Favorite Movies

It's truly transcendent, I would love to see your reaction to it. It's suis generis, the closest thing to it is probably Marker's own La Jetee, but even that doesn't touch its brilliance. Intellectual and dense, every viewing seems to offer up something new. It's an explicitly fictionalized documentary (which I prefer, the compulsion to document is a scientific, not artistic one) that presents Marker's thoughts on culture, memory, transience, history, reality, illusion and filmmaking, amongst others. I can think of very few films that are pulled off as skillfully as Sans Soleil, it's breathtaking... some of those images haunt me to this day.

I'm rambling, if/when you get around to it please share your thoughts.

b), to be precise. I adore it, it's probably his most beautiful work (maybe The Magnificent Ambersons could give it a run for its money). It's a different kind of Welles film, his compositions remain as perfect as ever, yet it's him at his most technically restrained. There's a meditative feel to it that shows a deep humane side to Welles that we caught only glimmers of in his other films. There's a battle scene in it that's truly remarkable, constructed perhaps even more finely than Kurosawa's in Seven Samurai. Although I love Citizen Kane a lot (it's worth noting that c-f is basically arbitrary) I'd definitely say that Chimes is the richer piece of the two, if only by a little. The way it mixes pathos and slapstick as well as playfulness and tragedy is just about unparalleled.

It probably does deserve to move up a tier, after seeing Citizen Kane a couple weeks I've been puzzling over Welles films and how they belong on the list. It's always tempting to get blown away by a movie (even if it's the nth time seeing it) and immediately placing it somewhere. I haven't quite figured it out yet so the list doesn't really reflect my thoughts as far as that goes.

I quite liked it, cerebral stuff. I wouldn't say it's a favorite, but it's a great film nonetheless. I love the concept of it all, and was really impressed with how fine its execution was. It does amaze me, though, to think how how Nolan can make perfectly good films like Memento and The Prestige... as well as something like the Batman franchise.

Your thoughts?

Mirror was always incontestably the greatest movie of all time, in my mind, but Nostalghia hit me so hard personally that it temporarily eclipsed my feelings regarding Mirror. The real thing that separates them is the artistry, Mirror represents the peak of not just Tarkovsky's career, but cinema as well. It's the most affecting work ever conceived within the medium, as well as being the most skillful one. It probably has more unforgettable moments than Nostalghia, even something "slight" like the opening scene where you can see the boom mic's shadow is forever imprinted in my mind. It's the most intelligent, emotional film ever made. Unbeatable. Although I still think Nostalghia is a towering work, after I recently rewatched Mirror it seems odd that I ever let it slip down a slot.

I recall you saying that Fassbinder tilts heavily to the left, and you're right, he does so unabashedly; but I think he manages to so thoroughly ground his film in history that it somehow negates this as being a disservice to his film. The premise in itself is somewhat contrived, but the way it's fleshed out is not. Fassbinder's misanthropy flows through every scene, he doesn't idealize any character. He instead thrives on the bitter hypocrisy of human nature, and manages to make it all unfold so naturally. There's no joy to be found, and at the same time you get a sense of an unmistakable love that Fassbinder has for his characters. Visually it's great, Fassbinder frames are prison-like constructs, completely inescapable, representative of the film's social context.

Of course after all this I have to tell you that putting down Fear Eats the Soul was an accident. I had written down "Fassbinder" as a reminder to myself and instinctively put in Ali, instead of Effi Briest, which is the superior of the two. I still think Ali is a very good film, but it's no Effi, which gives mise-en-scene a whole new meaning.

It's hard to say. Mothlight? The Dante Quartet? Arabic Series? The Text of Light?

I really struggle with avant-garde cinema. I like it, it's a offers a completely new way of looking at the world; but I can't think of a single cogent thing to say about it. It's all about form, one that's wholly different from typical cinema, and I'm not nearly educated enough to comment on Brakhage's use of it.

Also worth mentioning: The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes. EFFED UP.

Is it safe to assume that a lot of your problems in life stem from women? I've honestly never looked at the film with his mother in mind. For once your ideas don't seem too far fetched, I'll keep them in mind whenever I see it next. And you got it half right, it's like Bresson or Ozu made a crime flick, not Tati.

Watch Army of Shadows. All filmmakers should study Melville, a high level of craftsmanship and passion that more than compensates for his consistently low budgets.

Two issues, and one is a fault of my own completely. The minor complaint is that the dialog is almost as loaded as the rich images are, it's too overwhelming to both read and watch at the same time. My inability to speak German is undoubtedly a handicap. Secondly, I think it unravels with the trapeze artist storyline, that section never really sat well with me. I understand what he was driving at, but he stretched far beyond his ability.

I still think it's a great achievement, just a flawed one. It's certainly earned its acclaim. I still need to see the sequel, have you? If so, is it worthwhile? I've heard mixed things.

I think Welles simply got better. He established himself as an incredible director with Citizen Kane, but then he just kept improving as an artist. Formally he kept getting stronger, I find films like Falstaff and Touch of Evil to be superior not just visually but rhythmically as well to Citizen Kane. I find the narratives of both Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil to be just fine (I don't think either drag, but I can see where you're coming from), but Welles execution in the latter is far more matured. That opening tracking shot alone beats out Citizen Kane, I'd say. It's so rich and profound, he simply didn't have that sort of grip over cinema when he was starting out. Citizen Kane is a very good film, and I don't take umbrage with those who deem in the greatest ever, I do think he went on to make better work though.

As far as an explanation of America, I tend to roll with The New World.

Interesting, link? Because if so I'll have to swiftly remove it.

FYI: I still resent you for watching it without me.

Yes, I think he might as well. That guy is one of the most pretentious, shallow & foolish people on RYM. He used to be my friend but I deleted him out of disgust.

Mannn that guy has stuff I never even heard of, and good taste as far as I can tell. Thanks, will give it a good look.

Let's stay within the realm of film, or at least art, particularly when I side with Isabel Archer when it comes to clothes. I'm skeptical about getting into another form/content discussion with you, because that's what your remark is rooted in. For me the truth is the style/form/language/expression/etc, whatever you want to call it. So basically I'm saying the truth is in the art, because as I've previously stated form is all there is. Unlike the function of clothes, style isn't there to merely wrap something else up. Hitchcock rarely made adequate engagements with reality. Instead he preferred to skirt around its edges, content with cultivating technical mastery. This "pitfall" can be chalked up not only to his actor and script choices, but also to his technical perfection which seems to life one out of the real world into a realm where Hitchcock masterfully dictates all emotional responses.

I wasn't making a sweeping remark that I prefer his theatrical work over his cinematic films. In fact, now that I think about it, the color palate and intense close-ups firmly moor the film in cinematic territory. The relevance of the rest of your paragraph to what I said is beyond me.

On a side note, why do you seek out my opinion when you've so often deemed it to be shallow and unoriginal?