Grandest 'Film Folly' Of All

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?

yeah it was probably the biggest film made in europe at that time

there was one really huge pre-war one but i've forgotten about it

i thought metropolis was the most expensive movie ever when it was made?

xpost Yeah, I haven't boned up on my Brownlow in awhile.

Wow @ "The Conqueror"...I never heard that story. Crazy...

Yeah, one of the Medved books has a pic of JWayne and various crew standing around a geiger counter on-site and lolling.

And this is what it was all for:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8U1LVNjJx0

Not to mention this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciHbJkb9OKI

And then did I note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsnWOyfMq4I

But I suppose there was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYHU19ntDBQ

Meanwhile going back to Pash's c/p above -- "Operation Upshot-Knothole," okay SOMEBODY was fucking around there.

"Operation Upshot-Knothole" I mean can I just . . .

xp lol

Overseen by General Bick Dutt Wass-Sipe

Holy shit @ these Conqueror clips

The whole thing is just insane. I taped it off TV back in the early nineties and good god almighty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXXZ6URb4VU

Meantime, if you want a full ten minutes of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gey8eAFe5uw

Stop it!

Hahah. (There's not that much more on YouTube, for which we should all be grateful.)

clem, did you ever read Klawans?

Helluva book!

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 :)