Grandest 'Film Folly' Of All

Or at least not until you have read the book.

Homework thus assigned, I bid you good night.

Happy reading.

Based on the criteria outlined above, shouldn't Waterworld be on the list? (High-on-his-own-ego actor/producer/director with a megalomaniac vision, went way over its budget, etc.)

Do not--I repeat, do not--question the list. The list is good. The list abides.

I'd have thought a "magnif off-the-rails" movie would be the original "Casino Royale"

A James Bond film, rights to which were up for grabs, obtained and actioned. Should have been an easy. but: Hey, let's get Orson Welles and Peter Sellers. That'll make it easy to make! And so on, etc...

xpost not questioning the list, just adding another.

Good luck to the both of you; may peace be with you as you embark on this difficult journey.

Kolberg, easily. They pulled a bunch, i think several thousand soldiers off the eastern front - in 1945! - to star as extras in it. No folly on the list can come close to that. I don't think Goebbels actually directed it though?

That said, maybe it made the 39-45 war shorter by a few days, who knows?

Les Amants du Pont-Neuf - Classic or Dud?

Thanks for the list btw - I have a feeling some of these are available on Mubi!

Apparently reading this book makes you act like a real dickweed

Unless I missed that Eric H is the kind of guy who trumpets a 'strict taxonomy' for 'movies that are drunk on themselves' before this

apparently not reading this book and finding the idea of reading a book ludicrous makes you awesome and insightful. very 2010.

oh wtf, dude

I'm talking about eric h giving another ilxor shit for not understanding his criteria for a pretty nebulous concept, not for being literate

For what it's worth; last night, I suggested a couple of films that I thought could go on this list. I'm not at all opposed to the idea of reading the book. Reading is good--I do it all the time. But I didn't think that reading the book would be a precondition of suggesting ammendments to the list; the concept for the list seemed fairly clear to me, although apparently I did slightly misunderstand.

does Gregory Pecks sport a 'stache in Duel in the Sun? Man, I've wanted to rent for years but I've burned so many times by Peck and his facial hair.

I always expect the movie will be terrific camp and it's usually, er, not.

*Peck

no need to understand or familiarize yrself w/ an idea to have as valid a take on it as anyone else right?

no need to explain your criteria coherently before starting an ilx thread on the subject and bitching out those who dare to contribute, right?

defending ignorance as more valid than expertise is one daring contribution

defending ignorance as more valid than expertise

are you for real?

no need to understand or familiarize yrself w/ an idea to have as valid a take on it as anyone else right?

Well...(sighs)...I thought I did understand the idea; that's why I commented in the first place.

there is almost no such thing as terrific camp.

(victimized by too many smug NYC theater chortlers)

Greatest "ILE Thread Folly" of All.

balls you are awful at this

Luckily I don't live in NYC and believe in "almost."

The weird thing is, I'm arguing with Eric H and balls, and I generally find both of you to be very reasonable on here.

its been a while since i read the book, but i *think this is a poll of the movies the book investigates, so i don't really see the problem with eric h saying "i didn't include other movies cos they aren't in the book, so read the book", because that would be another poll.

didnt realize lust in the dust was such an extravagant production, need to see that i guess - voted for fitzcarraldo since the documentary's so memorable

feel like one of demille's silent epics should be on here but maybe i don't understand the criteria too

its been a while since i read the book, but i *think this is a poll of the movies the book investigates, so i don't really see the problem with eric h saying "i didn't include other movies cos they aren't in the book, so read the book", because that would be another poll.

If he'd said that way--and said it politely--I would have understood.

IIRC DeMille's silent epics were pretty str8forward & lacking in any kind of folly as far as shooting them went, the only exception being putting Gloria Swanson in a cage with a live lion for one of them, "Male and Female" I think. Michael Curtiz' "Noah's Ark" might be a silent-era pick, if non-book picks are allowable - the biblical scenes are ridiculously OTT and they killed several extras making the flood scenes.

One possible inclusion I thought of that I think fits the criteria as I now understand it is Hopper's Last Movie. I haven't seen it, though, so I don't really have anything to say about it.

didnt the silent ten commandments have ungodly massive sets with extras falling off them and dying?

method actors!

Sorry, but I have to break in with my impression of Billy Crystal's impression of Edward G. Robinson: "Ah, so where's your Messiah now?"

I don't recall that, I have it on DVD, but TBH I couldn't stand sitting thru it again, it's a drag. "Ungodly massive sets withextras falling off" sounds more like DW Griffith's "Intolerance".

yeah, i'm probably getting my silent epics mixed up

Honestly didn't think I was being a dickwad about it, but yeah, I'm guilty of not doing a good enough job setting the terms.

The word "folly" in this context is something drawn from out of the realm of architecture, so that's why I was being stricter about the terminology.

The best way I can think of to explain what a movie that qualifies here is: Imagine Russian Ark. Now imagine they constructed the set (i.e. the Hermitage) specifically and only for that film.

(And, yeah, there's also the fact that this is a poll of the movies in the book.)

the biblical scenes are ridiculously OTT and they killed several extras making the flood scenes

I sometimes wonder which movie has the highest death toll.

"The Conqueror" is the obvious answer to that one

quick c/p from shitipedia:

The exterior scenes were shot on location near St. George, Utah, 137 miles (220 km) downwind of the United States government's Nevada Test Site. In 1953, extensive above-ground nuclear weapons testing occurred at the test site, as part of Operation Upshot-Knothole. The cast and crew spent many difficult weeks on location, and in addition Hughes later shipped 60 tons of dirt back to Hollywood in order to lend verisimilitude to studio re-shoots.[1] The film-makers knew about the nuclear tests[1] but the federal government reassured residents that the tests caused no hazard to public health.[2]

Dick Powell died of cancer in January 1963, only a few years after the picture's completion. Pedro Armendáriz was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 1960 and committed suicide in 1963 after he learned it was terminal. Hayward, Wayne, and Moorehead all died of cancer in the mid to late 1970s. Cast member actor John Hoyt died of lung cancer in 1991. Skeptics point to other factors such as the wide use of tobacco - Wayne and Moorehead in particular were heavy smokers - and the notion that cancer resulting from radiation exposure does not have such a long incubation period. The cast and crew totaled 220 people. By 1981, 91 of them had developed some form of cancer and 46 had died of the disease.[2] Dr. Robert Pendleton, professor of biology at the University of Utah, stated, "With these numbers, this case could qualify as an epidemic. The connection between fallout radiation and cancer in individual cases has been practically impossible to prove conclusively. But in a group this size you'd expect only 30 some cancers to develop...I think the tie-in to their exposure on the set of The Conqueror would hold up in a court of law."

Eric H: Does Klawans mention Hopper's Last Movie?

I don't think so. I don't have the book on me, but I can look at the index later.

You're definitely right, Pash.

saw 'l'inhumaine ' this year

not impressed

surprised not to see 'napoleon'

not really sure 'metropolis' goes off the rails

That's one movie that I'm thinking was included to support Klawans' architectural thesis more so than directorial hubris, though it was a pretty massive and expensive undertaking, no?

Don't know what the total death toll was for those who worked on Stalker compared to The Conqueror, mentioned above, but it's likely that the industrial location shooting near poisoned waterways was when Tarkovsky contracted cancer.

The only copy of this book is in a non-circulating reference library downtown, otherwise I'd like to read it.

One possible inclusion I thought of that I think fits the criteria as I now understand it is Hopper's Last Movie.

I actually like it a lot, but unlike all the other choices on the list, The Last Movie is barely coherent as a movie, thus losing a lot of potential grandeur in the eyes of most viewers.

This thread is the classic example of the insular, cock-tugging male critics worldview ILX is sometimes so terrible for.

Eric: I remember this thread. Of the many arguments I've had on here, this'd be one where I think back and--without even scrolling back--regret being needlessly difficult. Sorry.

I certainly didn’t do myself any favors either, obviously, and am fine (retroactively) haveing gotten called out on it

This thread is the classic example of the insular, cock-tugging male critics worldview ILX is sometimes so terrible for.

Hey, I was trying to be charitable :)

I haven't seen Queen Kelly, but all accounts suggest it's in the same vein.

And now I have seen Queen Kelly in the new Milestone edition. It definitely aspired to von Stroheim's previous achievements in excess, only stopped by Swanson and Kennedy shutting off the funding. And did von Sternberg consciously or unconsciously rip it off in The Scarlet Empress?

^Just saw this evening.

Erich von Stroheim’s Spectacular Art Is Back https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/erich-von-stroheims-spectacular-art-is-back

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/aug/11/director-madman-gloria-swansons-film-queen-kelly-von-stroheim-venice

What did you think of Queen Kelly?

It just seems to me this was going to be a trainwreck no matter what, once von Stroheim was fired. Some wonderful stuff in it, but I feel as if these glowing reviews have oversold it a bit.

I was pretty happy with it, thought the direction and central performance were both aces. Maybe I managed my expectations properly I dunno. The introduction was good too. I ended up buying the guys book and getting it signed.

The only Stroheim I've watched is a restored Greed on TCM years ago.

I've seen that too but can't remember much of it. Now I want to watch some of the others

I saw The Cranes Are Flying recently and it was a stunning achievement (if you discount the propaganda bits), now I want to see I Am Cuba to find out if the earlier film was a one-off.

The Wedding March and Blind Husbands are on ... tubı

(xp)
It's not. I Am Cuba is good.

on YouTube too. TWM looks great.

Looks great is in it is a nice transfer or it seems like it might be good.

Going to see another silent that was chopped up and restored more than once tonight at MoMA, although don't know if it was every considered a folly.

I haven't gotten around to I Am Cuba yet, but Letter Never Sent is incredible imo. if what you liked about Cranes were the insane action-movie-like set pieces, you'll love it

"Restored," this is the word I have a problem with. Restored to what? Not to anything that anyone wanted originally, in the case of Queen Kelly. I'll stop carping now. Yes, it's still something worth seeing.

No worries, it's all good. We've established some points of view at different spots on the spectrum, hopefully others will go and see and come here to weigh in as well.

Supposedly Criterion signaled their interest--more than a decade ago--in releasing The Wedding March. I do wish they, or another boutique label, would act. Flicker Alley recently put out Merry-Go-Round (1923), but they move so slowly they make Criterion look fast and reckless.

"Restored," this is the word I have a problem with.

"Restored," in film preservation, means whatever the person using the word wants it to mean.

There was no spoken introduction at the QK screening I attended, but the film opens with text outlining the production history. Then it described how Milestone took von Stroheim's script and other materials, dug into the world's film archives, assembled the material to match the director's original screenplay, and filled in missing passages with stills and plot summaries.

I hope Milestone's new management lives up to Dennis and Amy's standards for film restoration and curation.

Amen to that.

This restoration was pretty clear about what it was and what it wasn't, how the originally released Swanson version left out all the Africa stuff, ending with a double suicide! - and how they were filling in whatever they had to fill out the second part. I never felt like they were overselling or overreaching.