staging, pacing, visuals, sound (especially
sound: it's conclusive proof that a relatively lo-fi mono soundtrack can
wipe the floor with Dolby Digital when it comes to making a dramatic
impact).
> Its difficult to see why more movies aren't this good - I suppose that
> the apparent *simplicity* of the film to untrained eyes like mine masks
> an awful lot of clever bits like editing, plot structure, timing, etc.
Bresson's films *look* simple, but they're anything but. Louis Malle
was the assistant director on 'A Man Escaped', and he said that it
wasn't exactly an easy film to make - Bresson being a perfectionist on
the order of Stanley Kubrick (though working on a much lower budget).
> Its also great because it's short as well, something that more modern
> films could choose to emulate....
Actually, it's not *that* short - by the standards of when it was made
(1956), 102 minutes is arguably longer than average! But it certainly
doesn't feel overstretched - even though a fair chunk of the running
time is occupied merely by shots of a man scraping away at a wall with a
spoon! Every time I see it - and I've seen it three times on the big
screen - I keep wondering just how it can be so gripping when the actual
content is so sparse!
Michael Brooke
> This tendency for posters on USENET to compile endless lists, reflects a
> similar tendency in culture as a whole to categorise and then place in
> hierarchies everything which it touches, including things that really
> don't want to be placed in such boxes, like the subjective idiosyncratic
> and individual expressions of human creativity called art. This is in
> turn is symptomatic of a post enlightenment style of thinking which
> seeks to quantify, abstract and objectify the world into objects that
> can be possessed and controlled, or else disposed of.
The Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki was disqualified from the last Sight
& Sound poll because he refused to play by the rules and submit just ten
titles - though why on earth should it be ten? Why not thirteen? Or
thirty-seven? What's the point of compiling a ten best films of the
year list if the year in question was unusually good, or unusually bad?
[This is one of the problems that bedevils annual award ceremonies, as a
Best Picture Oscar implies some kind of parity with previous and
subsequent winners, which is clearly ridiculous].
I certainly believe in the celebration aspect that underlies these lists
- but I don't like the rigid pigeonholing that comes with it. Someone
sent me a questionnaire earlier today which asked me to name my three
favourite films and three favourite directors - and I refused to answer
not because I'm an awkward git but because I *couldn't*. For one thing,
such a list would absolutely have to include both Luis Bunuel and Jan
Svankmajer, which leaves very little room for anyone who doesn't make
weird art movies!
> It has been said before, notably by Norman O. Brown, that a greater
> reliance on money for barter and exchange helped to promoted the
> abstract thinking on which the Age of Enlightenment was built. But
> reality check time - categories and qualitative hierarchies although
> very useful for pursuits such as say, the buying and selling of cattle,
> are a very poor way of reaching a personal understanding of what makes a
> great work of art - for that understanding is ultimately subjective.
Exactly. And half the time I can't explain *why* I like or dislike
something - I just do. A few weeks ago I saw a Russian film called 'Of
Freaks and Men' at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I loved it. The
colleague I was with hated it - and he hated it for most of the reasons
that I loved it! (I suspect he'd have hated Guy Maddin and Walerian
Borowczyk films as well, which should give you some idea of the overall
tone).
We clearly had radically different expectations, and a completely
different level of tolerance for sepia-tinted films about a gang of
pornographers and freak-show impresarios in turn-of-the-century
St.Petersburg (and I strongly suspect your response to that plot summary
will be similar to your response to the film!).
> > > This is hard, especially for people like me who often try to fit
> > > in with the crowd and be accepted and friendly with people.
> >
> > I really don't understand your reasoning here. If you like a film, you
> > like it. If you don't, you don't. What on earth has it got to do with
> > fitting in with the crowd and being accepted?
>
> Ronie would dearly love someone to tell him what he should like and also
> why he should like it, he seems to lack his own centre of gravity, so it
> is really not surprising that he should be drawn by the pull and the
> warmth of the crowd.
...which is always a mistake, but especially so in an environment like
alt.cult-movies, which by definition covers the kind of things that have
very limited appeal. No sane person could possibly like (or indeed
dislike) every single film discussed here!
In a couple of hours I'm meeting up with a very old friend of mine whom
I haven't seen for something like five years, and we thought we'd mark
the occasion by going to see Jan Svankmajer's 'Conspirators of
Pleasure', which just happens to be playing in rep tonight. I've gone
on record countless times as saying that it's one of the most original
films of the decade - and even if he ends up hating it (which he may
well do: it's not the sort of film that gets a neutral reaction), I'm
not exactly going to change my mind about it!
I have been known to change my mind about films on occasion on a second
viewing - positively in the case of 'Natural Born Killers', negatively
in the case of 'My Own Private Idaho' - but after six viewings of the
Svankmajer film I think my mind is pretty well made up (actually, it was
made up about ten minutes into the first viewing), and I don't care who
agrees or disagrees with me.
exit...@mindspring.com
Because I've seen "Pickpocket," "The Devil Probably," and "Diary of a
Country Priest," and let me tell you, they are far from it. Pickpocket has
these poorly edited, impotent pickpocketing scenes and Priest has serious
tonal inefficiencies as well as performance problems. If A Man Escaped is
better than these films, fine, call it a masterpiece, but based on these
other films, Bresson is no perfectionist. it seems he would let any kind of
coverage go on Pickpocket, despite it looking fake, corny, or mismatched.
-zach
"All work and no play makes Zach a dull boy."
"All work and no play makes Zach a dull boy."
"All work and no play makes Zach a dull boy."
"All work and no play makes Zach a dull boy."
Bilge Ebiri
Michael Brooke wrote in message
>
>Exactly. And half the time I can't explain *why* I like or dislike
>something - I just do. A few weeks ago I saw a Russian film called 'Of
>Freaks and Men' at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I loved it. The
>colleague I was with hated it - and he hated it for most of the reasons
>that I loved it! (I suspect he'd have hated Guy Maddin and Walerian
>Borowczyk films as well, which should give you some idea of the overall
>tone).
>
Which is exactly how I feel about the cinema of Seijun Suzuki. I love it,
although it probably violates just about every rule I drunkenly postulated
at one point or another of my life about what constitutes good filmmaking,
especially BRANDED TO KILL, which is pretty much the strangest film I've
ever laid eyes upon.
>I have been known to change my mind about films on occasion on a second
>viewing - positively in the case of 'Natural Born Killers', negatively
>in the case of 'My Own Private Idaho' - but after six viewings of the
>Svankmajer film I think my mind is pretty well made up (actually, it was
>made up about ten minutes into the first viewing), and I don't care who
>agrees or disagrees with me.
>
I had a similar experience with CHINATOWN and UNFORGIVEN. When I first saw
them, eons ago, I couldn't believe anybody thought they were masterworks,
let alone particularly good films. Now I flog myself daily over those
comments, having seen both films countless numbers of times. Negatively,
I've changed my opinion of Wim Wenders's UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD, which I
initially thought was a great film. Now it's just insufferable.
love,
Bilge.
Gary Couzens
>- but I don't like the rigid pigeonholing that comes with it. Someone
>sent me a questionnaire earlier today which asked me to name my three
>favourite films and three favourite directors - and I refused to answer
>not because I'm an awkward git but because I *couldn't*. For one thing,
>such a list would absolutely have to include both Luis Bunuel and Jan
>Svankmajer, which leaves very little room for anyone who doesn't make
>weird art movies!
>
like. e.g. horror films, SF films, love stories, westerns, comedies etc. For
reviewing purposes I will, on principle, give absolutely anything a try. If
I'm paying to see something, then I'm not quite so deliberately
undiscriminating, but will often give something the benefit of the doubt and
watch it. I don't watch films according to their genre or intended audience
(e.g. women, children, gay men/lesbians, ethnic minorities). You run the
risk of sitting through two hours of utter drivel, but you can also have
some pleasant surprises.
>And half the time I can't explain *why* I like or dislike
>something - I just do.
A case in point, which was discussed here a few weeks ago, is Eric Rohmer,
who, as you've said, generally leaves you cold.
One of my favourites is "The Green Ray" which is talky even by Rohmer
standards (the dialogue was improvised, which is why Marie Rivière gets a
co-writing credit). It's not, visually, that notable, being shot in 16mm and
blown up. So why do I enjoy it so much? (The ending is a true heart-in-mouth
moment.)
Maybe I have a greater tolerance for literary-sensibility films, with plots
advanced by dialogue, than other people. They're made with a
perfectly-wrought simplicity that disguises great craftsmanship. And many
of the best recent films about young people are made by a man in his
seventies. (Remember the discussions as to whether a middle-aged man like
Bernardo Bertolucci, in "Stealing Beauty" could get inside the head of a
19-year-old girl? Well, Rohmer has done it more than once, and he's twenty
years older than Bertolucci.)
I'd be the first to admit that Rohmer is an acquired taste.
I for one am looking forward to "Autumn Tale" which has just won the prize
for Best Screenplay at Venice. It seems a departure in some ways as the
central characters are middle-aged. I expect I'll enjoy it. I also suspect
that I'll know better than to recommend it to several people I know.
A few weeks ago I saw a Russian film called 'Of
>Freaks and Men' at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I loved it. The
>colleague I was with hated it - and he hated it for most of the reasons
>that I loved it! (I suspect he'd have hated Guy Maddin and Walerian
>Borowczyk films as well, which should give you some idea of the overall
>tone).
>
>We clearly had radically different expectations, and a completely
>different level of tolerance for sepia-tinted films about a gang of
>pornographers and freak-show impresarios in turn-of-the-century
>St.Petersburg (and I strongly suspect your response to that plot summary
>will be similar to your response to the film!).
>
Sounds interesting - I'll look out for it.
Gary Couzens
Michael Post
Gary Jones wrote:
> In article <1dfgkey.h3g...@everyman.demon.co.uk>, Michael Brooke
> <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demonSSPPAAMMBLOCK.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> >> wrote
> >> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things so much more interesting,
> >>
> >> No it doesn't.
> >
> >I disagree. If someone has a radically different opinion of something,
> >and you're both intelligent enough to be able to argue your own
> >particular viewpoints articulately, you usually
> >
> <more perfectly sensible stuff snipped>
>
> Errr... it was a joke.
>
> Person A: "Conflict make life more interesting."
> Person B: "No it doesn't."
Like that Monty Python skit...
"Is this the 5-minute argument or the full half-hour?"
"This isn't an argument it's just contradiction!!!"
".....No it isn't."
Mike Post
Jay Wolfe
Michael Post wrote:
"yes it is."
john melville
>
>
> No it isn't. An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a
> proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the
> other person says.
It certainly is NOT!
DCO
>
> There's no point at all, unless you're doing it for your own personal
> enjoyment. People who take these lists seriously - and I don't care
> whether the lists were compiled by one person or 1500 - are rather
> missing the point: you can't come up with any absolute definition of
> what constitutes a good film, and one man's masterpiece may be another
> man's pretentious and overblown rubbish. Both points of view are
Are both points of view equally valid solely because there may
be no logical argument with which to distinguish a masterpiece from
rubbish?
I'm inclined to agree that you can't come up with any absolute
definition of what constitutes a good film; but I don't believe that all
points of view are equally valid--unless they're being tallied by
Gallup.
DCO
>
> It has been said before, notably by Norman O. Brown, that a greater
> reliance on money for barter and exchange helped to promoted the
> abstract thinking on which the Age of Enlightenment was built. But
> reality check time - categories and qualitative hierarchies although
> very useful for pursuits such as say, the buying and selling of cattle,
> are a very poor way of reaching a personal understanding of what makes a
> great work of art - for that understanding is ultimately subjective.
If all understanding is ultimately subjective, I think it likely that
any attempt to "reach" an understanding---personal or otherwise---would
be pointless, or perhaps impossible. There would be little way of
ascertaining whether the point one stood at before reaching some
understanding was in fact the point of understanding itself.
M4RV1N
>Jay Wolfe
writes:
>> "Is this the 5-minute argument or the full half-hour?"
>> "This isn't an argument it's just contradiction!!!"
>> ".....No it isn't."
>
>"yes it is."
No it isn't. An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a
Rorschach
Jay Wolfe wrote in message
<35FFF1B1...@earthlink.net>...
|
|
|Gary Jones wrote:
|
|> In article
<Sp...@lemm.wox>
|> wrote
|> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things
so much more interesting,
|>
|> No it doesn't.
|
|
Whether it makes things more intersesting or
not there is NO drama without conflict.
Without drama is there any point in telling a
story.
M4RV1N
john melville writes:
>> No it isn't. An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a
>> proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything
>the
>> other person says.
>
>It certainly is NOT!
Actually, the next line was different. Here's the way it went --I THINK:
Palin: >> No it isn't. An argument is a series of statements intended to
establish a
>> proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything
>the
>> other person says.
Cleese: If I argue with you I must take up a contrary position.
Palin: Yes but that's not just saying "no it isn't!"
Cleese: Yes it is.
Palin: No it isn't!
There's >nobody< writing comedy like this today. Great stuff.
Mark Ervin
Rorschach
the whole thread and you put your whole foot
in it.
I even own that python skit on tape! Now I
feel extraordinarily stupid ( as opposed to
my normal stupid state )
CIAO.
Padraig L Henry
>So Michael, are there any other of Bresson's films you think are perfect?
>Because I've seen "Pickpocket," "The Devil Probably," and "Diary of a
>Country Priest," and let me tell you, they are far from it.
Hey, Zack, try The Sisters of Sin, Lancelot du Lac, Joan of Arc, among
others ... A Man Escaped is probably Bresson`s most accessible,
mainstream contribution to European cinema by virtue of its overt plot
dynamics and conventionally heroic resolution (stunning as it
remains), but his other films do presuppose a certain >regard< for,
indeed awe in the presence of, an ascetic Catholic purity and
transcendent redemption in the face of otherwise irrational forces or
behaviour. But hey, his narrative devices are even better that the
likes of Max Ophuls (I recently watched Ophul`s A Reckless Moment and
am still recovering from its sheer narrative and stylistic
perfection), but the latter prefers psychology to metaphysics. Perhaps
this might help account for Kubrick`s own preferred influences ...
Padraig
No, I`m not making any sense at the moment ... cue Mozart.
exit...@mindspring.com
>likes of Max Ophuls (I recently watched Ophul`s A Reckless Moment and
>am still recovering from its sheer narrative and stylistic
>perfection), but the latter prefers psychology to metaphysics. Perhaps
My droogie, Padraig! You must be all, like, gloopy in the gulliver, sir!
Ophuls is ten times the craftsman (and artist) that Bresson is, despite my
passionate affection for the great but flawed "Devil Probably." The
stylistic perfection in "Earrings of Madam De" is not to be denied, as you
were kind enough to imply, and narratively, "Letter From an Unknown Woman"
is surprising, contradicting the film's lugubrious tonality and sad finale
with an exciting pace and sharp editing (especially for the 40s). It's
clear that from a purely technical standpoint, Bresson couldn't direct
traffic around Ophuls.
But things get hairy when we get to the aesthetic grounds: As you point
out, Bresson has a reverence for Catholicism in the face of human absurdity
(I point to Country Priest as a reference), and Ophuls is more
existentialist in his celebration of human identification and personal
control over an indifferent, cruel society. But even in expressing
flip-sides of this debate, Bresson can't define, structurally, his own
theories with the kind of silliness he shows in films like "Pickpocket."
Here, he uses the blank-slate protagonist (surely a lapsed Catholic) as a
man defined by his action -- that is, the ability to pick pockets -- yet the
man (through the fault of Bresson's clumsy, indecisive camera) doesn't prove
the point to the audience. Ophuls' camera sweeps and tracks in order to
follow and predict, to reveal and suggest. Bresson's camera cuts and
searches in order to keep up, and to barely convey. This distance from the
audience does not serve, as his defenders might argue, as an objectivist eye
seeking to provide redemption for its subjects, but rather to reduce
identification with the characters, and distract them from feeling what
should be (if we're speaking of transcendentalism and theistic religion) an
emotional source.
I will seek and watch A Man Escaped, so I have rights to this argument, but
it will have a tall order to prove itself worthy against "Earrings of Madame
De" and will have to be almost non-Bressonian to be perfect.
-zach
(who still likes ol' Robert, but likes to keep his overraters at bay)
Michael Brooke
> So Michael, are there any other of Bresson's films you think are perfect?
> Because I've seen "Pickpocket," "The Devil Probably," and "Diary of a
> Country Priest," and let me tell you, they are far from it. Pickpocket has
> these poorly edited, impotent pickpocketing scenes and Priest has serious
> tonal inefficiencies as well as performance problems. If A Man Escaped is
> better than these films, fine, call it a masterpiece, but based on these
> other films, Bresson is no perfectionist. it seems he would let any kind of
> coverage go on Pickpocket, despite it looking fake, corny, or mismatched.
I haven't seen the last two titles, and I've only seen 'Pickpocket' in
one of the worst 16mm prints that I've ever had the displeasure of
watching (it was so dark and scratched that it was almost impossible to
make out what was going on), so I can't comment directly.
I can certainly confirm, though, that 'A Man Escaped' is head and
shoulders above some of Bresson's other, more hermetic work ('The Trial
of Joan of Arc' and 'Lancelot du Lac' spring to mind). For once, style
and subject-matter were in perfect sync.
Michael Brooke
> Michael Brooke wrote:
> >
> > There's no point at all, unless you're doing it for your own personal
> > enjoyment. People who take these lists seriously - and I don't care
> > whether the lists were compiled by one person or 1500 - are rather
> > missing the point: you can't come up with any absolute definition of
> > what constitutes a good film, and one man's masterpiece may be another
> > man's pretentious and overblown rubbish. Both points of view are
> > equally valid (etc.)
>
> Are both points of view equally valid solely because there may
> be no logical argument with which to distinguish a masterpiece from
> rubbish?
No, not at all - I doubt I could construct a particularly convincing
case that 'Bride of the Monster' is a masterpiece! See below.
> I'm inclined to agree that you can't come up with any absolute
> definition of what constitutes a good film; but I don't believe that all
> points of view are equally valid.
No, they're not - but I'd argue that the validity of the point of view
depends more on how articulately (and, crucially, convincingly) it's
argued than on the actual point of view itself.
Those who championed the likes of 'La Regle du Jeu' and 'Night of the
Hunter' at the time they originally came out were in a tiny minority -
but persistence paid off, and their arguments won through.
Bilge Ebiri
painting. Someone may like a landscape painting because it reminds him of
home, or a portrait because it reminds him of a friend. There is nothing
wrong with that. But...there *are* wrong reasons for disliking a work of
art."
--E.H. Gombrich
A bit naive by today's cynical standards, to be sure, but still pretty
relevant.
love,
Bilge
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dfjqda.20l...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
word...@rocketmail.com
Monty Python is just a funny today, if not more so, than when it came out.
I'm partial to "Dead Parrot" and "Crunchy Frog".
Wordsmith *waxing nostalgic with his usual grin* :)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jason Mole
(word...@rocketmail.com) writes:
> In article <19980917232933...@ng102.aol.com>,
> m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote:
>>
>> john melville writes:
>>
>> >> No it isn't. An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a
>> >> proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything
>> >the
>> >> other person says.
>> >
>> >It certainly is NOT!
>>
>> Actually, the next line was different. Here's the way it went --I THINK:
>>
>> Palin: >> No it isn't. An argument is a series of statements intended to
>> establish a
>> >> proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything
>> >the
>> >> other person says.
>>
>> Cleese: If I argue with you I must take up a contrary position.
>>
>> Palin: Yes but that's not just saying "no it isn't!"
>>
>> Cleese: Yes it is.
>>
>> Palin: No it isn't!
>>
>> There's >nobody< writing comedy like this today. Great stuff.
>>
>> Mark Ervin
>>
>
> Monty Python is just a funny today, if not more so, than when it came out.
> I'm partial to "Dead Parrot" and "Crunchy Frog".
>
> Wordsmith *waxing nostalgic with his usual grin* :)
The skit that always cracks me the most is the Soccer (football) game,
"Socrates has a thought, he kicks the ball!", but the next best comedy
troop after MP is Kids In The Hall, okay I may be biased cause I'm a
Canuck :)
--
http://members.tripod.com/~mole_man/mole.htm (updated Sept 12th, 98)
http://207.236.117.20/squeegee complaints/compliments on squeegeers?
Elocutu...@hotmail.com
"Rorschach" <ror...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>
> Jay Wolfe wrote in message
> <35FFF1B1...@earthlink.net>...
> |
> |
> |Gary Jones wrote:
> |
> |> In article
> <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x
> <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> |> wrote
> |> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things
> so much more interesting,
> |>
> |> No it doesn't.
> |
> |yes it does.
> |
> Whether it makes things more intersesting or
> not there is NO drama without conflict.
Yes there is.
--Elocutus
(getting silly now)
Philipp Lenssen
>..
> This tendency for posters on USENET to compile endless lists, reflects a
> similar tendency in culture as a whole to categorise and then place in
> hierarchies everything which it touches, including things that really
> don't want to be placed in such boxes, like the subjective idiosyncratic
> and individual expressions of human creativity called art. This is in
> turn is symptomatic of a post enlightenment style of thinking which
> seeks to quantify, abstract and objectify the world into objects that
> can be possessed and controlled, or else disposed of.
>
> reliance on money for barter and exchange helped to promoted the
> abstract thinking on which the Age of Enlightenment was built. But
> reality check time - categories and qualitative hierarchies although
> very useful for pursuits such as say, the buying and selling of cattle,
> are a very poor way of reaching a personal understanding of what makes a
> great work of art - for that understanding is ultimately subjective.
You seem to attack the attempt of objective movie criticism in general.
It's helpful to read critics simply because most don't have time,
interest and money to view everything and subjectively judge for
oneself. If we say even the attempt to be objective is a failure, then
movie critics would probably be like "I can't stand to see blood, so
that horror movie is bad, that girl looked like someone I was in love
with, so I like that romantic movie, this one has big plot holes and bad
actors, but I saw it as kid and feel nostalgic". Such critics would be
useless, and we'd have to pick movies at random, by trailer, by title.
But we can judge on a basis of: did it achieve what we suppose it wanted
to achieve. If we don't like romantic movies, we can still say, if
you're into those kind of things, it's worth it.
--
The Court http://start.at/the.court
Seamus
Jason Mole wrote in message <6tu8j4$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
The Kids were the greatest comedy troupe of the past decade. And I'm not
even a Canuck. What did you think of the spinoff Vacant Lot? (I enjoyed
the "Team Israel vs. Team Germany" Olympic sketch where Jesus runs over the
water and wins)
The La Costra Nostra
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/5784/5sk.html
rick nelson
>
> In article <19980917232933...@ng102.aol.com>,
> m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote:
> >
> > >> proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything
> > >the
> > >> other person says.
> >
> > Cleese: If I argue with you I must take up a contrary position.
> >
> > Palin: Yes but that's not just saying "no it isn't!"
> >
> > Cleese: Yes it is.
> >
> > Palin: No it isn't!
> >
> > There's >nobody< writing comedy like this today. Great stuff.
> >
> > Mark Ervin
> >
>
> Monty Python is just a funny today, if not more so, than when it came out.
> I'm partial to "Dead Parrot" and "Crunchy Frog".
>
> Wordsmith *waxing nostalgic with his usual grin* :)
>
"Penguin on the T.V."
Chapman: How should I know which zoo it's from? I'm not Dr. Bloody
Banowsky? (dry host of an English "Nature" type program)
Cleese: How would Dr. Banowsky know which zoo it was from?
Chapman: He knows everything.
Cleese: Oohh, I wouldn't like that. It would take all the mystery out of
life.
blue skies,
rick
ivan sinha
online.de> writes
even if we can all like films of different genres our tolerence levels
for the various types vary. The point of good critics is that they are
interesting enough that you want to develop a relationship over time
at that point you have an understanding of where their taste and yours
overlap and can pick what you watch that way. Equally when reccomending
to a friend I hope one should sufficiently aware of their taste to be
able to go through the range from I loved it but I don't think it's your
sort of film to the reverse
ivan
Michael Brooke
>
> You seem to attack the attempt of objective movie criticism in general.
I don't think criticism *can* be truly objective.
> It's helpful to read critics simply because most don't have time,
> interest and money to view everything and subjectively judge for
> oneself. If we say even the attempt to be objective is a failure, then
> movie critics would probably be like "I can't stand to see blood, so
> that horror movie is bad, that girl looked like someone I was in love
> with, so I like that romantic movie, this one has big plot holes and bad
> actors, but I saw it as kid and feel nostalgic". Such critics would be
> useless.
I disagree. A truly useless critic would be one who said "that horror
movie is bad" or "this romantic movie is good", with no attempt at
explanation or contextualisation, but the examples you gave are
considerably better than that because the critic in question has at
least tried to give a reason for his or her reaction. And because I'd
argue that it's impossible to be truly objective when it comes to
criticism, these kind of autobiographical snippets are immensely useful
when it comes to establishing a critic's prejudices.
If I knew nothing about these people, there would be no point in my
reading their work - because without knowing their likes and dislikes,
how can you sensibly evaluate their opinions? They're bound to be
coloured by something, however "objective" they appear to be, and
they're equally bound to make the occasional extreme comment from time
to time (either in terms of overpraising or underrating particular
films).
This week in Britain, 'Love is the Devil' and 'Men With Guns' have
opened to reviews spanning the full range from "masterpiece" to "waste
of celluloid", and convincing arguments have been raised to support each
contention. I almost certainly don't have time (or enough money!) at
present to take a chance on both films, so I'm picking 'Love is the
Devil' on the grounds that, by and large, the people who have disliked
it are people I expected to dislike it as a matter of principle. But I
couldn't reach that decision without knowing something about those
critics' tastes and prejudices.
Rod Munday
Of course critics are fun to read sometimes, and can even be
enlightening, when they articulating intentions of an artist that may
have remained hidden to the viewer, but doesn't criticism so often
function as a mask of moral prejudice?
As for the excuses you offer for not making up your own mind: - it's not
a question of not having the time, your are either interested in film
enough to care or you aren't, if your are interested you make the time.
It's not a question of money; I hire films from the local library for 1
pound sterling a night, that's the same price as 2 loaves of bread.
Most importantly it's not a question of doubting your own opinion; you
don't have to subjugate your will to a pompous breed of self proclaimed
'experts' who write from their ivory towers without fear of being
contradicted or challenged - your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s,
it just that other people aren't necessarily compelled to agree with
you. In other words, Welcome to USENET :)
Regards Rod
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
>
> You seem to attack the attempt of objective movie criticism in general.
> It's helpful to read critics simply because most don't have time,
> interest and money to view everything and subjectively judge for
> oneself. If we say even the attempt to be objective is a failure, then
> movie critics would probably be like "I can't stand to see blood, so
> that horror movie is bad, that girl looked like someone I was in love
> with, so I like that romantic movie, this one has big plot holes and bad
> actors, but I saw it as kid and feel nostalgic". Such critics would be
> useless, and we'd have to pick movies at random, by trailer, by title.
> But we can judge on a basis of: did it achieve what we suppose it wanted
> to achieve. If we don't like romantic movies, we can still say, if
> you're into those kind of things, it's worth it.
>
Rod Munday
>
> Rod Munday wrote:
> >
> > It has been said before, notably by Norman O. Brown, that a greater
> > reliance on money for barter and exchange helped to promoted the
> > abstract thinking on which the Age of Enlightenment was built. But
> > reality check time - categories and qualitative hierarchies although
> > very useful for pursuits such as say, the buying and selling of cattle,
> > are a very poor way of reaching a personal understanding of what makes a
> > great work of art - for that understanding is ultimately subjective.
>
> any attempt to "reach" an understanding---personal or otherwise---would
> be pointless, or perhaps impossible. There would be little way of
> ascertaining whether the point one stood at before reaching some
> understanding was in fact the point of understanding itself.
Well I didn't say ALL understanding, if you had taken the time to read
my post properly you would see that I was talking about the
'understanding' that leads us to appreciate a work of art. But you make
an interesting point. Wittgenstein pondered these and other questions in
his seminal work, the "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus." (apologies to
those of you who have heard all this from me before) He concluded that
there were no philosophical propositions that described the essential
nature of things or the metaphysical structure of the world (i.e. that
can be used to arrive at an objective understanding of anything), the
implication being that even the propositions contained within the
"Tractatus itself, were condemned by Wittgenstein as nonsense. But he
also stated that "The scaffold that guides us in forming and questioning
beliefs cannot itself be questioned." Otherwise we will fall into a
state of solipsistic never never land, that you describe in your post.
What we are talking about is degrees of error here. Yes it is folly to
question everything and fall into a solipsistic abyss, but on the other
hand it is also wrong to objectify everything, because all that reveals
is a poorly suppressed anal fixation (ha ha). Reality check
again.....there is really no need (or philosophical justification) to
possess, control, quantify and categorise everything in your world -
unless of course you want to impoverish you life. Sorry Ayn Rand fans :)
Regards Rod
walking the tightrope
john melville
> Such critics would be
> useless,
And your point is???
john
john melville
Pholosopy"
all together now:
<singing>
Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant
who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy begger
who could think you under the table,
David Hume could outconsume
Whilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
and Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Niettzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates himself was permanently pissed...
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
on a half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
half a crate of whiskey every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
and Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink therefore I am"...
Yes Socrates himself is particularly missed...
A lovely little thinker,
but a bugger when he's pissed.
Hoping this does not revive a Western Philosophy thread,
john
Philipp Lenssen
>..
> As for the excuses you offer for not making up your own mind: - it's not
> a question of not having the time, your are either interested in film
> enough to care or you aren't, if your are interested you make the time.
I don't know if I'm interested enough if I don't know anything about the
movie. I do make up my own mind, but base the opinion on different
critics I read or hear.
> It's not a question of money; I hire films from the local library for 1
> pound sterling a night, that's the same price as 2 loaves of bread.
I buy the movies, because I can't hire english films. That's the same
price as about 40 cheese sandwiches.
>..
> contradicted or challenged - your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s,
> it just that other people aren't necessarily compelled to agree with
> you. In other words, Welcome to USENET :)
My opinion isn't valid at all if I didn't see the movie. I only need to
read critics if I don't know anything, or just too little about the
movie. I may not need to read a critic if I know the director, read the
book, or something like that. If I then judge for myself if I decided to
watch the movie, only then do I have a valid opinion (the most valid of
all, when it comes to my own taste).
Philipp Lenssen
>..
> If I knew nothing about these people, there would be no point in my
> reading their work - because without knowing their likes and dislikes,
> how can you sensibly evaluate their opinions? They're bound to be
> coloured by something, however "objective" they appear to be, and
> they're equally bound to make the occasional extreme comment from time
> to time (either in terms of overpraising or underrating particular
> films).
> it are people I expected to dislike it as a matter of principle. But I
> couldn't reach that decision without knowing something about those
> critics' tastes and prejudices.
I didn't try to say criticism is purely scientific (neither is real
world science purely objective) or can be objective. I tried to say the
critic should at least _try_ to be ovjective (a critic should be able to
reflect on the own judgement). Anyway, establishing an opinion towards
the critics falls very much into the same category of watching each
movie yourself: often, there's just not enough time. I read some printed
movie only magazines, watch out for critics online, and listen to word
by mouth in the real world. The first group of critics I practically
never know, the second I know not enough (besides, even the third group,
though this is the most personal relation, doesn't alway hit the
target). What I try to do is form my own opinion and try to look behind
the critic if possible, and part of the critic should be what the movie
is about, additionaly maybe what others movies are like it, what the
director did before, all this is very valuable even when I didn't get to
the conlusion in the end.
Padraig L Henry
> If all understanding is ultimately subjective, I think it likely that
>any attempt to "reach" an understanding---personal or otherwise---would
>be pointless, or perhaps impossible. There would be little way of
>ascertaining whether the point one stood at before reaching some
>understanding was in fact the point of understanding itself.
Come again?
... And Welcome to Gombean-Land!
And now I`ll pass you over to our enlightened bowsey par excellence,
Finian McLonergan, and his dare little chisler of a daughter, Sharon:
Sharon: Why has America so many rich people, daddy?
Finian: Why? ... I`ll tell you. And I`ll quote no greater authority
than myself. Quote: `Didn`t the Americans rush to dig gold from the
ground in California in 1849 ... and didn`t they plant it in the soil
at Fort Knox a hundred years later?`
Sharon: Granted.
Finian: Well, that`s it, it is. You see, there`s something about the
soil in and around Fort Knox that gives that magical quality to gold.
It causes the gold to radiate a powerful influence throughout America.
It activates the assembly lines in Detroit, it makes skyscrapers
sprout up from the gutters of New York city, and it produces a bumper
crop of millionaires. And that (lashing back a swig from his jar of
poitin) is the McLonergan theory of monetarist economics. Aye, `tis.
Aye. And we`re all hovering over the point of understanding, to be
sure.
Padraig
Great movie, this. And we haven`t even yet reached the part where
Nixon dismantles the Gold Standard ... Who swiped my poitin?
Padraig L Henry
>>behaviour. But hey, his narrative devices are even better that the
>>likes of Max Ophuls (I recently watched Ophul`s A Reckless Moment and
>>am still recovering from its sheer narrative and stylistic
>>perfection), but the latter prefers psychology to metaphysics. Perhaps
>
>
>My droogie, Padraig! You must be all, like, gloopy in the gulliver, sir!
>Ophuls is ten times the craftsman (and artist) that Bresson is, despite my
>passionate affection for the great but flawed "Devil Probably."
They are >very< different artists, and while I am much more familiar
with Bresson`s work than Ophul`s (while you appear to be in the
opposite mode), perhaps when we complete our viewing of their
respective repertoires, we may both be in a better position to draw
drastic conclusions like "ten times the craftsman (and artist)". I
have yet to see "Letter From an Unknown Woman" and I anxiously await
the opportunity.
> The
>stylistic perfection in "Earrings of Madam De" is not to be denied, as you
>were kind enough to imply, and narratively, "Letter From an Unknown Woman"
>is surprising, contradicting the film's lugubrious tonality and sad finale
>with an exciting pace and sharp editing (especially for the 40s). It's
>clear that from a purely technical standpoint, Bresson couldn't direct
>traffic around Ophuls.
Ooops. Bresson is >clinical<, yes, (the delicate, fleeting Close Up is
one of his trademarks, along with the kind of distanciation we now
like to term Kubrickean), but don`t be going comparing him to a failed
traffic warden just yet :-).
<snip>
>I will seek and watch A Man Escaped, so I have rights to this argument, but
>it will have a tall order to prove itself worthy against "Earrings of Madame
>De" and will have to be almost non-Bressonian to be perfect.
I would like to believe that you`re in for a pleasant (?) surprise.
Padraig
Compare the last scenes of certain films by Paul Schrader with that of
Bresson`s Pickpocket. But, anyway ...
Padraig L Henry
(Michael Brooke) wrote:
>This week in Britain, 'Love is the Devil' and 'Men With Guns' have
>opened to reviews spanning the full range from "masterpiece" to "waste
>of celluloid", and convincing arguments have been raised to support each
>contention. I almost certainly don't have time (or enough money!) at
>present to take a chance on both films, so I'm picking 'Love is the
>Devil' on the grounds that, by and large, the people who have disliked
>it are people I expected to dislike it as a matter of principle. But I
>couldn't reach that decision without knowing something about those
>critics' tastes and prejudices.
You`ve picked the better one there, Michael :-). I saw it just after
Tom Paulin had summarily dismissed it on The Late Review (and he`s
someone I`m usually in agreement with; but as Bacon was the 20th
Century`s greatest Irish painter, no amount of criticism would
convince me not to see the film). Many of his criticisms are valid
however: there is no real analysis made of Bacon`s creative process,
no real appreciation of the artistic glory that emerged out of the
social chaos, rather yet another somewhat predictable portrait of the
artist`s destructive relationships, though Derek Jacobi, who even
looks remarkably similar to Bacon, is superb in capturing the
mercurial, contradictory qualities of the man and the artist, even if
the script takes certain dramatic liberties with the facts (Bacon`s
brutal and formative childhood experiences at the Currach are
completely omitted). But the film`s redeeming feature is its visual
awareness - every shot is competently planned and constructed in the
manner of a striking tableaux. Hardly surprising as the film`s
director, John Maybury, a former artist himself, began his film-making
as a designer for Derek Jarman.
Padraig
DCO
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:26:25 -0700, DCO <d...@ioc.net> wrote:
>
> > If all understanding is ultimately subjective, I think it likely that
> >any attempt to "reach" an understanding---personal or otherwise---would
> >be pointless, or perhaps impossible. There would be little way of
> >ascertaining whether the point one stood at before reaching some
> >understanding was in fact the point of understanding itself.
>
> Come again?
I don't know what it means.....I just stole it.
Padraig L Henry
<gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ... That is Kubrick's worst movie,
>> the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the 70's and
>> utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen. I hate it, hate it, hate it.
>> Enough with the cries of "who hates Titanic ?" Does anybody, here hate
>> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
>Superb. Ronie is actually harry shearer. Very funny. (Nudest?!)
>
>Really, Ronie - as Michael challenged you on it, did you ever watch the
>second half of the movie? Granting that the first half made a strong
>impression on you, maybe you can credit the second half with the same
>power, from a different point of view?
Gordon - Ronie >never< reads his own posts, so don`t feel that you`re
under any obligation to do so for him. And I don`t believe he even
bothers to >write< them either, given that his attention to, and
blissful ignorance of, the rudiments of grammer, syntax, and spelling,
not to mention reason, compares to his chronic delusions about certain
films. "Mysgonistic" indeed. His "I hate it, hate it, hate it." , etc,
is a truly contemporary, representative masterpiece of insular,
ego-centred pre-adolescence ...
Padraig
Peter Gorman
DCO wrote in message <35FF1C...@ioc.net>...
>Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>> Does anybody, here hate
>> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
I do too, it's nasty and empty. A perfect example of a filmmaker who thinks
he's better than his audience. After Kubrick made 2001 he lost his soul.
Michael Brooke
> On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:46:08 +0100, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk
> (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> >This week in Britain, 'Love is the Devil' and 'Men With Guns' have
> >opened to reviews spanning the full range from "masterpiece" to "waste
> >of celluloid", and convincing arguments have been raised to support each
> >contention. I almost certainly don't have time (or enough money!) at
> >present to take a chance on both films, so I'm picking 'Love is the
> >Devil' on the grounds that, by and large, the people who have disliked
> >it are people I expected to dislike it as a matter of principle. But I
> >couldn't reach that decision without knowing something about those
> >critics' tastes and prejudices.
>
> You`ve picked the better one there, Michael :-). I saw it just after
> Tom Paulin had summarily dismissed it on The Late Review (and he`s
> someone I`m usually in agreement with; but as Bacon was the 20th
> Century`s greatest Irish painter, no amount of criticism would
> convince me not to see the film). Many of his criticisms are valid
> however: there is no real analysis made of Bacon`s creative process,
> no real appreciation of the artistic glory that emerged out of the
> social chaos,
To be fair to Maybury, his hands were tied by the absolute refusal of
the Bacon estate to sanction any reproductions or indeed references to
his work! Then again, the last time a film-maker made a biopic under
those restrictions, the end result was 'Mishima', which I thought was
stunning - so I've got reasonably high hopes for this one.
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke wrote in message
>> >This week in Britain, 'Love is the Devil' and 'Men With Guns' have
>> >opened to reviews spanning the full range from "masterpiece" to "waste
>> >of celluloid", and convincing arguments have been raised to support each
>> >contention. I almost certainly don't have time (or enough money!) at
>> >present to take a chance on both films, so I'm picking 'Love is the
>> >Devil' on the grounds that, by and large, the people who have disliked
>> >it are people I expected to dislike it as a matter of principle. But I
>> >couldn't reach that decision without knowing something about those
>> >critics' tastes and prejudices.
>>
and money. But if I were to pick one, it would be "Men With Guns",
principally because it's John Sayles - though "Lone Star" (along with "Il
Postino") seems to be one of those films I've so far been fated never to
see.
As for "Love is the Devil", yes it sounds interesting and no doubt I'll see
it sometime, but comparisons to Derek Jarman are not the sort of thing
likely to entice me into the cinema. I'm sure he was a very nice man and he
deserves much respect for doing his own thing and sticking to it, but each
and every Jarman film I've seen to date has utterly failed to connect to me.
Gary Couzens
Maurice S Downes
Elaborate.
--Mo
p.s. I understand the empty complaint, just not the "better than his
audience" part.
Michael Brooke
>
> As for "Love is the Devil", yes it sounds interesting and no doubt I'll see
> it sometime, but comparisons to Derek Jarman are not the sort of thing
> likely to entice me into the cinema. I'm sure he was a very nice man and he
> deserves much respect for doing his own thing and sticking to it, but each
> and every Jarman film I've seen to date has utterly failed to connect to me.
Well, it looks as though we share a blind spot! For years I'd totally
failed to see the point of Derek Jarman's films (the odd effective
sequence here and there notwithstanding), but friends would assure me
that I'd change my mind when I saw 'Caravaggio'. I duly saw
'Caravaggio' - on the big screen in an immaculate print - and thought it
was dreadful: visually quite impressive (particularly considering the
minuscule budget) but otherwise suffering badly from Jarman's conviction
that you don't need a script to make a film (some of the dialogue has to
be heard to be disbelieved).
These same friends are now assuring me that I'll *definitely* change my
mind when I see 'The Tempest', but I think I'll hold off on that
earth-shattering experience for a few more years...
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke wrote in message
>Well, it looks as though we share a blind spot! For years I'd totally
>failed to see the point of Derek Jarman's films (the odd effective
>sequence here and there notwithstanding), but friends would assure me
>that I'd change my mind when I saw 'Caravaggio'. I duly saw
>'Caravaggio' - on the big screen in an immaculate print - and thought it
>was dreadful: visually quite impressive (particularly considering the
>minuscule budget) but otherwise suffering badly from Jarman's conviction
>that you don't need a script to make a film (some of the dialogue has to
>be heard to be disbelieved).
>
>These same friends are now assuring me that I'll *definitely* change my
>mind when I see 'The Tempest', but I think I'll hold off on that
>earth-shattering experience for a few more years...
>
"Caravaggio" and "War Requiem") plus his segment of "Aria", and they all
left me cold.
I have been known to change my mind about a director. Paul Verhoeven and
Lars von Trier come to mind: in both cases their first film that I saw I
*loathed*. ("Spetters" and "The Element of Crime" respectively.) Both have
since made films I like a lot better. I've yet to see a Jarman film that has
had that effect.
(Talking of von Trier, "The Idiots" is playing in the London Film Festival.
Metro Tartan will distribute it in the UK - whether cut or uncut I don't yet
know.)
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke
> I have been known to change my mind about a director. Paul Verhoeven and
> Lars von Trier come to mind: in both cases their first film that I saw I
> *loathed*. ("Spetters" and "The Element of Crime" respectively.) Both have
> since made films I like a lot better. I've yet to see a Jarman film that has
> had that effect.
I agree with you about Von Trier (the second of his films I saw was
'Europa', and as I was running one of the cinemas premiering it I had no
choice about seeing it!), but my first Verhoeven is still my favourite
by a comfortable margin - 'The Fourth Man'.
> (Talking of von Trier, "The Idiots" is playing in the London Film Festival.
> Metro Tartan will distribute it in the UK - whether cut or uncut I don't yet
> know.)
Given that it's in Danish, subtitled, shot on an extremely wobbly
hand-held camera and containing loads of other elements that aren't
exactly multiplex-friendly, thus guaranteeing an extremely limited
release, my guess is that it'll be left alone for exactly the same
reasons that films like 'Man Bites Dog' (same distributor) were.
OZ
> I swear, the only movie I hate that everybody
> else seems to like is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. That is Kubrick's worst
> movie,
> the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the
> 70's and
> utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen. I hate it, hate it,
> hate it.
> Enough with the cries of "who hates Titanic ?" Does anybody, here
> hate
> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
Sign me up for that one. I never understood why so many have a
soft spot for it. I guess it was radical for it's time and all, but
I found it numbing.
-------{{{{OZ}}}}------------------------------------------
[sick of being ripped off at the movies?]
..*HOLLYWOOD BITCHSLAP*.. TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT
--------------http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com-------------
OZ
> A clockwork orange is Art, it might not touch into poular topics,
> but
> it
> is a CULT-classic, if it made you uneasy revert to your Hollywood
> mainstream
> crap.
Dude, lighten up. Just because someone doesn't like the painting on
your wall doesn't mean they read comics, you know what I mean?
Orange, in my opinion, doesn't rate. It's devoid of something I'm
looking for in a film.
Doesn't mean I think Armageddon is a good night out.
Differing opinions are not bitchslaps.
Jay Wolfe
Rorschach wrote:
> Jay Wolfe wrote in message
> <35FFF1B1...@earthlink.net>...
> |
> |
> |Gary Jones wrote:
> |
> |> In article
> <6tn8lf$svn$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>, Sp00x
> <Sp...@lemm.wox>
> |> wrote
> |> >Like a good movie, conflict makes things
> so much more interesting,
> |>
> |> No it doesn't.
> |
> |yes it does.
> |
> Whether it makes things more intersesting or
> not there is NO drama without conflict.
yes there is.
Jay Wolfe
Rorschach wrote:
> I even own that python skit on tape!
no you don't.
Terry Scott
DCO wrote in message <36052D...@ioc.net>...
Travis
Arsenic and Old Lace
Fargo
Trainspotting (thought it was very good)
Seven
The Dinner Guests (I think that's the name...a group of friends poison their
visitors?)
Psycho
Heathers
Gordon Dahlquist wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>> Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>>
>> Enough is enough! I've had it up to here with worst movies list.
>> So many movies panned, geez isn't there a single movie we can all
>> agree on that is actually good ? Seems like everytime we have a movie
>> which everybody likes, somebody says that movie's crap and not
>> worth liking. Isn't there a single movie that we can all agree
>> on that is a good movie ? ?
>
>
>Sure we can Ronie ... it's called A Clockwork Orange.
>
Brian Siano
>
> ok.....what do you guys think of these movies?
>
> Arsenic and Old Lace
A gem.
> Seven
Some good bits, decent direction, fairly intelligent.
> The Dinner Guests (I think that's the name...a group of friends poison their
> visitors?)
"The Last Supper." Some goog gags, the cameos were
OK (esp. Ron Perlman), the Nora Dunn subplot was wasted,
but the ending was one of those dopey twists that seem
clever to not-very-clever people.
Travis
they remember!! :)
I think the reason I liked the film so well, was because I liked the
characters.....and thought it was just 'fresh'...in a dark way...ya know?
Brian Siano wrote in message <360BD885...@cceb.med.upenn.edu>...
alon
Travis wrote in message <6ug9do$57q$1...@supernews.com>...
>ok.....what do you guys think of these movies?
>
>Arsenic and Old Lace
Best movie EVER featuring a TEDDY ROOSEVELT impersonator
>Fargo
Ya !!!
>Trainspotting (thought it was very good)
Me too . The cold-turkey hallucinations really got to me . Loved
Spud`s flying shit .
>Seven
It`s progenitor , THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES , is one of my all
time guilty pleasures. 7 took itself a bit too seriously for my
tastes , but sickness can occasionaly be entertaining.
>Psycho
What`s not to like ?
>Heathers
What is to like ?
peace & respect ,
alon
Brodersen Karl
: ok.....what do you guys think of these movies?
:
: The Dinner Guests (I think that's the name...a group of friends poison their
: visitors?)
Hum that sounds like the Last Supper... Great stuff even if you can see
the end coming a mile away...
Chris
I HATE the Titanic
I LOVE A Clockwork Orange
In article <360A0C68...@hotmail.com>, OZ
<kidswit...@hotmail.com> writes
>Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>
>> I swear, the only movie I hate that everybody
>> else seems to like is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. That is Kubrick's worst
>> movie,
>> the most sexist, nudest, dumbest, boring, violent, worst of the
>> 70's and
>> utterly mysgonistic movie I have ever seen. I hate it, hate it,
>> hate it.
>> Enough with the cries of "who hates Titanic ?" Does anybody, here
>> hate
>> A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ?
>
> Sign me up for that one. I never understood why so many have a
>soft spot for it. I guess it was radical for it's time and all, but
>I found it numbing.
>
>-------{{{{OZ}}}}------------------------------------------
> [sick of being ripped off at the movies?]
> ..*HOLLYWOOD BITCHSLAP*.. TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT
> --------------http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com-------------
>
>
",and maybe bufallo hunting too"
Chris
anti spam.....replace white with black when replying
M. Bersick
Taxi Driver
Fargo
ACO
I've Heard the Mermaids SInging
WIsh You Were Here
Apocalypse Now
The Deerhunter
Easy Rider
That Cassavetes film that ends with them talking in a house on a
staircase in the morning
Shortcuts
Strangers on a Train or Rope
New Year's Day
On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Travis wrote:
> ok.....what do you guys think of these movies?
>
> Arsenic and Old Lace
haven't seen it
> Fargo
see above
> Trainspotting (thought it was very good)
Real darn good, but not as good as Shallow Grave
> Seven
creepy, but not nearly as good as the intro sequence w/ the credits
> The Dinner Guests (I think that's the name...a group of friends poison their
I think you mean The Last Supper. Good movie, but a flawed gem.
> visitors?)
> Psycho
Sure.
> Heathers
Ick.
alon
Rosemarie`s Baby
Blade Runner
How I Won The War
M Python & the Holy Grail
JFK [ director`s cut ]
Raging Bull
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
Abominable Dr. Phibes
Eye of God
Frenzy [ LOVERLY!!]
FULLDOCLOLIPOGODYSPARTSANGEYNDON
Jason Mole
"alon" (afb...@email.msn.com) writes:
> Blade Runner
I loved the movie, but friends have told me the Director's cut is bad and
stick to the orginal, and it was good enough for Sigue Sigue Sputnik to
sample :)
> How I Won The War
Haven't seen it, wouldn't mind checking out Lennon's acting
> M Python & the Holy Grail
I still laugh at this one, but I find Meaning of Life is the best one they did
> Raging Bull
DeNiro's best acting IMHO, it was a beautiful film and even better in B&W,
I believe Siskel and Ebert called it the best movie of the 80's
--
http://members.tripod.com/~mole_man/mole.htm (updated Sept 26th, 98)
http://207.236.117.20/squeegee complaints/compliments on squeegeers?
r_c...@my-dejanews.com
"alon" <afb...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> Rosemarie`s Baby
An effective thriller (He's got his father's eyes.)
> Blade Runner
A visual delight. The narration has always seemed a bit cheesy to me. The
director's cut lacks the narration but I'm not sure that I prefer it. This
movie turned me on to the writing of Philip K. Dick.
> M Python & the Holy Grail
A true classic. Uniformly hilarious viewing after viewing.
> Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
Except for one weak song I love this movie. Great fun.
> Abominable Dr. Phibes
Haven't seen this in a while but I recall Vincent Price's performance as
typically grandiose and poignant.
Richard Cody
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
spacee
much more credit should be given to the book, that Burgess, not
Kubrick
should be commended if you love the idea. alot was lost in the film
adaptation if you ask me. go read.
Speedbyrd wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:25:02 +0100, Chris
> <Ch...@thewhitelodge.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I HATE the Titanic
> >I LOVE A Clockwork Orange
> >
> >
> Oh :(
>
> The Speedbyrd(tm)
> a.k.a. "Jean-Pierre Pigglesworth"
>
> ICQ# 17433172
alon
alon wrote in message ...
>Waterland
>
>Rosemarie`s Baby
>
>Blade Runner
>
>
>
>
>Raging Bull
>
>
>
>Eye of God
>
>Frenzy [ LOVERLY!!]
>
>FULLDOCLOLIPOGODYSPARTSANGEYNDON
I forgot :
The Conversation
alon
Chris
In article <uGcgvpk79GA.105@upnetnews05>, alon
<afb...@email.msn.com> writes
--
Chris
Marquis MacRonin
the movie. Most people complain about the lack of Chapter 21 in the
film, but I tend to agree with the man who wrote "Kubrick: Inside the
Film Artist's Maze" (which, by the way, is excellent)
Basically, I feel that Burgess' ending was a cop-out, letting Alex
become a "good" person. In the Kubrick movie, however, he sticks to his
guns, giving the audience Alex in his true, natural form and insisting
that he is good the way he is. I find this much more thought-provoking
than Burgess' theory of "well, let him grow out of it"/ natural cycle of
growth.
Anyone agree?
Marquis MacRonin
The Director's Cut of Blade Runner may be one of my ten favorite movies,
but the original is an atrocity. First, the DC gets rid of the
horrendous voice over narration. It also adds the very helpful dream
sequence. Most importantly, it omits the HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE ending where
Deckard and Rachel are riding along in the sun, happy-go-lucky. It is so
much more effective to let that elevator door close and be gone . ..
And lest I forget, the DC is always letterboxed, which is SO key
dc
withint the top three.
Am I wrong?
dc
John Harkness
Here's one against -- wouldn't put A Clockwork Orange in my top 1000.
John
Marshall
<rial...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I bet most people here put ACO in there top 5 films of all time if not
> withint the top three.
>
> Am I wrong?
>
> dc
Yes...but it does appear within my top 25.
---
|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| / \ |Spider <mars...@gtn.net> |
|'\ \__O__/ /`| |
| `--(_)--' |http://users.gtn.net/marshall/ |
| .---/ \---. |ICQ UIN - 2447374 |
|/ /'(>I<)`\ \| |
|` \ `-' / '|"I am not an animal! I am a human being!" |
| \ / |- John Hurt as John Merrick, "The Elephant Man" |
|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|
M4RV1N
> dc
asks:
>I bet most people here put ACO in there top 5 films of all time if not
>withint the top three.
>
>Am I wrong?
I consider it the third finest film ever made, and my reasoning has more to do
with the importance of the issues the film deals with than with the brilliance
and skill of Kubrick's execution of those ideas. Not that I have any problem
the latter. I would agree with comments that have appeared in film journals
stating the ACO is one of the most perfectly structured narratives in film
history. One could go on and on about the performances, or about what might be
the best use of music in any film.
But the ideas are the most important aspect of this film, and they're critical
to how one sees the individual in relation to society. The film makes numerous
references to facism, and for good reason. Control is the point.
For an artist to force us to identify with a despicable, violent character in
order to make clear that government thought control is a greater evil, is an
astoundingly brave tactic. In effect, to preserve our most cherished concepts
of humanity, we must want Alex to regain his capacity for violence against
others. This is strong medicine, and it is interesting how many people have
strong negative reactions to this film, which they often falsely identify with
the film's violence (although the fist fight in "Barry Lyndon" is as violent as
anything in "Clockwork"), or with its supposed "coldness" (if the film were
about a character with so much passion for living but >minus< the violence,
this objection would be gone). For better and for worse, Alex represents the
life-force of humanity, raging against the oppression of the new-styled facism.
And of course our thoughts >are< controlled to a great degree by those in
power, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, even though the methods of behavior
modification have been replaced by "manufactured conscent."
I may prioritize the ideas in "2001" as more profound, the ideas in "Barry
Lyndon" more emotionally moving, but those in "A Clockwork Orange" are as
important as any put on film.
Mark Ervin