|   What "classic" film just does not do it for you?? | audiobill
Aug 27, 2003 4:43 PM | | Every once in a while I try to rent a dvd of a classic film that most everyont rant and raves about.
Most of the times, I couldn't be more in agreement. So, I've started a "must see" list. However, every so often I bring home a "classic" that I just don't "get".
My all-time classic that I don't get is "Fanny & Alexander", by Bergman.
What's yours??
audiobill |
| Citizen Kane-----Worst movie ever? | GrendelZ
Sep 15, 2003 6:01 PM | | I recently rented this as I am trying to see all of the classics.I cannot understand for the life of me what the appeal of this movie is.How can anyone rationally say this is the greatest movie ever?It was the most boring thing i'd ever seen.Im sure lots of people will flame me for this but hey if you can defend it feel free. |
| 2 here... | jack70
Sep 17, 2003 10:37 AM | | That's a good subject for discussion. I've seen a couple of Bergman's, but I can't help you with that film though. I think that one was cut from a longer edit. Many foreign films work more on an emotional level than many American films... part of it's the cultural differences within the story. It's harder for us to get past/into them most of the time. And even many <i>Americans</i> don't appreciate many great American classics from the 30's & 40's because they don't "look" like modern films, or are missing historical or cultural cues (see next paragraph).
As for GrendelZ's <i>Citizen Kane</i> confusion... I think it's considered a "great" film because of what came before it. You're judging it with the benefit of 60 years of films that came after it. In it's time, it invented many new elements and new approaches to film. In the same way many of today's academics judge historical figures with today's enlightned (read: politically correct) view; one needs to see beneath that modern (simplistic) view to appreciate just how revolutionary (special, great) certain historical figures (founding fathers for example) were... <b>in their time</b>.
It does take more background knowledge to get a proper & deeper understanding of most things that are over a generation old. BTW, Orson Welles didn't ascribe to the praise C Kane got either... he talked of how "The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1919) was condidered the "greatest" influential film when he was young, yet it had faded in the next decades because of what had come after it (all those great classic 30's films). In the same way Shakepeare needs to be elucidated (annotated texts that explain "inside" jokes etc) to fully "get it", I think many (older) films would come off better the same way. There was a Boston station that showed old films with a host that made insightful background & comments at every break, giving the film greater depth.
There aren't many films that are called "classics" that I don't get... but there ARE 2 I'd put in there.
One is <i>Thelma & Louise</i> (on the AFI 400). It starts off great with good acting & a plot that, like life, is full of unexpected twists.... then it bogs down into a "Smokey & the Bandit" rubbish moosh, going no-a-where. What the h_ll is the ending supposed to mean? What crap! I just don't get it. Awful.
The other is a more respected film, often on many "fave" lists -- Close Encounters of the 3'rd Kind. Sorry, but I just didn't get anything out of this. Pretty well made, but there was no payoff that I could get any satisfaction from. It tried to be like 2001, but raised NONE of the dozens of great philosophical questions that 2001 did [IMO]. |
| A little more | GrendelZ
Sep 18, 2003 7:41 PM | | My point is this,Citizen Kane may have been a great movie in its day,or for decades past for that matter.Todays standards aside there are just much better films out there.I would say that the Godfather is 10 times the movie that most of the AFI's list are,or gasp! Star Wars for there matter.Why do they hold on to these films as though its blasphemey to say theres something better.The chevy BelAir was a fabulous car but its no Ferrari.I appreciate history and am a student of it for that matter,but most of those old films have just been outdone,give them their due for what they accomplished,but dont p[ut them ahead of MUCH greater works. |
| A little more | Kam
Sep 18, 2003 10:15 PM | | I understand your pov, but what about the fact that a great many, if not all, of those 'greater works' are based off of the exact stories of the earlier films or used the techniques pioneered by those films, and in many cases, have not "topped" them.
Star Wars is very nearly a carbon copy of The Hidden Fortress, down to the clock wipe transitions. If you haven't seen it, check it out. You will see every major character of Star Wars in The Hidden Fortress (by akira kurasawa). IMO, i think The Hidden Fortress is an overall better movie. I love star wars, it was part of my youth growing up and created an image of films that is still with me today. Star Wars has not "diminished" in my eyes now knowing that it is basically a remake in space, I still love it. However i've seen the original and personally i like that one better. I don't take too much stock in the AFI lists. They're kinda fun to read and look at it, but everyone has their own lists that matter to them. The Godfather is an amazing movie, but i still place it behind Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. (which i put kane behind as well imo).
Personally i enjoyed and appreciated citizen kane. Not just for the fact that it changed the narrative style that we are so used to seeing nowadays, but i think that narrative style still holds up when it's watched now.
And i'm not sure i understand your line "Todays standards aside there are just much better films out there." If we are taking todays standards out of the equation, then no current film compares to the oldies. Even Gone With the Wind outgrosses Titanic with adjusted dollars. For me personally, i appreciate the blocks on the bottom, that were required to build up the big 'ol pile to lead to what we see nowadays. It's not just that one can 'give them their due' and say current films are better. Many of these films CHANGED COMPLETELY how every other film after it has been made.
As far as influential films go, i'd say Pulp Fiction has done that for this current crop. Ever since Pulp Fiction came out, dialogue has changed in a great many films. (not a categorical change, obviously, but the influence is there). Same can be said for Hong Kong cinema and the Golden Harvest gang and Yuen Wo Ping going nuts with wire work (which has really gone ridiculous lately imo.)
It's a building block, its recognizing the innovators. Personally i think the 1972 ferrari dino 246gt is better then any current ferrari. I think the mercedes 300sl gullwing is better then any current mercedes. I think the 1962 Shelby AC Cobra is the best looking sports car around. Of course i know there are cars that can outperform each of those in nearly every category. None of them have half the safety features available nowadays. Regardless, they have something unatainable by any modern car, even their own evolutionary descendents. For me, it's the same with film.
just my 2cents!
peace
k2 |
| A little more | jack70
Sep 19, 2003 1:23 PM | | Part of your disappointment over C. Kane may have been the build-up (baggage) you were led to believe about it (how "great" it is). It's too bad we can't see more films with a more open mind... w/o either 1) a huge media advertising blitz, or 2) the "critical acclaim" blurbs on the video/DVD versions. (how many have "<b>this is crap</b>" on the box or ad?) Plus, you may just have been in the wrong mindset... it's something I often struggle with... I find it can help/hurt "getting into" a particular film. It'd be tough to expect to get the "proper" (best) emotional payoff from say, Schindlers List... or... Blazing Saddles, on any particular afternoon. Often a film has greater impact because one's mindset is especially hungry for the particular emotional dish being served.
Personally, I think too many in the biz (Hollywood) give C.Kane TOO much cachet... perhaps because they're "expected" to. Although I'd agree it changed modern film in many ways (& is deserving of it's stature), I'd agree it's not even as interesting as Welle's next film, The Magnificent Ambersons (although parts of that were re-cut by others).
But I don't think it's fair to marginalize C. Kane simply because it's not hip or modern either. 98% of today's "hip & modern" films are outright crap IMHO... each with their own unique crappiness. I wouldn't dismiss Bach or Shakespeare simply because they ain't "hip" or modern either. One disturbing thing I find today is that too many people are unaware of the rich history of certain arts.... music, film, literature, painting, etc... and then dismiss it offhand. It's too bad because it cheats them of that richness of any art form. Part of the problem is there's so damn much history (stuff) in any of those areas, and our attention span has been so narrowed in today's world, that too many don't know or fully appreciate what came before. It's something that has negative consequences in our educational & political worlds as well... a general "dumbing down" and political correctness gone overboard... but that's my own opinion.
Your BelAir/Ferrari analogy (films too of course), brings to mind Robert Pirsig's thoughts on the nature of "quality" in his (great) book <i>Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</i>. His philosophical journey/quest to attempt to separate the subjective & objective in things like art & technology led him to a mental breakdown. Suffice it to say, it'd be hard for lil' ole' me to shed much <i>more</i> insight here in a couple of short paragraphs, on something so profound. (so I won't..LOL).
Bottom line is we like what we like, based on our experience & tastes. But I would like to ask GrendelZ a question that might give me some additional insight into where you're coming from -- Do you consider The Wizard of Oz to be a great (top-20) film? If not, why not. |
| A little more still | GrendelZ
Sep 23, 2003 10:14 PM | | I certainly consider Wizard of Oz a great film,as well as Casablanca, but my point is I dont see what is great about Citizen Kane.Wizard of Oz has a great story and some great performances,not to mention great visuals.Citizen Kane is flat,the story drags and there is nothing interesting about it IMO.After I finished watching it I could not belive it was over,I was expecting it to get good at any moment.A good example of a movie I think is better from that period is
Rear Window,I think this is an excellent movie,great story and wonderfully acted.Some of these old movies are just not very interesting be it from cultural differences or whatever,they just dont do it for me. |
| Intertextuality.... | audiobill
Sep 26, 2003 4:29 PM | | Great discussion, folks.
I once studied "deconstructive criticism". A lot of it was v. pretentious, but one important lesson I learned is that past texts forecast present texts, which forecast future texts.
Too often, as jack70 notes so clearly, we are not aware of the historical context and the uniqueness of when a particular film was released. Consequently, we tend to view it as primitive or trivial from the twenty-first lenses we are given.
Nevertheless, a personal taste is just that -- personal. If I don't like anchovies on my pizza there is nothing you can say that will change my mind.
Cheers,
Bill (btw,I love anchovies on my pizza) |
| |
