|
Post by james on Jun 25, 2010 16:44:35 GMT -5
I've never tried to make a list of great films from any era (I don't think I have the energy, and I know I'd miss some films), but two films of the last 20 years that mean a lot to me are Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise (and it's sequel, Before Sunset, for that matter, so, okay, three movies) and Joe Dante's Matinee.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 16:58:52 GMT -5
I like Linkletter's work, but have yet to see those two films. I hear that they are very good.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 25, 2010 19:17:37 GMT -5
I feel that if I had to watch every movie that came out, or most of the general releases that a critic has to cover off on, I'd be better off seeing everything today than, say, in the 40s or 50s. I'm not suggesting that today's films are better than the best films from back then. But I do think, for instance, the level of across-the-board naturalistic acting is greater today than what you would have seen, or what was even attempted, back then. I think there are good films made today, but I think there are far fewer excellent films that are embraced by the public in the way they once were. If you go see most of what's popular today, you can go a long time without seeing something really great. Without getting into my long diatribe about the reasons why, (studio strong arm tactics, the fundamental dip in maturity in our country,etc). Two points about grubl's point above. 1) is that I expect that the filmmakers in Hollywood's "Golden Age" would have vastly preferred to deal with the focus groups and advance screening (there was some of that at the time) than the onerous production code and studio politics they did in their day. There's a book call Memo From the Desk of David O. Selznick and even though he was an independent producer, he had to put up with so much bullshit from the -- yes-- censors! that they finally rendered a film like Rebbecca pretty ridiculous. Your other point (2) about "maturity" is kind of the crux of the matter. I don't want to sound like a fuddy-duddy, but I work with some younger people and -- as far as the arts go -- they are passionate about next to nothing. Not all of them! But, I'm afraid, many of them. When they do finally see something of quality, like say There Will be Blood -- does it register as much as Flava of Love? (Which, along with similar shows, they can expound about for hours it seems.) I'm not sure. Please kick my ass all over this board and tell me I'm wrong! Anyway, I'll stop my get-off-my-lawn spiel. Below is a list of great / near-great movies from the last 10-15 years, though Malcom X is older that that: Casino Royale Changeling Devil in a Blue Dress Erin Brorovich Fight Club Hedwig & the Angry Inch Inglorious Basterds Jerry McGuire Kiss Kiss Bang Bang LA Confidential Last Days of Disco Malcolm X Master & commander Minority Report Mr Jealousy Notting Hill Out Of Sight Saving Pvt Ryan Seraphim Falls Sleep with Me Spy Game There Will Be Blood 12 Monkeys Training Day Walking & Talking Zodiac
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 19:39:05 GMT -5
I also work with teenagers. At this point in my career I am able to work with some pretty sharp ones, and I beat film appreciation into their heads. I make them watch everything from METROPOLIS to THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Yes, the Hayes Code ruined many a potentially great films. I try not to let that stand in my way (for instance I don't let it bother me that when people get shot in CASABLANCA there are no bullet holes, it's still just about my favorite film). And, yes, as a whole acting is more naturalistic now than in the '40s and '50s (not than it was in the '70s, though, no fucking way). But, the films of that era (the good ones) were not going for realism in acting. Not in America, anyway. Their is a rhythm and tone to, say, a Bogart and BaCall exchange, that is far more fulfilling and serves the overall film better than just about anything today.
As far as your list; some I like, some I hate. I'll give you CASINO ROYALE and the first half hour of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN AS GREAT. HEDGWIG is pretty fucking funny, though.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 25, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
As far as your list; some I like, some I hate. Oh, don't tease me. Which of the ones I listed do you "hate"?
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 20:41:26 GMT -5
Jerry McGuire (I liked the scene where the broad realizes that he is with her because of her son, otherwise it was all catchphrases and set-up to cry/cheer moments), LA Confidential (I got so sick of hearing that this is noir, go watch real thing!) and Erin Brokovitch (never bought into it, true story or not, I felt like evryone was going through the motions).
I've seen about two thirds of the rest and thought that they were pretty good. I really liked KISS KISS BANG BANG quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 25, 2010 21:05:18 GMT -5
Jerry McGuire (I liked the scene where the broad realizes that he is with her because of her son, otherwise it was all catchphrases and set-up to cry/cheer moments), LA Confidential (I got so sick of hearing that this is noir, go watch real thing!) and Erin Brokovitch (never bought into it, true story or not, I felt like evryone was going through the motions). I've seen about two thirds of the rest and thought that they were pretty good. I really liked KISS KISS BANG BANG quite a bit. I laughed out loud on the commentary track for LA CONFIDENTIAL where the "esteemed" critic Andrew Sarris says "if this isn't film noir, I don't know what is." It's clear that you don't, as film noir is in black and white. Call it noir-ish or neo-noir, if you must. But why get hung up on other people making a mistake? LA CON is one of the truly greatest screen adaptations ever. I've seen it maybe a dozen times, and with the possible exception of the overdubbing of certain of Russell Crowe's scenes, there isn't a single flaw. My jaw drops at what they achieved with that production. What a cast. I figured I might take some hits for JERRY. But before all the lines became cliches. it was just a marvelous picture, full of perfectly decent setiminent. I've watched bits of it when I've clicked passed it, but never sat down to watch the whole thing again, because I'd had one of those great experiences when I first saw that. Expecting nothing and seeing it at just the right time for me. (I could also site Se7en for the same reason, in that I knew zero about that and was blown away.) I remember the first time I watched KISS KISS BANG BANG. I just felt great afterwards. I'm a bore about that movie, and force it on everyone.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on Jun 25, 2010 21:14:20 GMT -5
I don't think film noir is limited to black and white or a specific time period. Brick is one of the best examples of film noir in recent memory and it's a color film that takes place in high school. Blade Runner is another great example of film noir and it's set in the future and again, all in color.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 22:06:13 GMT -5
I never said it was, but for the most part it was of it's time. It is very hard to recreate that without seeming too be trying to hard. CHINATOWN is in color, made twenty years after the fact and is about as noir as you can get, one of the great films. I'll give you BLADE RUNNER as being heavily in the vein of classic noir, either way, it's another great film. The problem with LA CONFIDENTIAL is that it tried too hard, coming of as unauthentic, and, more important, it really sucked.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 25, 2010 22:40:08 GMT -5
I'd say if LA CONFIDENTIAL is trying hard to do anything, it's to capture the flavor of Ellroy's prose, which it does with seeming effortlessness and astonishing economy. I personally never felt it's slavishly trying to ape the style of other films.
The aesthetic of film noir clearly informs lots and lots of movies, but the term as coined did refer to something specific. (Just as lots of bands have been influenecd by The Beatles or the Stones, there was only one British Invasion. (That's not a perfect anaology, but it's close.) )
Today it's used to describe most crime films and almost all black and white crime films and, sometimes, nearly every black and white film! When the Oscars did their film clip tribute to noir, they included a scene from CASABLANCA! And this was introduced by Lauren Bacall!
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 23:10:10 GMT -5
Huston's The Maltese Falcon (1941) is often sited as the beginning of what we consider american film noir, which predate CASABLANCA by a year. CASABLANCA, contains many of teh classic aspects of noir (Bogart in a trench coat, a lot of fog, a broken, drunk protagonist, forced to do what is right after having essential being dead on the inside, a possible femme fatal, intrigue and double-crossing), but I think that the location and the back drop of the war are what set it apart. The true, classic noirs were generally centered in LA, sometimes San Francisco. Back to noirish, as opposed to true film noir.
By the way, you are the second person in the past few days who is citing the closeness to the feel of the novel (LA CONFIDENTIAL) as to a reason that they enjoyed the film. I guess that I should give it a read, but it will not (or should not, anyway) effect how I view the film.
Regardless and overall, back to several points ago, those films, MCQUIRE, CONFIDENTIAL, just felt false to me when I saw them in the theatre. I went into both with good intentions, but felt manipulated, pandered to and disappointed while watching both. I can't give a good recommendation to a film that has that effect on me.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 10:13:03 GMT -5
By the way, you are the second person in the past few days who is citing the closeness to the feel of the novel (LA CONFIDENTIAL) as to a reason that they enjoyed the film. I guess that I should give it a read, but it will not (or should not, anyway) effect how I view the film. I think LA CONFIDENTIAL stands on its own as a great, great film: perfectly cast, performed and executed. I do marvel at the fact that the screenplay ingeniously condenses a 600 page book into a gripping movie, and that a low budget film evokes the author's take on the period in the immaculate manner that it does. But I don't enjoy it because I feel like I'm watching just a really good adaptation of a novel. In fact, and I'm an Ellroy stalwart from way back, I guess by now I'd say the film is better than the book.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jun 26, 2010 12:56:06 GMT -5
I don't think film noir is limited to black and white or a specific time period. Brick is one of the best examples of film noir in recent memory and it's a color film that takes place in high school. Blade Runner is another great example of film noir and it's set in the future and again, all in color. I have to agree with Dino here--film noir is as much about the mood as the appearance, and it is possible to do effective FN in color. Hell, it's possible to even give it the right look by emphasizing darker colors, starker contrasts, etc....
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 26, 2010 13:05:14 GMT -5
Really, both points of view can be valid, depending on how your framing the lecture/conversation. Historically and academically, film noir is a term used to describe a specific type of film from a specific era. Stylistically, it can be used to cover a much broader group of movies. Hence, I think noir and noirish (OR IN THE STYLE OF NOIR) are good terms to use to differentiate.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 26, 2010 13:25:27 GMT -5
For what it's worth, "noir" was a term created by a French film critic, Nino Frank, and he applied the term after many (though not all) of the classic noir films were already made. The term didn't really reach the US until the 50s, at the earliest. It's definitely an example of someone (Frank being the first) looking at a group of films retroactively and noticing shared themes and ideas. The term wasn't actually used by any Hollywood studio at the time (they would have probably just called them crime films, or psychological suspense).
If you had told Robert Mitchum and Jacques Tourneur in 1947 that the film they were making, Out of the Past, was a noir, they would had had no idea what you were talking about (though Tourneur would have known that "noir" is the French word for "black."). There's a great book written by James Naremore, More Than Night: Film Noir in Its Contexts, that examines how films that were considered very different from each other when they were made were later grouped together as "noir" because of shared ideas that really weren't often noticed when they were made.
Also worth noting is that one common theme of classic noir, from say, 1946 to the early 50s, is life after WWII, where the world had really changed economically and politically, especially for veterans who had seen much more of the world while in combat. Many male lead characters in classic noir films are veterans. You can't really replicate that in a "neo-noir" film, unless it's set in the time period, and even then it might be self-concious. Compare a 30's gangster film to a post-WWII crime film, and you can see the differences. I agree with grubl that The Maltese Falcon was probably the first noir film. It really drew the line for a new kind of hard-boiled crime movie.
James
|
|