 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Nine: The Killing; Paths of Glory; Spartacus; The Shining; Full Metal Jacket; Lolita; A Clockwork Orange; 2001; Dr. Strangelove.
I'll include Barry Lyndon for its brilliant cinematography, but it was an inferior film to its period predecessor, Tom Jones (and comparing Al Finney to Ryan...well, why bother).
In each of the genres he tried (for that matter, no director was as successful in so many divergent ones), Stanley's effort ranks near or at the top.
Name another director with this oeuvre of consistent innovation, excellence, variety, and volume. He the Shakespeare, or the Bach, of film.
Follow Ups:
Fred Zinneman1. Oklahoma
2. The Member Of The Wedding
3. Man For All Seasons
4. Julia
5. High Noon
6. From Here To Eternity
William Wyler1. Funny Girl
2. The Children's Hour
3. Roman Holiday
4. Friendly Persuasion
5. The Best Years Of Our Lives
6. The Little Foxes
7. Wuthering Heights
The Collector.
Ben Hur.
The Big Country.
For quality AND quantity, I believe he is Kubrick's only equal (and that IS NOT saying I believe these are the two greatest directors...)
George Stevens1. The Greatest Story Ever Told
2. Giant
3. Shane
4. A Place In The Sun
5. Gunga Din
6. I Remember Mama
7. Swing Time
8. The Diary Of Anne Frank
"The Day of the Jackel" for Fred and "Ben Hur" for Willie.
Just a look at some of his best known films is mouth-watering!
Fedora (1978)
Front Page, The (1974)
Avanti! (1972)
Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, The (1970)
Fortune Cookie, The (1966)
Kiss Me, Stupid (1964)
Irma la Douce (1963)
One, Two, Three (1961)
Apartment, The (1960)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Seven Year Itch, The (1955)
Sabrina (1954)
Stalag 17 (1953)
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Foreign Affair, A (1948)
Double Indemnity (1944)That man knew a lot about people, and what makes us tick...
Regards
BF
You only need to see it under the right perspective: it all happens inside Tom Cruiseīs characterīs mind. Just remember the title of the novel it comes from: Arthur Scnitzlerīs "Traumnovel" (Novel of a Dream)...And "Clockwork Orange" canīt be understood looking at it from nowadays..., but at that time I was working with a group of psychiatrists who were exploring that conditioning and deconditioning stuff, with the vane pretension of curing homosexuals! When I look back to those days, I feel a cold shiver all along my spine...
"Barry Lyndon" is fine, from a purely aesthetical perspective, while it is pretty empty of content, something fine for those projecting their own feelings on it..., and he chose Ryan OīNeal, just because he was the perfect empty actor, for an empty role, going from nowhere to no place at all...
And there are very few films so strongly anti-war, and so anti-militarist as "Paths of Glory", and "Full Metal Jacket" (Dalton Trumbo got it, too, with "Johnny took his Gun"), or so fiercely denouncing of the Cold War madness as "Dr. Strangelove"...
About "2001" I have given my opinion, in another thread, some time ago. And on it I stand.
Kubrick was simply great!
Regards
BF
because he is Irish.
A really strong actor would have mucked it all up by drawing attention from the glorious scenery and composition.
***"Barry Lyndon" is fine, from a purely aesthetical perspective, while it is pretty empty of content,But of course it is. What else is there besides the human beings, their feelings, aspirations, sufferings, hope and frustration?
No car chases, no nudity, no sex... just that boring, boring human soul...
There is a full frontal shot of Marisa Berenson in the bathtub as well as two topless prostitutes with Barry at one point.
You have sharp eye... how could I forget her?OK, OK, but still - no car chases? Anxiously awaiting the confirmation.
There is a hint of a carriage chase as Barry's mentor, the Chevalier, escapes before Barry, while Barry, disguised as the Chevalier discreetly leaves the next morning.
He is so hard to please!
...tell me where is that soul you mention, as I havenīt found traces of it: not in the main character, who shows no changes, no moral progress, who is always detached from life itself, no matter his material progress, or his fall... or did you notice any improvement, any sign of maturity or change in him?; nor is there any in la Berenson, who starts being selfish, and ends her role in the same line... whose soul are you talking about?As a fine portrait of that society, it is really splendid, and I donīt have memory of any film which I would cite as a better example of a true feast to the eye. And as a portrait of the (a)morality of a social climber, it is fine, too. But not about human soul, or about the human condition itself.
So no complains, and no regrets: I enjoyed it very much, but not for the reasons you mention.
Regards
BF
Pauline Kael called BL "the first coffee table movie".
Well, if you think that Barry pulling the ribbon out of girl's corsage and Barry limping on one leg is the same person then perhaps you could use an interpreter the next time you watch it?To miss his change is to miss the whole point of the film. It is presented in a subtle way, sure, no crude acting there.
Anyway, each one of the many sub-stories in the film tells a different tale, and each one is a mini-film - like Barry spending time with the widow on his way to regiment. All small gems with real people... tooo bad you missed it.
...the film being not so much about himself as it is an extremely accurate portrait of his timeīs society, with him as a man who is craving not for love, or for enlightenment, but for assuring economic well-being for himself, in that society. And he never really grows up into a real man (while he shows some nobleness when, in that duel which puts an abrupt end to his pretensions, he chooses not to take advantage over his opponent, and makes an empty shot, just to find out that his opponent, born from a higher place, is even less noble than he, and makes no fuss of limping him).That the film portrays that society is confirmed by the date in that document Lady Lyndon signs, assigning him a pension, if I remember well: 1789, the year in which the Declaration of The Rights of Man was proclaimed in France, whose First article says that " Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good", exactly the opposite of what has been happening in the story Kubrick so beautifully has told us.
Ryan O'Nealīs bovine (or sheepish, if you prefer) acting never reveals a change inside him..., because he doesnīt actually change: he starts poor, climbs into that society, but he never is more than a parvenu with poor tastes (he chooses a picture because of its size, not for its quality, or for some personal affection), kind of a nouveau riche, as it frequently happens..., and he finally goes back to his early living, poorer than he started, with one leg less to rest on. Kubrick never left much (if anything) to chance when filming, and he was able to choose pratically whoever he wanted for his pictures and, needless to say, Mr. O'Neal never was a good actor..., but he fit like hand in glove for Kubrick's purposes.
I will never deny the splendid quality of this film, which as I have said, has no peer in sheer beauty. And, as a portrait of a class doomed to disappear because of its selfishness and its lack of real soul, itīs virtually impossible to better. But it doesnīt portray much of the inner soul of the character it takes its name from. My feeling is that maybe much of what you are seeing in it comes from yourself, not being really in the author's intention.
Regards
BF
First you said there was no change in character, then that the character is not important... which is it?So... no change in character means something is not done right? OK... what about the hero of WIld Stawberries? How much does HE change in the course of the film?
Fact is, the movie is not a sum of its parts, much like the painting is not the collection of faces on it. The movie as art form is about the means of creating the mood, the atmosphere, the emotion, the message sometimes, etc, etc. Most of these are present in Barry Lyndon, making it not just a representation of some societal trends at the time of Barry's life, but a great MOVIE.
And a great movie can be done with many parts you mentioned even present. If I were to adapt your logic then the Persona would be an awful waste of time.
"First you said there was no change in character, then that the character is not important... which is it?" Both: he doesnīt change, he only develops an ability for social climbing, and then he is defeated , loses one leg, and is thrown back to his earlier way of living; but he is no wiser, nor has he matured and transformed into a better man. And his character is just the name (wrongly acquired, never really his) he got in his best days, which is wiped away once he loses his cheated wifeīs favor."Barry Lyndon" is Kubrickīs most beautifully told portrait of that immoral, selfish, soulless society, and it is a masterwork on every count. But it is not about that manīs soul: he is just a pawn in a game of power, and as such he is mercilessly used, and then spent when the ones he emulates, and who never accept him as their peer, find him inconvenient.
"So... no change in character means something is not done right?" Where did I say that? I never said anything was done wrongly in this excellent film: Kubrick did exactly what he wanted to do, in his usually masterly way..., but he didnīt want to show us the true soul of this poor rascal, but an accurate picture of that society, with its flaws and its immorality, and that he did in spades.
"OK... what about the hero of WIld Stawberries? How much does HE change in the course of the film?" Here you are stepping in waters too deep for a superficial look to fathom them: The whole film is about how Itzak (Victor Sjöström) is forced, when at the pinnacle of his achievements (he is travelling to be named "Doctor Honoris Causa")by his inner self, to relive, through dreams and recurrent memories of his own past, some significant, crucial points in his own life, and how he failed..., and about how that makes his persona, that mask heīs been building and hiding behind through his life, stumble, then shatter into pieces, and finally melt down under the heat of his emotions, leaving his soul finally free and allowing him to become a true human being undergoing a deep process of transformation leading to his individuation. If you canīt see how the man at the end of this wonderful film is so different from the one he was when it started, better look at it again, this time with your eyes wide open, for everything is there to be seen.
And now, please donīt even try to patronize me on these matters: I grew up looking at Bergmanīs, and many others, films, both good and bad, and I can assure you that I have developed a keen eye to detect pretenders, and to keep them separate from true achievers, even when these last ones not always succeed in full -what is not the case with Kubrick, much less in "Barry Lyndon", which I have repeatedly said to be without peer (while you seem to think I said itīs bad...)
We both agree at considering "Barry Lyndon" a wonderful film. But for different reasons, what simply points to its greatness.
Now Iīd ask you to do me a favor: as we simply donīt agree, and it seems none of us is able to convince the other, Iīd be happy to have an impartial, sensible, intelligent judge mediating and, on that effect, would you be so kind to show this whole thread to Anya, and ask her if sheīd like to state her own opinion here? I am sure both of us would learn something...
Thanks. Regards
BF
in vogue in psychological/psychiatric treatments here.
In fact, a recent article in The New Yorker cites several studies that show it has proven very successful treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) whereas grief counseling has NOT.
I thought EWS was disappointing, but only because it was Kubrick's. Of course, the censor's digital castration didn't help the overall effect, either.
Often, critics overlook the greatness of "The Killing." It is very hard to make the perfect B "noir," just look at the hash that modern directors make when they attempt it!
Bernardo, You gave me back the shivering about curing homosexuality and with that the whole feeling on C.Orange back.
Hitchcock? Wilder? Kieslowski? Cassavettes? Altman? Bergman? Welles?Quality over quantity, I'd say. All of the above might not have quite as many great films, but their best can better Kubrick's in a good many cases, and numerically they're at least nipping at his heels.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
.
has met the criterion, i.e. giving a director's name ain't tellin' me quality and quantity.
You don't appreciate "Lolita," fine. James Mason and Peter Sellers give two of the best performances of their careers, Shelley Winters is over the top fantastic, Ms. Lyons is the hottest film nymph since Martha Vickers...Any man that has ever lusted after a much younger woman will see himself here....frighteningly so.
The list of great epics is a VERY short one because it's difficult to tell a larger than life story in an already oversized format and not have it appear pompous and grandiose.
Kirk Douglas, and who else of his generation had both the acting chops, physique, and intensity to pull that roll off, and Jean Simmons sizzle together on the screen.
A fascinating glimpse of a "sport" which consumed the attentions of Romans for over 500 years.
An epic which is also a scathing indictment of the culture and mores of Rome, as portrayed through the cynical actions of two perfectly cast actors, Peter Ustinov and Lawrence Olivier.
The gladiatorial contests, as well as the larger scale battles, are as exciting as any scenes ever filmed.
The subtext, of course, is that Kirk D showed in Paths of Glory how a courageous, independent man would fight the war machine of his day; in Spartacus, he shows what drives a man to risk all to become a rebel in opposition to an Empire.
The greatest of films, no. But each is GREAT w/in its category, i.e. satirical indictment of "modern" society; historical epic.
Let us not forget that Kubrick was not the first choice for director, and that he came aboard with a weekend's notice after two weeks of shooting* when producer Douglas fired Anthony Mann. Kubrick always maintained that this was the only film he directed where he did not have complete control. Even so, he performed a magnificent job, directing actors with much more hands on experience and celebrity than he himself had at that point.
*Kubrick was working on "One Eyed Jacks" with Brando when he got the call, which is why Brando ended up directing OEJ.
I have always felt that this is one of his best performances. With just a twitch of an eyebrow, he is able to suggest the enormous power of the patrician class.
Olivier had always somthing ambivalent in his presence. I always found this to be repulsive but fascinating.
A great actor.
Lolita are like all the others Kubrick films they have a certain " coldness ". Curiously this one has an actor that I do like, a Lolita that is really one, but the whole film never pleased me, It is too long ago now that I have seent it, and I would hard pressed to say why I did not like it then.
One of this day I will give it another try.
be sensitive to the genius of Peter Sellers...and the extraordinarily brave performance of Shelley Winters.
Seldom has an actress had the courage to make herself so despicable, and yet so vulnerable. It is this last trait that makes us hate ourselves for hating her.
With a Lolita, what man of a certain age would NOT be Humbert?
***With a Lolita, what man of a certain age would NOT be Humbert?Well, that is a rather silly statement. If you mean appreciation of female beauty, then we all should have it, but as far as losing ourselves... well, broom way too broad.
Sellers is a difficult case for me, as in his life, according too many witnesses, he was a real asshole, as for his genuis...Did I ever saw him in a role that I did like?
Not even Dr. Strangelove.
As for the " Lolita " in real live she behave like one, remembering the story of her filming with Richard Burton...
Well I had it once on LD, but I always wanted to look again but never did, I never found out why!
The principal idea in this film was quite good..But somehow torturous long in the details.
But that is all from memory....
At least his British officer was perfect!
I take it you do not enjoy his Inspector Clouseau?
He also played in some earlier British comedies, one of which I remember with Terry Thomas which was hilarious.
When he died of a heart attack, he was over-training to star in Dr. No (really).
I like quite the director of the " Pink " Black Edwards. But curiously never did ANY of this series. Victor/Victoria this I did really like, even if now I do find a little trim here and there would not do harm.
He was egomaniac, chase EVERY jupon ( skirt ) was a bad guy at other actors...Was mean to women.....
But he was NOT a brillant actor....
I saw him recently in a small episode with Shirley MacLaine it was playing the " friend of the family " at the burial of his friend, she was the widow...
even though it's hard to wish to continue this, please enumerate the films (my post was specifically about quantity AND quality, you know?) of any of your directors which you feel are great.
...by the size of his blanders.In that respect Kubrick did MAJOR damage to his standing by doing the EWS peace of incredibly poor-taste cacarella.
He exibited poor judgement before, but usually was able to recover with the next film, but the EWS defies any understanding... it was a true shocker.
Gimme a break, Vic!
Lesse. Spartacus is just a weak megalomania Hollywood spectacle. Lolita is a weak old man's fantasy - no, not Nabokov's. The Shining has some moments, but it is not a strong film. 2001 a giant white elephant... great for AuPh's "young adults" and not much more... and OK entertainment.Seriously, he made many mistakes. But you are distorting what I said - he is still a great director, just not what you presented originally.
reputation. I guess I didn't understand that was such a sly compliment, i.e. he could take a major hit and still be GREAT!
Are you sure, btw, that you dislike 2001 because of its portrayal of Russians, and nothing more?
I never said he was anything but great, it is just that I regret his mistakes. 2001? Russians? Me?
No other science fiction film approaches its reach: it touches on anthropology, i.e. the origin of homo sapiens' intellectual development and the first use of weapons in violent combat.
Metaphysics: what comes after "life?" Are we alone?
Also, individual alienation in the super-modern world of space travel.
Further, the issue of technology overcoming traditional human nature, creating a hybrid personality, i.e. the astronaut communicating distractedly with his parents on his birthday through a screen; the father talking to his far-away daughter.
Finally, the power and potential danger posed by machines which have greater powers than humans--and which necessarily have "emotions."
The film also is remarkable for its many stunning visual moments: the bone transforming into the spaceship, accompanied by a waltz; the rotation of the stewardess; the flashing screens during the landings with that damn pinging!; the eerie silence---pierced only by the very heavy breathing---during the retrieval of the body floating in space; and, of course, the light trip and subsequent aging of the astronaut----culminating in the much-satirized embryo-rebirth.
Sorry you didn't appreciate it.
The basic philosophical ideas of 2001 could be nicely compressed into a paragraph... which you did.But try to do so with something like Andrey Rublev.
...that would be considered in the same context as for instance Nights of Cabiria or Persona.All that techno stuff is something I loved like thirty years ago... I think I grew out of that.
Few films, such as Solaris, for instance, can do w/out a certain amount of the "gee-whiz!" stuff. But, these are very different movies, one purely about the impact which technology can effect upon emotions and the other, well, I listed several above.
If you prefer, one can summarize 2001 in one sentence: the history of the human race. I don't believe any other movie has attempted so large a statement, or come anywhere near its accomplishment. Kind of like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel...on film.
...if all the movie has to offer is sci-fi.Solaris has plenty to offer besides the primitive effects, so it has a strong leg to stand on, both artistically and philosophically, and the 2001 has some good stuff in the artistry area, none in philosophy (unless you indeed consider the question: "Are we alone?" a deep philosophical question...:-)), but its emphasis is on effects, so it lost me quickly. Sure, back then these were near revolutionary, but today... who cares?
we're communicating, for example!
How many of our asylum members live in different cities, away from their grown children (or children of divorces)?
Now, add space, more techo wizadry...and our tactile humanity becomes that much less "physical" and intimate.
So, in sum, the depiction of technology WAS a critical part of the movie----how it can even threaten mankind's very survival.
Is there a more originally scary (and yet, poignant) moment in film history than the "killing" of Hal by Dave? "Dave, DAVE!!---I can feel my mind...."
If 2001 is the story of the human race, I would prefer not to be a member.
Ok, the transition of the apes to another world was brillant. And some other parts too.
But it remains empty, like a Cary Grant LSD trip, it was just all ouside without very much inside.
It was just a " pseudo " film.
THAT future. Such immensity of change is terrifying. That, I believe, is the point of showing the embryo---he will only know a futuristic world; he will be at home in it (we don't miss huddling in a cave, frightened by a saber-toothed cat because we don't "remember" it).
Think of 2001 as a sci-fi cousin of "Lost in Translation."
We're well on our way!
The Lost- is coming soon to my shore.
I wonder if I will or not see it the way Victor did. her first work was a little bizarre but I had the feeling more for the sake of being.
5 never had the wish to look at it twice.
s
I was just saying there are a good number of directors with the same hit rate, and I think the artistry of some of the other directors I named is more 'special,' to be vague about it, than Kubrick's. Kubrick is still among my favorite directors.I'm at work, so all these posts hafta be hit and run. No resources or luxury to make lists, and I think my choices would be fairly predictable.
BTW, I wouldn't make the same qualifications as Victor, I like most of the films he disqualifies. But still, look at the oeuvres of the directors I mention, eliminate the probable dogs--which are collectively quite low in number--and I think you've still got a very high ratio of great works.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
Lesse... The Killing stays... being an early work. So does the Paths - that one with no reservations. Spartacus goes - a HUGE Hollywood cacarella, with very little value... the Shining goes... another kaka... FMJ has some good things, but it not really a masterpiece, but OK, keep it... Lolita - bleah! GONE! Clockwork - as I said recently, a dated EWS precursor... goes... 2001 is just OK... Dr. stays. Ah, and add Barry, of course.That editing leaves perhaps four or so truly remarkable works.
I don't know what you have been smoking, but there are dozens of directors with better scores.
Ridley Scott comes to mind:Duelists
Alien
Blade Runner
Legend
Thelma & Louise
Blackhawk Down
GladiatorThis diverse list of achievements are just his cutting edge ground breakers; this list omits films such as Black Rain, White Squal, 1492 and many more, some well received, others less so.
Other Directors with great track records: James Cameron (Aliens, Terminator's I & II, Abyss, True Lies, Titanic) & Stephen Spielberg (Jaws, Close Encounters..., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Shindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, A.I.); BTW, even though he doesn't have as long a recognized list of accomplishments, I may have to add Peter Jackson to my list just to annoy you. His beautifully envisioned and magnificently filmed LoTR trilogy achievement, the brilliantly executed and disturbing Heavenly Creatures, in addition to the tongue-in-cheek fictional documentary Forgotten Silver is deserving of recognition.
Well Victor, when you've finished writhing on the floor, frothing at the mouth and soiling your Depends over my contribution, I have but one thing left to say: Have a nice day! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
.
.
Blade runner is a film I really liked, black and poetic.
s
He's a very diverse & talented director, IMHO.Other Directors I hold in high regard to a greater or lesser degree for their auteurship (i.e., based on a variety of factors that I'm pretty sure critics, both professional and armchair, would not be in universal accord):
FW Murnau
Terry Gilliam
Erick Von Stroheim
Charles Chaplin
John Huston
Fritz Lang
Orson Welles
Paul Verhooven
Josef Von Sternberg...etc., omitting the aforementioned Peter Jackson, Stephen Spielberg, Janes Cameron, Ridley Scott and numerous deserving European and Asian directors. Obviously this is an incomplete list, but a nice cross section.
AuPh
PS: I would've posted this earlier, but the board was apparently down (?) and unavailable for posting for several hours.
x
...his limit of incompetency.
Then I saw Red Dragon.
"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them".
-P. J. O'Rourke
Oh, I forgot, you like Tarkovsky's Solaris! (grin) BTW, your stubborn opinions are still too fresh to be coprolitic. ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
.
Often your withering opinions seem to reflect the latter more than the former, but I suspect that even decaying cinematic compost has some value in nurturing the passion and growth of fresh visionary art. ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
Absolutely!
And 2001 I never did like and never will I!
I would take 10 Solaris* ( I MUST have a relook at it! ) for it.* Did I said that ?
I have seen 2001 perhaps a hundred times and have owned every video incarnation. I watched Solaris last night and literally fell asleep.
definite match of 2001. But, I was loaded, I'm sure. Now, trying to watch anything by Tarkovsky has me looking around for my long lost bong...
The same with me...With 2001....It is just a psychelic trip to nowhere...
It brings nothing, but it just looks the way it would, empty as a nut shell.
and Tarkovsky.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
Is the Solaris criterion worth?
And what other titles ?
Well, Patrick, Tarkovsky's filmography is short enough to be covered completely. Start with The Steamroller and the Violin, and just keep going... avoiding the Stalker.But be careful - for all his talent, he is a strongly dehumanizing director.
.
Mirror is on his way.
Thanks Victor.
Mirror is also quite special to us because it has tree actors we simply love, and all doing very good job.I'd say, once you have the chance to see the Mirror (a light movie, if any of Tarkovsky's work could be considered light), I think you need to move onto Andrey Rublev - that one is probably his most substantial and profound work, it is large, deep and gruesome, and full of philosophy... I am sure you will dive in and swimm in it for many hours, as it is if not quite War and Peace, then at least a cinema equivalent of it.
I think it is the kind of movie you will just love!
You know W & P* is the movie I loved the most last year! The actors were so fine..It was a long and dear delight, if some day a better copy should happen I would not hesitate for one moment to buy it.
All in all if you search you may really find films worth your time and idea of what it should look like.* Tolstoi shine through.
PS: Still not looked at " Dinner Rush "....The dog......
I am getting growing feeling that you will love Rublev - so go ahead, get it NOW!Dinner Rush is a rather elegant rendition of a New York movie, I think you WILL find it entertaining. Nothing of a particularly great depth, but well worth a few bucks.
Done! I order the Criterion.
Thank you.
Mirror is on his way.
Thanks Victor.
Be sure to drink lots of it if you're trying to watch this film; at least it will help you sleep through that interminable tunnel scene and folks sitting around staring at each other.AuPh ;^)
Donīt worry I was at the cannes festival when Tarkoswky gave his press conference, back then and fell already in a deep winter sleep..Maybe I am now wake up enough...
A beautiful film, like no other...except, that is, for the other beautiful films which are like no other.Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, 8 1/2, The Sacrifice, Double Life of Veronique, 2 or 3 things I know about her (or Pierrot le Fou, or Weekend...)...in my opinion, the very best films all hit the same high note, which is not so much 'dreamlike' in some generic filmspeak way, but the literal stuff of dreams, the very feeling of inner life, with all its vagaries. That's mastery. The Sacrifice occupies this same high ground.
Fellini, Godard, Tarkovsky and Bunuel are perhaps unique among the great directors in how consistently and effortlessly they achieve that sense of dislocation, which is still so familiar. They're like the best novelists in that regard. All truly great art, at the apex, achieves the exact same end. What that end is, exactly, I can't quite pin down. But I know it when I see it.
Sorry for the tangent.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
Well..Thank you for this answer, no problem with the disgression, speaking of films is never a pain for me!PS : Did you really like " Week End? "
Sacrifice is perhaps the least Tarkovsky of Tarkovsky films - it is pure Bergman, albeit done on a lower scale.
it's also very much influenced by Kurasawa's I Live in Fear . An ambiguous and mystical refashioning.
but I do think you're right. I would also count Bergman among the group I mentioned, although I'd like to say something like The Sacrifice is the Bergman film I care about the most. Always something a bit academic about Bergman to me, I think that's a common criticism. The Sacrifice, then, is Bergman with a richer humanity, or something along those lines...
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
I don't think Bergman is academic... his "problem" is that he studies and he talks about the subject that is foreign to many viewers who were brought up watching lesser works - he is absorbed in the human soul. But once you break that initial barrier you discover that he is talking about YOU, and you find more and more of yoruself in his works, and they become unpretentious and comfortable, although still challenging your emotions and self-analysis.And it is so comfortable to know that that tradition is being continued by his student Liv Ullmann, whose Faithless is the masterpiece in its own right, but with extremely strong homage to the great Master.
Barry Lyndon is for me one of his better film and Clock work one of this lesser.
And now ask me why....
IMO, Barry Lyndon and 2001 are Kubrick's best. I've grown weary of Clockwork; I think The Shining works better as comedy.
But what about Paths of Glory, The Killing, and Full Metal Jacket? I also think Eyes Wide Shut is much better than it is given credit for, its digital censorship and incorrect video aspect ratio notwithstanding.
I like Paths of Glory, though I haven't seen it in a while. I remember not being particularly impressed by The Killing. I remain ambivalent about the Full Metal Jacket diptych. And, despite repeated viewings and the increasingly high praise of friends whose judgements I've come to trust and value, I can't see Eyes Wide Shut as a great film.
I never liked 2001, not even the day it came out, I was among my friends the only one not to.
Now that tells us something!
Well, if you reads the other posts of mine, on this film, that should be enough on it.
I only noticed that you were in the anti-2001 camp after I made that post.You should reconsider. I think it has its weaknesses, particularly in the dated, fx-dependent, second sequence. But the rest, I think, is superb, successful for its minimalism, for the unsettling effects of bleakness and solitude (both clausterphobic and agoraphobic) it achieves, as well as for the absence of philosophizing, which, rather than leaving the film "empty" makes it potently suggestive (over-explanation being one of the fundamental faults of sci-fi, which genre 2001 transcends, and, more generally, "ideas" are too often overplayed by artists and praised by critics at the expense of art). Indeed, I think the whole film, from beginning to end, is suffused with a sense of unnerving, of a fear of the unknown akin to that sense one gets when, swimming to the deeper waters of a lake or ocean, one's feet suddenly kick at the colder strata of water beneath the sun-fed warm, telling of potentially limitless depths beneath. Holding up Harold Bloom's criterion of strangeness to film, I think 2001 is among the giants.
Well you will have, I am afraid to explain that!
I reconsider it since 1968! The last time I saw it two years ago, or better said a part of it, as I did found it too boring and stop at looking at it, I want to try to discover why I did not like it and came quickly to the conclusion that it what empty and has only the " flavor " of the day. Certainly it had his good moment, but not enough to make it a real film asking for the old questions, from where do we come..where do we go.., it was more a " trip " of a film..and lack the real introspective you would easily find in a Bergman film.
This is just a " voyage " to no where.
And yes his " minimalisme is superb and reminds me of " Art deco " and your way to describing it his not without charm and more than respectable! And you may see it that way, I just canīt. Your admiration are just the reason I donīt like it.
Cold an empty.
Well you will have, I am afraid to explain that!
I reconsider it since 1968! The last time I saw it two years ago, or better said a part of it, as I did found it too boring and stop at looking at it, I want to try to discover why I did not like it and came quickly to the conclusion that it what empty and has only the " flavor " of the day. Certainly it had his good moment, but not enough to make it a real film asking for the old questions, from where do we come..where do we go.., it was more a " trip " of a film..and lack the real introspective you would easily find in a Bergman film.
This is just a " voyage " to no where.
And yes his " minimalisme is superb and reminds me of " Art deco " and your way to describing it his not without charm and more than respectable! And you may see it that way, I just canīt. Your admiration are just the reason I donīt like it.
Cold an empty.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
