TV/Movies Megathread

[Ideologue]

Cel: I can give that to M as an early talkie.  However, my issues with M are, to be clear, not its filmmaking technique, but rather how emotionless and anchorless its procedural is.  It's a movie to recommend to people that thought Zodiac or the last half of High and Low just weren't dry and anonymous enough.  (Lorre is pretty good, though and I do like the movie, but feel its status is highly inflated.)

But the silent films of the late 20s had a well-developed language.  And Metropolis isn't a failure because it's made poorly or doesn't read as a motion picture.  It's a failure because it's kind of dumb, ideologically suspect, goofy, and boring.  And every H.G. Wells I've consulted agrees.   I mean, Safety Last is a far more incisive critique of capitalism, and the only reason that movie even exists is so Harold Lloyd can climb up a wall.

Re: Vertigo--I dunno, it would've had me going.   But I think we must disagree more substantially on the first point--I thought it actively obscured Scotty's character rather than revealed it.  He's a monster but doesn't seem like it because we know Judy deserves to be punished.  (It does, I concede, help explain why Judy would at all put up with Scotty's obvious derangement.)

I think ultimately people get overexcited about Vertigo's filmmaking, which is excellent, featuring several firsts or near-firsts; so they endeavor to elevate the story, which isn't bad but neither is it great, to the same level.

P.S.: yeah, the reveal's the worst.

[Valmy]

Neither Dracula or Casablanca are particularly rated in scholarly circles, though. Lang is a daring proposition - I always find difficult to appropiately rate films from the times film language was still developing. It's like saying that XIth century romanesque painting sucks because the drawings were bad.

What scholarly circles are those?

You can check the Sight and Sound list, where Casablanca is #85 and Dracula doesn't even make the list. It's made by polling film critics all over the world.

Well that's new.  Virtually every big fancy scholarly list I have ever seen puts Casablanca up near the top.  Maybe they found new obscure films from the 20s to rank above anything you have ever heard of.

[Ideologue]

Neither Dracula or Casablanca are particularly rated in scholarly circles, though. Lang is a daring proposition - I always find difficult to appropiately rate films from the times film language was still developing. It's like saying that XIth century romanesque painting sucks because the drawings were bad.

What scholarly circles are those?

You can check the Sight and Sound list, where Casablanca is #85 and Dracula doesn't even make the list. It's made by polling film critics all over the world.

Fair enough.  The only top ten of all time I could remember was Ebert's, and Casablanca was his #1.

What about The Invisible Man?  Now that's a Goddamned movie.   (I know it's not on there.)

Ugh.  Bicycle Thieves is right above The General.  Fuuuck.

[Josephus]

I think Cronenberg is over rated. Dare I say that?
Yes, he was groundbreaking. His first few films were shot on a shoe string and were, shall we say, interesting, although they don't really stand the test of time, and kudos for using a porn star in Rabid. I include Videodrome in this. His, what I call middle period, is certainly his most commercial and watcheable, although The Fly was ...meh....I though Dead Zone was OK, and Dead Ringers, is probably my favourite.

But then he quickly lost it. Naked Lunch, Crash even ExistenZ were just boring. ExistenZ could have been so much better. I never saw M.Butterfly.

A History of Violence and Eastern Promises were promising comebacks, IMO. Haven't seen, or even heard of, A Dangerous Method and Cosmopolis.

[mongers]

Fair enough.  The only top ten of all time I could remember was Ebert's, and Casablanca was his #1.

What about The Invisible Man?  Now that's a Goddamned movie.   (I know it's not on there.)

Ugh.  Bicycle Thieves is right above The General.  Fuuuck.

Bastards. 

[Eddie Teach]

Shirley MacLaine could do that and act at the same time.

What's that got to do with anything? They're not even remotely the same character.

[celedhring]

Cel: I can give that to M as an early talkie.  However, my issues with M are, to be clear, not its filmmaking technique, but rather how emotionless and anchorless its procedural is.  It's a movie to recommend to people that thought Zodiac or the last half of High and Low just weren't dry and anonymous enough.  (Lorre is pretty good, though and I do like the movie, but feel its status is highly inflated.)

But the silent films of the late 20s had a well-developed language.  And Metropolis isn't a failure because it's made poorly or doesn't read as a motion picture.  It's a failure because it's kind of dumb, ideologically suspect, goofy, and boring.  And every H.G. Wells I've consulted agrees.   I mean, Safety Last is a far more incisive critique of capitalism, and the only reason that movie even exists is so Harold Lloyd can climb up a wall.

Re: Vertigo--I dunno, it would've had me going.   But I think we must disagree more substantially on the first point--I thought it actively obscured Scotty's character rather than revealed it.  He's a monster but doesn't seem like it because we know Judy deserves to be punished.  (It does, I concede, help explain why Judy would at all put up with Scotty's obvious derangement.)

I think ultimately people get overexcited about Vertigo's filmmaking, which is excellent, featuring several firsts or near-firsts; so they endeavor to elevate the story, which isn't bad but neither is it great, to the same level.

P.S.: yeah, the reveal's the worst.

I think we can agree in the general assessment regarding Vertigo - it's a truly outstanding cinematic achievement that's left short by its story.

Regarding Metropolis, it is an expressionistic movie - the art movement then dominant in Germany. German Expressionism was caracterized by using cinematic technique to portray heightened emotional states - sublimating the social strife of Weimar Germany - in lightning, set design, acting... So naturally the film will look outdated, exaggerated and silly to modern audiences. American Classicism doesn't go to those extremes to paint emotion (unless you're Tim Burton), and that's what we've grown accustomed to so Metropolis does look ridiculous now. Lang would abandon this style pretty quickly, in M for example - film was still trying to figure out itself.

[garbon]

God the sooner we can all forget about Crash the better

[Queequeg]

You ever seen Night of the Hunter, Celed?

[Queequeg]

God the sooner we can all forget about Crash the better

I'm worried that people will start ironically appreciating it, like what happened with American Beauty. 

[Ideologue]

God the sooner we can all forget about Crash the better

I'm worried that people will start ironically appreciating it, like what happened with American Beauty. 

[garbon]

God the sooner we can all forget about Crash the better

I'm worried that people will start ironically appreciating it, like what happened with American Beauty. 

I can't say I really care what people like ironically.

[Queequeg]

Liking something ironically is one step closer to actually liking it.  I'm worried that is what is happening with AB.  That movie deserves to be forgotten about forever. 

[The Larch]

Why the dislike for American Beauty?

[celedhring]

You ever seen Night of the Hunter, Celed?

Yeah, like it a lot.