Sight and Sound 2022 Round 8: 181-200

personally i don't get alienated by art from an era that doesn't reference the language of the last 10 minutes but hey

What I love about the Wenders films up to Im Lauf der Zeit is their "just-there"ness. The characters do this and that, and go here and there without extra significance or melodrama being added on the plot level.

― Halfway there but for you, Thursday, June 15, 2023

Of the 5 feature films he made prior to Im Lauf der Zeit I've only seen The Scarlet Letter, which was interesting as a period piece translating an American story into German, but it was not very good

His new film your textPerfect Days, which won Koji Yakusho the best actor prize at Cannes this year, sounds very "just there", and I'm looking forward to watching it!

Ha, NV otm.

the language of the last 10 minutes

It's not the language, it's the attitude and perspective. The stultifying conventions of the society.

Um…

Let me clear my throat!

I didn't vote for Out: One because it's "in" in 2023!

With all due respect, I think you may be missing something.

Yes, but it’s French and groovy and cryptic and moody and hip and overlong!

As opposed to British Cinema. Is there such a thing?

Next thing you’ll be complaining about the mugging and overemoting in silent films. How fake!

The British cinema is boring, and reflects a submissive way of life, where enthusiasm, zeal and impetus are quickly rooted out. The film is a born loser just for being English.

The English countryside, the subdued way of life, the stolid routine-are anti-dramatic. . . the weather itself is anti-cinematic.

To put it quite bluntly, isn’t there a certain incompatibility between the terms “cinema” and “Britain.”

What I’m trying to get at—and I’m not sure I’m right about this and it’s hard to define just what it is—is that there’s something about England that’s anticinematic.

Sight & Sound had been trying to figure this out for decades now

Lol!

The British cinema is as dead as before. Perhaps it was never alive.

And, before I sign off:
English films have always been a sad joke.

Truffaut's "a certain incompatibility between the terms 'cinema' and 'Britain'" is abt on a par with him walking out on World of Apu because “I don't want to see a movie of peasants eating with their hands" - ie ignorant toss.

Admittedly, it was only after reading Raymond Durgnat's Mirror for England that I seriously because interested in British cinema. And yes,, interest in one's home national cinema is always partly parochial, or quaint if you like. It's fascinating to see representations of vanished social and family life, to see landscapes and high streets and shops and holiday camps and old cars and clothes. And British popular cinema, especially the horror film, can be as good as it gets.

I really like to read that Durgnat.

---

it's the attitude and perspective. The stultifying conventions of the society.

― Halfway there but for you, Thursday, 15 June 2023 bookmarkflaglink

If I'm not learning about a country through its cinema after a while -- just things that might be particular to a time and environment, some of which end up as 'conventions' -- that would be strange. No one complains about how Ozu portrays a woman's path through Japanese society in the 40s and 50s.

See pyaasa you guys!

Pyaasa is great.

I thought it was Pather Panchali Truffaut walked out on, and maybe by the time Apu had made it to big city he was more interested, or at least kept his own counsel.

As far as I know he never saw or commented on Pyaasa, although another Frenchman was responsible for a renewed interest in Guru Dutt.

I suspect I have less patience than many for the "tally-ho, pip-pip, stiff upper lip" Britishisms.

what

Reminding me of a certain notorious Whitney post.

I seem to be the only viewer on ILX who goes to movies to stop crying.

with laughter?

Was this the thread where we mentioned Donald Fagen and Lou Reed or was it a previous one?

Next thing you’ll be complaining about the mugging and overemoting in silent films. How fake!

No one complains about how Ozu portrays a woman's path through Japanese society in the 40s and 50s.

I don't share them, but both of these seem valid reasons for someone to dislike these films.

Well, in the sense that every reason to dislike a film is valid because it's your taste, sure. But if you're making a critical argument, I think at least a modicum of trying to meet a film where it's at is called for.

I'm not an expert on this line of thinking but aren't P&P in great part subverters of the quaint englishness described itt, constantly pointing to the deeper, darker passions below in stuff like The Small Back Room, Black Narcissus, etc? Even Blimp I remember as being ambiguous at best about its protagonist's ideology. Pressburger somewhat of an outsider to British society of course.

P&P in great part subverters of the quaint englishness described itt

I wouldn't say they're *always* subverting it, but it's quite often the direct subject matter of the films, approached and dramatized in a plurality of ways and often contrasted with other supposedly less repressed cultures (India, America, France, Scotland). That's definitely true for the two films in this poll, one of which is, pretty importantly, not set in Britain! And yes, Pressburger's immigrant status is significant.

I've said it before but there is some strange stuff going on in A Canterbury Tale that plays on blood and soil and is unexpected in a nominal "propaganda" movie

absolutely. Thomas Colpeper is one of their most quaint english characters and he's so repressed he attacks women by very unsubtly throwing sticky glue on them

repent, Halfway!

lol

and tbf I would never expect P&P to be universally appealing

Even Blimp I remember as being ambiguous at best about its protagonist's ideology. Pressburger somewhat of an outsider to British society of course.

― Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 17 June 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Blimp could've been straight up propaganda. Incredible what they chose to give us instead.

The story goes that Churchill hated them which is obviously proof of greatness

Seems to me that it's doing at least three things at the same time: interrogating British narratives of national honour, while also positioning Nazism as a force that absolutely has to be defeated, while also placing hope ultimately in the friendship and love between Clive and Theo.

Figures that P&P are one (two) of the only British filmmakers I unreservedly revere

I give these too long of leads

The idea of AL PACINO and ROBERT DE NIRO in the SAME SCENE just made me pissy.

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, June 13, 2023

The restaurant meeting in Heat between Pacino and De Niro was the pivotal moment in that film

The most amazing scene in The Birds was the gas station fire / phone booth scene, filmed from many different points of view, including that of the viewer as predator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjX3HRd9uc

Very recently watched Hitchcock/Truffaut and Hitch gave a very good explanation of why he chose to shoot it that way. He said something to the effect that if he had shot it at ground level he would have had to get into too much boring detail and eat up screen time.

F.T.  The scene of the fire in the gasoline station is really thrilling. That unexpected high shot gives the impression the whole thing’s being shown from the viewpoint of the gulls.

A.H.  I did that high shot for three reasons. The first was intended to show the beginning of the gulls’ descent on the town. The second was to show the exact topography of Bodega Bay, with the town, the sea, the coast, and the gas station on fire, in one single image. The third reason is that I didn’t want to waste a lot of footage on showing the elaborate operation of the firemen extinguishing the fire. You can do a lot of things very quickly by getting away from something.

I'm not an expert on this line of thinking but aren't P&P in great part subverters of the quaint englishness described itt, constantly pointing to the deeper, darker passions below in stuff like The Small Back Room, Black Narcissus, etc?

I haven't seen the former, and the latter is my favourite of their films for exactly this reason.

See pyaasa you guys!

I got the DVD out of the library, but the distributor has burned their colour logo into the upper left hand side of every shot. Instant reject.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

I just want to say, these polls have motivated me to watch 27 of these films for the first time!

I got the DVD out of the library, but the distributor has burned their colour logo into the upper left hand side of every shot. Instant reject.

Would you do the same if you knew you'd never see it otherwise? I'm just curious.

GREED (Erich von Stroheim; 1924)

As silly as "lottery winners go mad and insane" its pretty touching how the relationship falls to pieces, in the way its played.

Amazing to think there were hours more of this. Two hours of 'money corrodes the soul' is enough.

Was thinking about climate change when watching those final scenes in Death Valley

L’ARGENT (Robert Bresson; 1983)

Bresson! In colour!!

Lot of RED in Lancelot Du Lac, check it out.

L'argent at first baffled my students three weeks ago, then they were perplexed in the best way.

Lot of RED in Lancelot Du Lac, check it out.

― Ward Fowler, Saturday, 13 July 2024 bookmarkflaglink

Will do

THE RIVER (Jean Renoir; 1951)

Follow it up with my first time watching a Renoir film in color. This was great though its very much of its time (and there are wins and losses to that)

The snake sequence!