Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

Oedipus Rex (1967)

Obviously in tackling such a foundational tragedy as Oedipus the interest lies not in the plot elements per se (since everyone will already be at least vaguely familiar with the story - whether via Sophocles or Freud), but in the way that the director chooses to present it. Here Pasoloni gives us an extremely striking version of the tale. I wouldn’t say I loved it, but I appreciate what the film was trying to accomplish and found it extremely interesting.

Although the bulk of the film is still nominally set in Greece, it was filmed in the Moroccan desert; with unusual backdrops and bizarre costumes which certainly aren’t constrained by any historic or geographic reality. Coupled with an unusual soundtrack featuring Romanian folk chants, ancient Japanese court music and Indonesian kecak, it lends a kind of abstract universality to a well-trodden myth.

As a result of Pasolini’s staging we get the sense that the events depicted aren’t rooted in a specifically Greek theatrical tradition, rather they seem to occur almost outside the bounds of time and space. It seems almost alien, tonally as well as visually. No doubt some of the choices may simply be a product of a small budget, but Pasoloni makes it all work very effectively. In visual terms the use of colour and landscape were also very well done.

The strange ‘boundlessness’ of the film is interrupted by the fact that the narrative is actually presented as a triptych, with the main story of Oedipus being bookended by an opening set in 1920’s Lombardy and a closing epilogue in 1960s Bologna. I’m still not entirely certain how to read these insertions, the specificity of which seems to break the timeless ‘myth-world’ of the main story. The former seems to introduce some loosely autobiographical elements, while the latter brings the ancient myth literally into the present day.

Undoubtedly the opening segment connects in some way to the dominant Freudian interpretation of the myth. Certainly Pasoloni also uses the story to explore expected themes such as the role of free will and fatality in the lives of human beings. The opening and closing segments seem to combine as some sort of implied commentary on the changes in Italian society between the two decades. In some ways Pasoloni seems to be playing with both the Freudian Oedipus and the Sophoclian one, using both for his own ends. I’m still not entirely certain what those ends are, but I nonetheless found it a very engaging watch.

 

[Rimbaud82]

And I also must say that it warms the ol' cockles to see such heady discussion in here again

 

[Rimbaud82]

Also watched these two 90s westerns within a couple of nights of each other. Had never got round to either of them before.

Tombstone (1993)

Cringy, boring shite. Some sharp moustaches and slick outfits, but the actual content of the film was just incredibly lackluster. A couple of fun scenes here and there, but that’s about the very best I can say. Just a really really boring rehash of traditional Western tropes done in a bland 90’s blockbuster style. Utterly forgettable.

Unforgiven (1992)

Now here’s a fucking Western. One of the ones where I immediately wonder why it took me so long to get around to watching it.

I gravitate towards “Revisionist” westerns or “Anti-Westerns” or whatever you want to call them, and this is definitely one of the best examples. Unforgiven thoroughly deconstructs the glorification of violence inherent to the genre, from Hollywood films through to the dime novels which first created “the Wild West”. There’s no simple good and bad here, just violent men doing violent things and other men mythologising it.

Our protagonist, William Munny is a widowed pig farmer with two young children. Covered in manure, he doesn’t exactly look the part of the Old West gunslinger. Yet we soon learn that he was once a notorious outlaw and killer. When the brash ‘Schofield Kid’ comes looking for Munny to help claim a bounty, he doesn’t take too much convincing to revert to his old ways and leave his children behind.

Just as our protagonist is an ex-killer, the main ‘villain’ of Unforgiven is not some moustache twirling bandito. Actually he is “Little Bill” Daggett (played by Gene Hackman), a sheriff with the forces of law and order on his side. Yet as will become clear, he is no less a killer. Other characters also exemplify these themes, such as Richard Harris’ “English Bob”, another apparently legendary gunfighter.

Revisionist Westerns like Unforgiven aren’t revising the West in the sense that they return to some kind of more historically accurate version, they are still totally bound up within the mythology of the West and its movies. It is in the way that they interplay with that mythology, and subvert it. Clint Eastwood’s Munny is a far cry from John Wayne, even from “the man with no name”. He doesn’t wait for the ‘baddies’ to draw first and he kills in cold blood. As the film moves to its climax there is a shootout as you might expect, but there is no satisfying catharsis, just cold, unfeeling violence.

I was extremely impressed by this thoughtful western. It’s got a perfect script and strong direction from Eastwood, and the performances are also very good all round. The fact that we have these three ‘macho’ actors in Eastwood, Harris and Hackman in this revisionist film was also a nice touch.

 

[moreorless87]

Along those lines watched The Proposition for the first time a couple of days ago, Oz western from 2005 were outlaw Guy Pearce is offered a deal to hunt down his Col Kurtz like older brother to save the life of his young one held by Ray Winstons colonial lawman.

I admti I'd held off previously because Cave writting it made it seem like it might be cliched celeb indulgence. It does end up being quite cliched in some of its romaticism but honestly just the shear quality of the production and the performances make that not an unpleasant thing to experience. It really does manage to be a shocklingly good looking film(especially in UHD) well beyond its relatively small budget.

It is interesting as well though that what is advertised as the central plot of the irish brothers both doesnt fall into the typical "loveble rogue" mold Hollywood so loves(that blights films like Gangs of Newyork IMHO) but also argeubly isnt the centre of the film instead focusing on Winston's Lawman and Emily Mortimer playing his wife. The kind of roles that could have been your typical cliched brit colonial bad guy ends up being a man genuinely looking to deliver justice and live up to his wifes image of him whilst she avoids being either a saint or a hypocrite and instead someone having to deal with extreme feeling of loss and revenge without an obvious moral catharis for or against her.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Along those lines watched The Proposition for the first time a couple of days ago, Oz western from 2005 were outlaw Guy Pearce is offered a deal to hunt down his Col Kurtz like older brother to save the life of his young one held by Ray Winstons colonial lawman.

I admti I'd held off previously because Cave writting it made it seem like it might be cliched celeb indulgence. It does end up being quite cliched in some of its romaticism but honestly just the shear quality of the production and the performances make that not an unpleasant thing to experience. It really does manage to be a shocklingly good looking film(especially in UHD) well beyond its relatively small budget.

It is interesting as well though that what is advertised as the central plot of the irish brothers both doesnt fall into the typical "loveble rogue" mold Hollywood so loves(that blights films like Gangs of Newyork IMHO) but also argeubly isnt the centre of the film instead focusing on Winston's Lawman and Emily Mortimer playing his wife. The kind of roles that could have been your typical cliched brit colonial bad guy ends up being a man genuinely looking to deliver justice and live up to his wifes image of him whilst she avoids being either a saint or a hypocrite and instead someone having to deal with extreme feeling of loss and revenge without an obvious moral catharis for or against her.

Watched that one last year when I was in a similar western mood, I really quite liked it. It's got a great visual flair to it, especially given the small budget as you say. Definitely superior to a lot of modern westerns I would say.

There's a few Australasian Westerns I need to watch, seems to have been some good ones like Sweet Country (2017).

There's one I've been meaning to watch for a while now called Van Diemen's Land (2009), set in 19th century Tasmania as you'd expect. Similarly about an Irish convict/outlaw, meant to be quite brutal and with some dialogue in Irish which is always a plus point. I first heard of back when The Nightingale (2018) came out. Did you ever see that one?

 

[Rimbaud82]

Van Diemen's Land (2009)

When Tasmania adopted its current name in 1856 this was, in large part, an attempt to shed the ‘evil reputation’ that the island had developed in its days as a brutal penal colony. “Van Diemen’s Land” had become almost a synonym for cruelty and violence, a bleak outpost of the British Empire into which was flung repeat offenders and what it deemed to be the most vile elements of its criminal underclass. It was, as one contemporary put it, “a hell upon earth”. Van Diemen’s Land, the film, takes place early in the colony’s history and depicts one of the most infamous episodes from its penal years - the 1822 escape of eight convicts from the brutal Macquarie Harbour penal station.

The eight convicts row across the harbour and set off into the Tasmanian wilderness with nothing more than the clothes on their back, a few supplies and a stolen axe. Although they couldn’t have known it, what lay before them is some of the worst country in all of Australia. The Indigenous people knew to avoid it. So it isn’t long before this daring dash for freedom becomes a harrowing nightmare; with rations gone they struggle, cold, wet and desperate, through the unforgiving bush. Ragged and starving the absconders turn towards the ultimate taboo, that last frontier of human morality, cannibalism…

Of the eight that set out there would be only one survivor, a small Irish thief called Alexander Pearce. These infamous events are known solely through Pearce’s own confessions upon his recapture a few months later. An unreliable narrator by any stretch. The authorities initially believed he was lying to save the skin - ironically - of his fellow criminals, and indeed there are a number of problems with the details of Pearce’s narrative. However, when Pearce made a second escape attempt and was found with human flesh in his pockets - with his mutilated companion not far by - there could be little doubt about the overall course of events at least. This time he was hanged. Van Diemen’s Land focuses purely on the events of the first escape.

The film then is a kind of psychological thriller/horror, but it takes a fairly arthouse (for lack of a better word) approach to its disturbing subject matter. While you could probably play Pearce’s story as a gory slasher, the focus here is on a more unassuming kind of horror and on his slow mental deterioration. There is more than a touch of Herzog’s colonial derangement about it, with the convicts succumbing to paranoia, delirium and psychosis. The style especially brings to mind Terrence Malick, with striking shots of the natural world and hushed, half-whispered voiceover. Tonally of course we couldn’t be further from Malick though; there’s no transcendence here, just pure survival and the darkest recesses of the human mind.

Van Diemen’s Land is very well directed on the whole and I absolutely appreciate its aspiration towards something like Herzog or Malick. I don’t think it quite reaches the heights to which it aspires, but it isn’t far off. It’s certainly much more interesting than a lot of other contemporary(ish) films. In terms of the narrative I think it fails to sustain the tension it has built all the way to the end. I also think that it doesn’t strike quite the right balance between exposition and action. Perhaps to some extent it assumes a lot of pre-existing familiarity on behalf of the audience, which is probably natural since I gather that the story is so well known in Australia? It may not have quite needed a Cool Hand Luke-style intro explaining how Pearce came to be imprisoned, but I do think it might have humanised the convicts and their desire to escape a bit more.

However it succeeds in a great many other areas; a very interesting and thoughtful film on the whole. Also gets bonus points for the use of the Irish language in certain scenes. Recommended to anyone who ‘enjoyed’ The Nightingale (2018), though this one takes a much more philosophical tack and moves at a much slower pace. There is also an Irish-Australian film dealing with the same events - The Last Confession of Alexander Pearce (2008). I’d love to get hold of that too to compare, but can’t seem to find a good copy.

 

[Rimbaud82]

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Last Confession of Alexander Pearce (2008)

After watching Van Diemen’s Land (2008) which depicts exactly the same event - Alexander Pearce’s escape from the brutal Macquarie Harbour Penal Station and subsequent resort to cannibalism - I was keen to give this one a go too. It’s always eye-opening to see the way that different filmmakers handle the same events. In this case I could only find a pretty poor YouTube copy that wasn’t even HD (perish the thought), but still glad to be able to watch and compare.

Inevitably my thoughts on this one were somewhat filtered through the prism of the other film, and while this was certainly still a decent attempt to tell this story it mainly succeeded in deepening my appreciation for Van Diemen’s Land. This is a much more conventional affair, telling the story through the frame narrative of, as you might suspect, Pearce’s last confession before he was hanged in Hobart in 1824.

The narrative moves between Pearce’s conversation with a local priest (the eponymous confession) and the action of his escape. The focus is not on the gory details of murder and cannibalism, but on the circumstances which would drive a petty criminal to such horrible deeds. In this respect the film tries to be both psychoanalytic and sociological, acting as a searing indictment of the penal system and colonial ideologies in general.

It was a shorter film and originally made for TV I believe, but it tries to tell more of the story. For instance including a longer section prior to the escape, along with scenes which don’t even feature Pearce but which are designed to offer insight into the attitudes of the colonial governors. It was competently told given the time constraints, but perhaps a bit tame and overly conventional. Not bad, but doesn’t land with the same impact as 2009's Van Diemen’s Land.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Shooting (1966)

A lean, existential Western directed by Monte Hellman. The plot, such as it is, concerns a retired bounty hunter (Gashade) and his dim-witted sidekick (Coley) who are hired by a mysterious woman to lead her through the desert “to Kingsley”. Gashade has just returned to their remote mining camp where we learn from the babbling Coley that of their other two companions one has been shot dead, and the other (Gashade’s brother Coigne) has fled. Through muddled recollection we learn that these events were precipitated by some sort of scuffle in town during which a “little person…maybe a child” was possibly killed by Coigne.

It is after Gashade learns of these events that the woman, whose name we never learn, emerges almost out of thin air. With the men already on edge, there is something unsettling about this sudden appearance. Her motives are as ambiguous as her origin. Suspicious, Gashade nonetheless agrees to act as guide and the trio set off into the desert together. As they trek further into the scorching wilderness they come to realise that they are themselves being stalked by an unseen gunslinger.

Well, if I add that the director had previously staged Waiting for Godot as a western in 1957, it should come as no shock that Beckett’s influence is very apparent here. It seems almost a truism at this point. This isn’t John Ford’s west, but an eerie Beckettian landscape defined by absence and emptiness. The story is deliberately simple and opaque, not to mention absurd. With uncertain motivations our small cast of characters wander through the oppressive, primordial landscape towards an undetermined destination. The use of landscape and visual framing, along with the abrupt editing style, all serve to heighten these Beckettian sensibilities. When things end they do not conclusively - instead they simply break down, fracturing into a puzzling ouroborian sequence.

An impressive film, though I am not surprised to learn that it didn’t find much of an audience in the United States and was subsequently resigned to the vast array of half-forgotten late-night TV fare. Given it’s style and sensibilities, I am equally unsurprised to learn that it was a cult hit amongst the arthouse cinemas of Paris where it apparently ran for over a year.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Ride in the Whirlwind (1966)

Following on from The Shooting (1966) we have this second western from Monte Hellman. Both films were shot back-to-back in the span of a few weeks and largely with the same crew. Very much in a similar vein; this is the more conventional and plot-driven of the two but Hellman’s artistic sensibilities and minimalist approach nonetheless take it beyond the realm of your average western.

The story follows three cowpokes looking for some shelter for the night who inadvertently stumble across a gang of outlaws. They have just robbed the local stagecoach and lynched the driver. Holed up in a remote shack they offer the three men a place to rest for the night, correctly assuming that they mean no trouble. However, morning brings a posse of bloodthirsty vigilantes who don’t care much to figure out that the cowhands weren’t part of the gang.

A shootout ensues in which nearly everyone is wiped out, including one of the hands; the two innocent survivors - Wes (Jack Nicholson) and Vern (Cameron Mitchell) - are forced to flee on foot into the badlands to escape the vigilantes who mean to see them hang. In the process, they are forced to become the outlaws that the posse believed them to be. “I'm not going to hang, Vern.” states Nicholson’s character stoically.

I loved this one too, and I’d rank the pair with some of my favourite westerns. Ride in the Whirlwind is not quite as strange and abstract as The Shooting, with a larger cast of characters and a more plot-driven narrative as noted. However, it exhibits a similar orientation towards the myths of the wild west and a similarly muted, foreboding tone. The script, written by Nicholson, is also particularly strong. Drawing on the 1894 book Banditti of the Plains, it features authentic dialogue and idiomatic expressions culled from contemporary diaries. This sharply literate language pairs perfectly with Hellman’s style.

It is a quiet, haunting tale of random chance and brutal frontier violence, set within an apocalyptic and uncaring landscape. As one character says: “Ain't no country to set a foot.” Or to quote Proverbs: “When your terror comes like a storm / And your destruction comes like a whirlwind / Then they will call on me, but I will not answer…”.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Cockfighter (1974)

“For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting there. Actually it is men” - Clifford Geertz

Continuing my Monte Hellman run with this hidden gem, based on a 1962 novel by Charles Willeford. Produced by the legendary Roger Corman, it was apparently one of the only films which ever lost him money. As it happens the viewing public was not that interested in a film about cockfighting. There are violent scenes of real cockfights and it is natural that some will be immediately turned off by that, but despite the subject matter Cockfighter is far from a sleazy exploitation flick. Perhaps that was the problem…not lurid enough for some audiences, too barbaric for others.

Set in the Deep South we follow Frank Mansfield (played by a wonderful Warren Oates), a career cockfighter who has taken a vow of silence until he can claim his professions top title: the Southern Conference Tournament’s Cockfighter of the Year. As the film opens Frank has just lost everything - his money, trailer, and girlfriend - betting on one of his gamecocks. From here the story charts his rise from rock bottom and back to the top. Of course, there is nothing new in such a narrative. It’s the one we get in pretty much any sports film. The difference here is that Frank isn’t Rocky Balboa, but rather someone who trains chickens to fight to the death.

There is of course something absurd in the whole thing. A vow of silence on the path to some lofty goal might be absurd enough in a film about a boxer or a golfer, but applied to a morally abhorrent bloodsport like cockfighting this feeling takes on a special intensity. Perhaps this is what is so brilliant about the film (and the book, I assume). It places you, without judgment, into this strange and alien world and although it doesn’t shy away from the brutality, it nonetheless allows you to engage with it. With this culture and these people and of course with Frank, with all his faults. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and in fact it is repulsive. Yet, it somehow makes total sense.

Although the film takes us into arcane world of cockfighting with an almost documentary style, the sport itself is incidental to the story in some respects. At the core the film is really a penetrating character study about one man’s grim determination. Like Ahab, Frank is singularly and fanatically consumed by his desire. In this respect he is, of course, absolutely egotistical. Yet as prideful as he is, he is also sympathetic and certainly interesting. With a lesser director than Hellman the existential sensibilities might have been underplayed in favour of gratuitous violence and other “exploitation” film tropes. In fact, Corman apparently did have the film recut in this fashion as Born to Kill. As it stands the original cut manages to strike a balancing act between these competing tones.

Certainly as good as many other more well-known New Hollywood films from this era. Great performances across the board too, including not just Oates but Harry Dean Stanton and others. I think Cockfighter deserves to be much more heralded, albeit I can see why the subject matter would be off-putting to some.

 

[Bullitt68]

Hey @Rimbaud82, did you actually like The Northman beyond the historical shit? I remember your review being fairly positive, but for me, even as a massive Skarsgård nuthugger, I thought that it sucked! It could've easily been 30 minutes shorter without the stupid dancing/ritual shit. And Eggers broke absolutely zero new ground with that basic fucking revenge story, which pales in comparison to Skarsgård's Viking revenge quest in True Blood as Eric Northman. Turd of a film IMO. His fucking Tarzan movie was better

 

[Rimbaud82]

Hey @Rimbaud82, did you actually like The Northman beyond the historical shit? I remember your review being fairly positive, but for me, even as a massive Skarsgård nuthugger, I thought that it sucked! It could've easily been 30 minutes shorter without the stupid dancing/ritual shit. And Eggers broke absolutely zero new ground with that basic fucking revenge story, which pales in comparison to Skarsgård's Viking revenge quest in True Blood as Eric Northman. Turd of a film IMO. His fucking Tarzan movie was better

Well, inevitably my thoughts on it are going to be coloured by the historical shit since that's a huge part. But yes, I liked it a lot having also rewatched it at home since then. Of course the revenge story is basic, it's proto-Hamlet! As Eggers said, he wanted to take a archetypal story like that which would allow him to indulge his historical/material culture interests. But I do also enjoy the story too obviously, or it wouldn't be much of a film.

Tarzan, Jesus wept Bullit

 

[Bullitt68]

Well, inevitably my thoughts on it are going to be coloured by the historical shit since that's a huge part. But yes, I liked it a lot having also rewatched it at home since then. Of course the revenge story is basic, it's proto-Hamlet! As Eggers said, he wanted to take a archetypal story like that which would allow him to indulge his historical/material culture interests. But I do also enjoy the story too obviously, or it wouldn't be much of a film.

Hmm. And you've liked Eggers' other stuff, too, right? I can at least say that The Northman is the best thing that he's done yet, as I wasn't a fan of either The Witch or The Lighthouse. But it was still a turd IMO. And the end fight scene was so cringey, like a bad 300 type thing. Just weaksauce.

Tarzan, Jesus wept Bullit

To be clear, I'm not saying that his Tarzan movie was good...it was just better than The Northman

 

[Rimbaud82]

Some other films I have watched lately….

Mad Dog Morgan (1974)

An interesting 70s curio in which a demented Dennis Hopper plays Dan Morgan, an infamous Australian bushranger (or outlaw, if this was an American Western) in the mid-nineteenth century. I would love to proclaim this is a hidden gem or a lost classic, but it is the very definition of disjointed. Certainly it has some good elements and generally is a fun watch - in a wacky, unhinged kind of way - but it has more than its fair share of faults too.

For a start it is absolutely bizarrely paced for what should be a riveting tale of an outlaw on the run. The plot is janky and all over the place. Very stop-start. I think this is what lets the film down more than anything, the story is quite simply poorly told.

We are introduced to Morgan as a young man - apparently Irish in the film, not sure about real life - taking part in New South Wales’ gold rush. When he witnesses the massacre of Chinese immigrants (totally made up) he flees and becomes a holdup artist. Yet after only one stick-up he is imprisoned and sent to a brutal prison camp where he is subjected to all manner of brutality and terror.

After his early release for good behaviour Morgan turns to bushranging, falling in with an aboriginal man called Billy (played by the incomparable David Gulpilil) who becomes his close friend. "Bill the Native" was one of the real Morgan's epithets, presumably where they got this idea. It comes off a bit Dances With Wolves, but nice to get some indigenous representation and culture all the same. The remainder of the film charts Morgan's bushranging activities, his growing fame and his battle against a sadistic police chief.

There is no escaping that this is a rather low budget affair. Yet its not quite a bargain bucket Ozploitation flick either. It is rescued from mediocrity by the excellent visuals and cinematography, along with the wonderful weirdness of Dennis Hooper (who was something of a Hollywood pariah at this time). He certainly goes for it, launching himself into the role with a fanatical gusto. Possibly the worst Irish accent I have ever seen put to film, but I'm happy to roll with it in this case. There are some wonderful bizarre sequences throughout.

A weird film, but certainly worth a watch in any case. Particularly if you are either a Dennis Hopper connoisseur, or simply enjoy western style movies.

Moulin Rouge (1952)

John Huston’s biopic dealing with the life of artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and the bohemian subculture of 1890s Paris, including of course the eponymous Moulin Rouge. Really I don’t have too much to say about this one. It looks absolutely fantastic and was a joy to watch in the way it recreates this era. The visual richness is easily the stand-out element. However, I found the script and story to be fairly dull and not all that well paced.

While there are some insights into the character of Toulouse-Lautrec (who was a member of an aristocratic family, but suffered from an unknown condition which meant that he stood only 4”11 as an adult), the narrative consists mostly of boring biopic tropes and tedious romances. We spend much more time on these melodramatic episodes than we do with the more interesting aspects of Montmartre and la vie de bohème.

Not terrible, but just average really. Worth a watch for the wonderful visual flair if nothing else and considerably better than Baz Luhrmann’s wretched film either way.

Wild Men (2021)

Deep in the Norwegian wilderness we come across a middle-aged man (who we come to learn is Martin) dressed in animal furs. Bow and arrow in hand he stalks through the woods like some paleolithic primogenitor, hunting for his prey. Or so it seems. His survivalist skills not being quite up to par, our would-be wild man decides instead to descend the mountainside where he comes upon the welcoming lights of a local petrol station. An attempt to barter for beer, cigarettes and other supplies goes awry and having thus committed an accidental armed robbery he heads back to the forest.

A short time later Martin stumbles across an injured drug smuggler called Musa. This random encounter sets the stage for a series of unfortunate events that sees the pair pursued by the police, gangsters, along with Martin’s understandably frustrated wife, who has driven from Denmark with their two children and pet rabbit to search for him.

This Coen-ish plot sets the scene for a wonderfully deadpan comedy dealing with manhood, alienation and mid-life crises. By returning to nature Martin, a former office worker, hopes to throw off the shackles of modern life and regain some sense of his ‘heroic masculine purpose’. Hilariously underprepared to live off the land he nonetheless makes sure not to forget his iphone…

All-in-all a decent wee film. Fairly amusing and the comedic elements generally land well in an absurd kind of way. Perhaps not as insightful as it might have been in how it handles its themes, but as an offbeat black comedy it works ok.

 

[europe1]

Hey @Rimbaud82, did you actually like The Northman beyond the historical shit

The Northman basically feels like a litmus test for how much you like anthropology.

I would also like to congratulate @Rimbaud82 for dipping into Monte Hellman's films. Sadly I can't say more about his Westerns save for: "yes they were delectable in their minimalsim and artistic sensebilities! Very much agree!"

places you, without judgment, into this strange and alien world and although it doesn’t shy away from the brutality, it nonetheless allows you to engage with it. With this culture and these people and of course with Frank, with all his faults. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and in fact it is repulsive. Yet, it somehow makes total sense.

Bullseye rimbaud!

Trailer from Hells has a pretty funny episode on this film.

John Huston’s biopic dealing with the life of artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and the bohemian subculture of 1890s Paris, including of course the eponymous Moulin Rouge. Really I don’t have too much to say about this one. It looks absolutely fantastic and was a joy to watch in the way it recreates this era. The visual richness is easily the stand-out element. However, I found the script and story to be fairly dull and not all that well paced

I remember having much more positive memories of this flick.

Jose Ferrer absolutely sells Montmartre and his love for the Bohemian scene (as you'd expect).

Also really remember being taken in by the ending when he hallucinates the dancers.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Also watched these two 90s westerns within a couple of nights of each other. Had never got round to either of them before.

Tombstone (1993)

Cringy, boring shite. Some sharp moustaches and slick outfits, but the actual content of the film was just incredibly lackluster. A couple of fun scenes here and there, but that’s about the very best I can say. Just a really really boring rehash of traditional Western tropes done in a bland 90’s blockbuster style. Utterly forgettable.

Unforgiven (1992)

Now here’s a fucking Western. One of the ones where I immediately wonder why it took me so long to get around to watching it.

I gravitate towards “Revisionist” westerns or “Anti-Westerns” or whatever you want to call them, and this is definitely one of the best examples. Unforgiven thoroughly deconstructs the glorification of violence inherent to the genre, from Hollywood films through to the dime novels which first created “the Wild West”. There’s no simple good and bad here, just violent men doing violent things and other men mythologising it.

Our protagonist, William Munny is a widowed pig farmer with two young children. Covered in manure, he doesn’t exactly look the part of the Old West gunslinger. Yet we soon learn that he was once a notorious outlaw and killer. When the brash ‘Schofield Kid’ comes looking for Munny to help claim a bounty, he doesn’t take too much convincing to revert to his old ways and leave his children behind.

Just as our protagonist is an ex-killer, the main ‘villain’ of Unforgiven is not some moustache twirling bandito. Actually he is “Little Bill” Daggett (played by Gene Hackman), a sheriff with the forces of law and order on his side. Yet as will become clear, he is no less a killer. Other characters also exemplify these themes, such as Richard Harris’ “English Bob”, another apparently legendary gunfighter.

Revisionist Westerns like Unforgiven aren’t revising the West in the sense that they return to some kind of more historically accurate version, they are still totally bound up within the mythology of the West and its movies. It is in the way that they interplay with that mythology, and subvert it. Clint Eastwood’s Munny is a far cry from John Wayne, even from “the man with no name”. He doesn’t wait for the ‘baddies’ to draw first and he kills in cold blood. As the film moves to its climax there is a shootout as you might expect, but there is no satisfying catharsis, just cold, unfeeling violence.

I was extremely impressed by this thoughtful western. It’s got a perfect script and strong direction from Eastwood, and the performances are also very good all round. The fact that we have these three ‘macho’ actors in Eastwood, Harris and Hackman in this revisionist film was also a nice touch.

Have you seen Appaloosa (Viggo Mortenson and Ed Harris)? If not, please do, and give your thoughts. I think it’s right up your alley. Interested to see if my prediction is accurate (I love the movie).

Great takes on Unforgiven, but I will fight you over Tombstone. Your problem is attitude. Shape up!

* That said, please watch Appaloosa. That is all.

 

[Bullitt68]

Moulin Rouge (1952)

Pretty much with you on this one, though I share europe's love of José Ferrer. John Huston was a very hit-or-miss filmmaker. He could crush shit out of the park like his collaborations with Bogart, but he could also make real weird duds that make you question your sense of the man as an artist

The Northman basically feels like a litmus test for how much you like anthropology.

Great takes on Unforgiven

I specifically came in here last time to post about The Northman - I hadn't even noticed that Rimbaud just watched Unforgiven. One of the GOATs for sure and easily a top five Western. Rimbaud, I don't know how much superhero shit you've bothered with, but if you haven't seen Logan, not only is it basically a superhero Western, but it's clearly riffing on Shane and Unforgiven. If you haven't seen it yet - and while we're on the subject, if you haven't seen Shane - now's the time

I will fight you over Tombstone. Your problem is attitude. Shape up!

At the risk of angering sickc0d3r, I'm with you on Tombstone, Rimbaud. I've never understood the love for that one. Great cast, sure, but it's never done much for me. That said, I do cosign sickc0d3r's recommendation of Appaloosa. Not only does it star one of the quintessential human versions of gravel, Ed Harris, but Harris also co-wrote it and directed it.

If you're in a Western mood, I'd also recommend The Salvation if you haven't seen it. Mads Mikkelsen brings some European flavor to the Western bad ass avenger archetype

 

[sickc0d3r]

At the risk of angering sickc0d3r, I'm with you on Tombstone, Rimbaud. I've never understood the love for that one. Great cast, sure, but it's never done much for me. That said, I do cosign sickc0d3r's recommendation of Appaloosa. Not only does it star one of the quintessential human versions of gravel, Ed Harris, but Harris also co-wrote it and directed it.

If you're in a Western mood, I'd also recommend The Salvation if you haven't seen it. Mads Mikkelsen brings some European flavor to the Western bad ass avenger archetype

Honestly, every time I hear someone say they don’t like Tombstone (this is not a frequent occurrence, what are we, animals?) I immediately think of how the Dana Delaney love story sucks the fun out of everything, and I reluctantly nod my head.

Then I snap out of it! Sure, it has it’s faults, but come on, it’s epic, character driven action. There’s a reason it is so quotable. I can’t help but appreciate its over the top, old school actor essay style. Yes, it’s mostly because the cast steps up and makes the script its bitch, but there’s something cool about that. Kilmer, Russel, Biehn, Booth, Paxton, Elliot, Church, oh my… they all delivered. It might be Kilmer’s finest role. Not mad, tho…

Glad to hear you appreciate Appaloosa, at least. Harris is kind of actually magnificent in that one. Between the two movies maybe the name “Virgil” will make a comeback.

 

[Bullitt68]

Honestly, every time I hear someone say they don’t like Tombstone (this is not a frequent occurrence, what are we, animals?) I immediately think of how the Dana Delaney love story sucks the fun out of everything, and I reluctantly nod my head.

Then I snap out of it! Sure, it has it’s faults, but come on, it’s epic, character driven action. There’s a reason it is so quotable. I can’t help but appreciate its over the top, old school actor essay style. Yes, it’s mostly because the cast steps up and makes the script its bitch, but there’s something cool about that. Kilmer, Russel, Biehn, Booth, Paxton, Elliot, Church, oh my… they all delivered. It might be Kilmer’s finest role. Not mad, tho…

To be fair, it's been a million years since I've watched it. But I watched it twice, the first time because of the hype and the second time to see if I missed something the first time. It definitely felt like it wanted to be a more contemporary The Magnificent Seven, packing in a bunch of cool dudes saying and doing cool stuff. Maybe I'm holding the fact that it's not The Magnificent Seven against it too much. I'm sure I'll rewatch it again down the road. I mean, I want to love every movie that Michael Biehn is in, which is why I even love an unknown gem like American Dragons

Glad to hear you appreciate Appaloosa, at least. Harris is kind of actually magnificent in that one.

I still remember checking it out from my local library when it came out. I've always loved Ed Harris and go out of my way to see his stuff.

Between the two movies maybe the name “Virgil” will make a comeback.

There's certainly great historical precedent thanks to Captain Virgil Hilts