- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 19,784
- Reaction score
- 0
I thought was very good. The paranoia, and subtle criticism of the American facade was great. Loses itself a bit in the middle and the ending sucks, but it's a worthy watch
Great plane chase
Movies Serious Movie Discussion
- Thread starter Bullitt68
- Start date
Great plane chase
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
Just finished Robert Bresson's -
Pickpocket (1959)
Thought it was excellent! Only Bresson I have seen previously was Diary of a Country Priest (which I also thought it was excellent). As in that film, Bresson's style is impeccable. Every shot has a rhythmic regularity and precision, nothing is wasted. It is somewhat austere (a word frequently associated with Bresson I notice, others say boring lol), but as with Country Priest the cumulative effect of this style leads to a kind of clarity/revelation as to the main character's perspective and internal struggles. In this film, the main character (Michel) is seemingly motivated to petty criminality by his sense of isolation and malaise, rather than purely economic reasons. He seems constantly distant - no doubt helped by the non-professional Argentine actor playing him - and disconnected from things around him. The sense is that these crimes give him some sense of purpose, or at least of satisfaction. There is a female 'interest' too, but as always I'll not go into spoilers. A great film though.
Pickpocket (1959)
Thought it was excellent! Only Bresson I have seen previously was Diary of a Country Priest (which I also thought it was excellent). As in that film, Bresson's style is impeccable. Every shot has a rhythmic regularity and precision, nothing is wasted. It is somewhat austere (a word frequently associated with Bresson I notice, others say boring lol), but as with Country Priest the cumulative effect of this style leads to a kind of clarity/revelation as to the main character's perspective and internal struggles. In this film, the main character (Michel) is seemingly motivated to petty criminality by his sense of isolation and malaise, rather than purely economic reasons. He seems constantly distant - no doubt helped by the non-professional Argentine actor playing him - and disconnected from things around him. The sense is that these crimes give him some sense of purpose, or at least of satisfaction. There is a female 'interest' too, but as always I'll not go into spoilers. A great film though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
This afternoon I went to see
Peterloo (2018)
Mike Leigh's new film. On the whole I thought it was very good, but certainly not an easy film to watch. It is very long, moves very slow at points and as a result is somewhat demanding. For anyone who doesn't know it concerns a massacre of working-class protesters at a peaceful rally at St Peter's Field in 1819. About 60-80,000 people gathered there to listen to the famous orator Henry Hunt and to protest against the Corn Laws, and call for parliamentary reform. Dressed in their 'Sunday best', with their wives and children they were suddenly charged by the Manchester Yeomanry and the 15th Hussars on horseback after an attempt to arrest Hunt. In the process around 15 were killed and hundreds seriously wounded; some had been hacked and slashed indiscriminately by sabres, others were trampled and crushed to death. Pretty harrowing stuff.
The bulk of the film concerns the contextual backdrop, planning, and lead-up to the protest itself. We see the poor working-classes hit hard by the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the imposition of Corn Laws (tariffs on the import of food which caused the price to soar). As a result, many are increasingly becoming attracted to reformist movements demanding increased representation in Parliament. Most were concerned with constitutional reform, but there was also a more radical undercurrent who had been influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution. The film makes a good point of differentiating between these two, but equally showing how the lines were blurred with reformers and radicals of varying hues speaking at a number of the same meetings. The establishment feared that the whole movement was infected with radicalism.
Leigh really makes a point to explain these issues which had led to Peterloo. As a historian by training obviously it didn't bother me, but some of it did feel a bit clunky, as if it was shoehorned in for the benefit of the audience - ie. awkward dinner talk about the Corn Laws by one of the families, or conversations about the suspension of Habeus Corpus. Others may simply be bored by all of this. There isn't even a whole lot of drama here either, and no main protagonist. Instead the film deals with a number of perspectives, including those of some real people (Samuel Bamford and John Bagguley for instance). It's all done with a serious eye for detail though (just look at the screenshot above), something I also loved. Visually it made me think of Barry Lyndon at times, the use of costumes and natural light was excellent.
More than anything else though, the film offers a lot of very serious dialogue and lengthy speeches. This is done in a very realistic style. Many of these working-class men deliver speeches which drag on for what feels like an eternity, harping on about the same points. Though others do have some real dynamism. I believe some of this dialogue is taken from contemporary publications, such as Thomas Paine. But I'm not kidding, there are a hell of a lot of speeches in this film and at times it really does drag. But I suppose that is the point, we are meant to get a sense of the period. It's not a glorified account of these working-class leaders and it does make a point of showing that there was a lot of this empty rhetoric thrown about.
By the time the protest at St Peters Field actually takes place towards the end of the film you can really understand the feelings and expectations of those who went because of the careful detail that Leigh has gone in to. There is, of course, also a worrying feeling of fatalism and dramatic irony because unlike the happy masses we know what is about to happen. But the final scenes are very powerful and you get a real sense of the utter confusion and dismay felt by those who were attacked, and the tragedy of those who were killed. One criticism I might have that is that some of the wealthy characters felt a bit one-dimensional, more like sinister caricatures than actual humans. But of course there was also a lot of derision directed at the working classes as well.
All in all, a tough film and maybe an un-even one, but I certainly don't regret going to see it. I don't think it will be for everyone though.
Peterloo (2018)
Mike Leigh's new film. On the whole I thought it was very good, but certainly not an easy film to watch. It is very long, moves very slow at points and as a result is somewhat demanding. For anyone who doesn't know it concerns a massacre of working-class protesters at a peaceful rally at St Peter's Field in 1819. About 60-80,000 people gathered there to listen to the famous orator Henry Hunt and to protest against the Corn Laws, and call for parliamentary reform. Dressed in their 'Sunday best', with their wives and children they were suddenly charged by the Manchester Yeomanry and the 15th Hussars on horseback after an attempt to arrest Hunt. In the process around 15 were killed and hundreds seriously wounded; some had been hacked and slashed indiscriminately by sabres, others were trampled and crushed to death. Pretty harrowing stuff.
The bulk of the film concerns the contextual backdrop, planning, and lead-up to the protest itself. We see the poor working-classes hit hard by the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the imposition of Corn Laws (tariffs on the import of food which caused the price to soar). As a result, many are increasingly becoming attracted to reformist movements demanding increased representation in Parliament. Most were concerned with constitutional reform, but there was also a more radical undercurrent who had been influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution. The film makes a good point of differentiating between these two, but equally showing how the lines were blurred with reformers and radicals of varying hues speaking at a number of the same meetings. The establishment feared that the whole movement was infected with radicalism.
Leigh really makes a point to explain these issues which had led to Peterloo. As a historian by training obviously it didn't bother me, but some of it did feel a bit clunky, as if it was shoehorned in for the benefit of the audience - ie. awkward dinner talk about the Corn Laws by one of the families, or conversations about the suspension of Habeus Corpus. Others may simply be bored by all of this. There isn't even a whole lot of drama here either, and no main protagonist. Instead the film deals with a number of perspectives, including those of some real people (Samuel Bamford and John Bagguley for instance). It's all done with a serious eye for detail though (just look at the screenshot above), something I also loved. Visually it made me think of Barry Lyndon at times, the use of costumes and natural light was excellent.
More than anything else though, the film offers a lot of very serious dialogue and lengthy speeches. This is done in a very realistic style. Many of these working-class men deliver speeches which drag on for what feels like an eternity, harping on about the same points. Though others do have some real dynamism. I believe some of this dialogue is taken from contemporary publications, such as Thomas Paine. But I'm not kidding, there are a hell of a lot of speeches in this film and at times it really does drag. But I suppose that is the point, we are meant to get a sense of the period. It's not a glorified account of these working-class leaders and it does make a point of showing that there was a lot of this empty rhetoric thrown about.
By the time the protest at St Peters Field actually takes place towards the end of the film you can really understand the feelings and expectations of those who went because of the careful detail that Leigh has gone in to. There is, of course, also a worrying feeling of fatalism and dramatic irony because unlike the happy masses we know what is about to happen. But the final scenes are very powerful and you get a real sense of the utter confusion and dismay felt by those who were attacked, and the tragedy of those who were killed. One criticism I might have that is that some of the wealthy characters felt a bit one-dimensional, more like sinister caricatures than actual humans. But of course there was also a lot of derision directed at the working classes as well.
All in all, a tough film and maybe an un-even one, but I certainly don't regret going to see it. I don't think it will be for everyone though.
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
Today I got round to Malick's
The Tree of Life (2011)
I must say that I was not expecting CGI dinosaurs lol.
But to be serious, this is a pretty spectacular film. It veers a little on the edge of ridiculousness at some points, but pulls through, resulting in what is a pretty awe-inducing cinematic experience. More than anything it really is a visual experience, it needs to be seen.
There is a 'plot' and elements of a story, ie the story of a the eldest son as he grows from childhood innocence to adult disillusionment. And to some extent this provides the film with it's basic 'backbone', and some sense of direction. But in another sense, this is misleading and it would certainly be wrong to be expect anything remotely like a conventional drama. Rather the story unfolds as a series of vignettes, although in the latter-half it does settle down a bit more. There is little dialogue or explanation, scenes move forward with no sense of how long has passed between them. In fact this feels like a collection of memories. That certainly seems to be what is implied when we see Sean Penn's character. These parts of the film are very much bound up with his own perspective; conceptually this made me think of Tarkovsky's Mirror. Although there are other perspectives too, that of his mother and father who also provide their own voice-overs. But this story is placed with a much broader context, as broad it can get actually. Namely the entirety of the cosmos, creation and the development of life on earth. Thus Sean Penn's characters sense of existential despair, melancholy and nostalgia is simply one aspect of a much larger story. Prompted by the Job quotation at the beginning (and the sermon delivered in the film), it seems to ask "how can God allow humans to suffer?". No answer is given by Malick, but we are prompted to reflect on the mysteries of existence and the grandeur of creation.
In this respect the film is pretty close to something like Koyaanisqatsi or Baraka and visually I would say it's just as good as those. But the two are intertwined; the particular becomes subsumed by the infinite, but the film deals more with this particular - the innocence of the boys childhood, the love of a mother, an overbearing father (who nevertheless loves his son)...and later, the perspective of a man trapped in an office reflecting on his life. Even in the flashback (?) scenes we get a sense of the fathers passion for art (Brahms!), his frustrations at life, and his love for his sons despite being hard on them. All of this is treated the same along with the breathtaking shots of the universe, of nature and of the birth of life itself. Their lives, their sorrows, joys and so on gets absorbed within this immense scale, but not lost within it. It is a very theologically minded film, but deals with such an immense scale (including evolution) that it's certainly not straightforwardly Christian. But nevertheless, all things point to the fact that God is an important feature...I will probably have to think about this more, and do a bit of reading to see what others think. Next up I think I'll watch Knight of Cups.
The Tree of Life (2011)
I must say that I was not expecting CGI dinosaurs lol.
But to be serious, this is a pretty spectacular film. It veers a little on the edge of ridiculousness at some points, but pulls through, resulting in what is a pretty awe-inducing cinematic experience. More than anything it really is a visual experience, it needs to be seen.
There is a 'plot' and elements of a story, ie the story of a the eldest son as he grows from childhood innocence to adult disillusionment. And to some extent this provides the film with it's basic 'backbone', and some sense of direction. But in another sense, this is misleading and it would certainly be wrong to be expect anything remotely like a conventional drama. Rather the story unfolds as a series of vignettes, although in the latter-half it does settle down a bit more. There is little dialogue or explanation, scenes move forward with no sense of how long has passed between them. In fact this feels like a collection of memories. That certainly seems to be what is implied when we see Sean Penn's character. These parts of the film are very much bound up with his own perspective; conceptually this made me think of Tarkovsky's Mirror. Although there are other perspectives too, that of his mother and father who also provide their own voice-overs. But this story is placed with a much broader context, as broad it can get actually. Namely the entirety of the cosmos, creation and the development of life on earth. Thus Sean Penn's characters sense of existential despair, melancholy and nostalgia is simply one aspect of a much larger story. Prompted by the Job quotation at the beginning (and the sermon delivered in the film), it seems to ask "how can God allow humans to suffer?". No answer is given by Malick, but we are prompted to reflect on the mysteries of existence and the grandeur of creation.
In this respect the film is pretty close to something like Koyaanisqatsi or Baraka and visually I would say it's just as good as those. But the two are intertwined; the particular becomes subsumed by the infinite, but the film deals more with this particular - the innocence of the boys childhood, the love of a mother, an overbearing father (who nevertheless loves his son)...and later, the perspective of a man trapped in an office reflecting on his life. Even in the flashback (?) scenes we get a sense of the fathers passion for art (Brahms!), his frustrations at life, and his love for his sons despite being hard on them. All of this is treated the same along with the breathtaking shots of the universe, of nature and of the birth of life itself. Their lives, their sorrows, joys and so on gets absorbed within this immense scale, but not lost within it. It is a very theologically minded film, but deals with such an immense scale (including evolution) that it's certainly not straightforwardly Christian. But nevertheless, all things point to the fact that God is an important feature...I will probably have to think about this more, and do a bit of reading to see what others think. Next up I think I'll watch Knight of Cups.
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
I saw it in the cinema a few months ago, it's an incredible experience vs. watching at home. Enjoy.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
- Messages
- 12,700
- Reaction score
- 6,330
They serve beer and wine at this civic center too. Also took some hits of some 17% thc sativa...
I've watched the film over a dozen time I think. Once on high school i convinced my astronomy teacher, who had a projector in class to watch it. He and I were the only two people who appreciated it but it was projected on a shit surface with shit sound.
I'm six rows back...
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
Some experience huh?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
- Messages
- 12,700
- Reaction score
- 6,330
really special. True to form I recognized and thought new things while watching. What an experience! They played the film for 5 days here in taos and last night was the last day so there were maybe 45 people. Everyone there had probably watched it when it came out. I was by far the youngest and I'm 33... So good!
There were a few youngish people that were obviously seeing the film for the first time. The energy in the theatre was thick. You could feel the tension and when the reveals happened you could feel the weight... For any fan of the film or film in general this is a do not miss experience!!
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
Ok so tonight I watched
Knight of Cups (2016)
To be honest this one tested my patience. I really couldn't connect with it all that much. Whereas I thought that The Tree of Life approached something like the sublime despite having occasional moments of ridiculousness, this one felt like the opposite; mostly tedious vignettes with voices whispering over the top. There were still a few moments where it did reach that kind of Grace which Malick is clearly aiming for, but on the whole it just didn't connect with me the way The Tree of Life did, or the way Days of Heaven did, or even the way The New World did. Of course, I can understand and relate to the philosophical outlook of the film - a man disconnected from and disillusioned with the world in which lives, in this case despite Christian Bale's character being surrounded by material pleasures (Hollywood), grasping for something "more". The use of quotations from Bunyan's Pilrgrim's Progress spells out pretty explicitly this theme of a journey 'from the City of Destruction (Los Angeles in this case lol) to the Celestial City (transcendence, infinity, heaven etc.)'. It also struck me as influenced by Kierkegaardian existentialism, with Bale moving from Kierkegaard's Aesthetic stage into the Ethical over the course of the film, and aiming for the Religious phase. The Knight of Cups is an actual tarot card (which feature prominently in the film), but the title kept making me think of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. In any case, despite the fact that I engaged with it thematically, it just felt so contrived stylistically and with such little plot to hold on to (even compared to Tree of Life) that I just found myself starting to get sick of watching it. There is some great cinematography, but it just feels so incoherent. Even though I could follow what was happening to some extent, it's probably that there was no emotional connection there. A frustrating film to say the least! I'm thinking twice about watching Song to Song or To The Wonder now.
Knight of Cups (2016)
To be honest this one tested my patience. I really couldn't connect with it all that much. Whereas I thought that The Tree of Life approached something like the sublime despite having occasional moments of ridiculousness, this one felt like the opposite; mostly tedious vignettes with voices whispering over the top. There were still a few moments where it did reach that kind of Grace which Malick is clearly aiming for, but on the whole it just didn't connect with me the way The Tree of Life did, or the way Days of Heaven did, or even the way The New World did. Of course, I can understand and relate to the philosophical outlook of the film - a man disconnected from and disillusioned with the world in which lives, in this case despite Christian Bale's character being surrounded by material pleasures (Hollywood), grasping for something "more". The use of quotations from Bunyan's Pilrgrim's Progress spells out pretty explicitly this theme of a journey 'from the City of Destruction (Los Angeles in this case lol) to the Celestial City (transcendence, infinity, heaven etc.)'. It also struck me as influenced by Kierkegaardian existentialism, with Bale moving from Kierkegaard's Aesthetic stage into the Ethical over the course of the film, and aiming for the Religious phase. The Knight of Cups is an actual tarot card (which feature prominently in the film), but the title kept making me think of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. In any case, despite the fact that I engaged with it thematically, it just felt so contrived stylistically and with such little plot to hold on to (even compared to Tree of Life) that I just found myself starting to get sick of watching it. There is some great cinematography, but it just feels so incoherent. Even though I could follow what was happening to some extent, it's probably that there was no emotional connection there. A frustrating film to say the least! I'm thinking twice about watching Song to Song or To The Wonder now.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,440
- Reaction score
- 18,232
Today I got round to Malick's
The Tree of Life (2011)
I must say that I was not expecting CGI dinosaurs lol.
But to be serious, this is a pretty spectacular film. It veers a little on the edge of ridiculousness at some points, but pulls through, resulting in what is a pretty awe-inducing cinematic experience. More than anything it really is a visual experience, it needs to be seen.
There is a 'plot' and elements of a story, ie the story of a the eldest son as he grows from childhood innocence to adult disillusionment. And to some extent this provides the film with it's basic 'backbone', and some sense of direction. But in another sense, this is misleading and it would certainly be wrong to be expect anything remotely like a conventional drama. Rather the story unfolds as a series of vignettes, although in the latter-half it does settle down a bit more. There is little dialogue or explanation, scenes move forward with no sense of how long has passed between them. In fact this feels like a collection of memories. That certainly seems to be what is implied when we see Sean Penn's character. These parts of the film are very much bound up with his own perspective; conceptually this made me think of Tarkovsky's Mirror. Although there are other perspectives too, that of his mother and father who also provide their own voice-overs. But this story is placed with a much broader context, as broad it can get actually. Namely the entirety of the cosmos, creation and the development of life on earth. Thus Sean Penn's characters sense of existential despair, melancholy and nostalgia is simply one aspect of a much larger story. Prompted by the Job quotation at the beginning (and the sermon delivered in the film), it seems to ask "how can God allow humans to suffer?". No answer is given by Malick, but we are prompted to reflect on the mysteries of existence and the grandeur of creation.
In this respect the film is pretty close to something like Koyaanisqatsi or Baraka and visually I would say it's just as good as those. But the two are intertwined; the particular becomes subsumed by the infinite, but the film deals more with this particular - the innocence of the boys childhood, the love of a mother, an overbearing father (who nevertheless loves his son)...and later, the perspective of a man trapped in an office reflecting on his life. Even in the flashback (?) scenes we get a sense of the fathers passion for art (Brahms!), his frustrations at life, and his love for his sons despite being hard on them. All of this is treated the same along with the breathtaking shots of the universe, of nature and of the birth of life itself. Their lives, their sorrows, joys and so on gets absorbed within this immense scale, but not lost within it. It is a very theologically minded film, but deals with such an immense scale (including evolution) that it's certainly not straightforwardly Christian. But nevertheless, all things point to the fact that God is an important feature...I will probably have to think about this more, and do a bit of reading to see what others think. Next up I think I'll watch Knight of Cups.
I 'd rate it highly it but I do tend to think that in the comparison with Tarkovsky Malick does come across as rather on the nose at points, both in terms of visuals(an excess of capering children especially) and general theme as whilst Tarkosky obviously has strong christian references to a lot of his work I don't think they tend to dominate it to the same degree. I see there has actually been an extended cut released by Criterion recently although honestly I'm not sure the film really needs it.
I finally got around to seeing the US cut of The Shining, definitely an interesting experience. I mean on one level yes I can see the view that the European cut gives us enough to guess Jacks background with Danny but I would say introducing alcoholism as a potential cause specifically does obviously play into the scenes at the bar latter in the film as more than just a place for ghostly conversation.
The European cut to me as well seems much tightly focused on the idea of the bloody legacy of colonialism with Jack more clearly the lead character. The US cut I think has more focus on the contemporary situation, most obviously playing up the family relationship far more and arguably shifting the perspective of the film to Wendy as the lead character giving her more screen time and more of a relationship with Danny via the "Tony" character plus indeed having her see ghostly history of the hotel at the end. TV features a lot more in the US cut as well I think you could argue playing it up as a source of violence and arguably we get more of a sense of contemporary racism? you don't get anything THAT overt on Halloran's journey but I do think he's picked out as a man apart on the shot on the plane surrounded by white passengers as well as interacting with another blue collar black character.
I don't tend to go in for the more arcane theories about Kubricks films but one thing I'm wondering is what was the significance(if any) of the nude paintings in Halloran's Florida apartment? you could argue they match up with the scene with the nude woman in room 237 which in itself I'v always tended to view as the hotel getting to Jack via sexual desire but to what end?
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
Tonight I watched
The Other Side of the Wind (1976/2018)
Orson Welles final film, 48 years in the making and finally released 33 years after his death. Here we have Welles, a brilliant but egomaniacal, aging director returning to Hollywood who made an unfinished movie about a brilliant but egomaniacal, aging director returning to Hollywood, attempting to make an unfinished movie... The plot concerns this eccentric and strong-headed director, Jake Hannaford (played by the eccentric, strong-headed director John Huston) and his last day, his birthday as it turns out, prior to his death in a car accident. Amidst all this are his attempts to make this final film - hyper-sexualised with little, if anything, resembling a coherent plot. Presumably this is a parody of certain sentiments and trends within 70s arthouse cinema. We see this film screened at various points throughout Hannaford's utterly chotic birthday.
As this all suggests, The Other Side of the Wind is bursting to the seams with meta-narratives. That provided by the 'film within a fllm' directed by Hannaford, and that provided that the real life context. In addition to what was already mentioned we also have, for example, we have young New Hollywood director Peter Bogdanovich playing Hannaford's young, New Hollywood protégé. Some might not like this kind of thing, but I am a fan of metafiction (At Swim, Two Birds is one of my favourite books of all time for instance) and so this kind of thing actually appeals to me.
The film itself is a whirlwind of perspectives. In between the metanarrative we are given sharp, frequent cuts and multiple film stocks - from 35mm to 16mm, from colour to black-and-white at different points. As well as this, there are cameras, and people holding cameras and talking about cameras, everywhere you look. Visually it's like a history of Hollywood from Citizen Kane and Film Noir up to the contemporary New Hollywood of the 1970s, as well as a comment on the nature of mass-media. The effect of all this can be somewhat disorienting at points, but equally it provides the film with a feeling of non-stop dynamism. It feels extremely vibrant and actually rather fresh, even ahead of it's time despite it's release being belated by several decades. Ultimately it's a film about making films, about the culture of Hollywood one which really takes a scalpel to dissect that from within. There are some really funny, witty moments, as well as more serious ones.
All in all, somewhat difficult to process, I literally just finished watching it; but it is certainly quite the experience and Welle's genius is evident throughout. Essential viewing for serious movie fans, whether they are Welles buffs or not (I am certainly not).
The Other Side of the Wind (1976/2018)
Orson Welles final film, 48 years in the making and finally released 33 years after his death. Here we have Welles, a brilliant but egomaniacal, aging director returning to Hollywood who made an unfinished movie about a brilliant but egomaniacal, aging director returning to Hollywood, attempting to make an unfinished movie... The plot concerns this eccentric and strong-headed director, Jake Hannaford (played by the eccentric, strong-headed director John Huston) and his last day, his birthday as it turns out, prior to his death in a car accident. Amidst all this are his attempts to make this final film - hyper-sexualised with little, if anything, resembling a coherent plot. Presumably this is a parody of certain sentiments and trends within 70s arthouse cinema. We see this film screened at various points throughout Hannaford's utterly chotic birthday.
As this all suggests, The Other Side of the Wind is bursting to the seams with meta-narratives. That provided by the 'film within a fllm' directed by Hannaford, and that provided that the real life context. In addition to what was already mentioned we also have, for example, we have young New Hollywood director Peter Bogdanovich playing Hannaford's young, New Hollywood protégé. Some might not like this kind of thing, but I am a fan of metafiction (At Swim, Two Birds is one of my favourite books of all time for instance) and so this kind of thing actually appeals to me.
The film itself is a whirlwind of perspectives. In between the metanarrative we are given sharp, frequent cuts and multiple film stocks - from 35mm to 16mm, from colour to black-and-white at different points. As well as this, there are cameras, and people holding cameras and talking about cameras, everywhere you look. Visually it's like a history of Hollywood from Citizen Kane and Film Noir up to the contemporary New Hollywood of the 1970s, as well as a comment on the nature of mass-media. The effect of all this can be somewhat disorienting at points, but equally it provides the film with a feeling of non-stop dynamism. It feels extremely vibrant and actually rather fresh, even ahead of it's time despite it's release being belated by several decades. Ultimately it's a film about making films, about the culture of Hollywood one which really takes a scalpel to dissect that from within. There are some really funny, witty moments, as well as more serious ones.
All in all, somewhat difficult to process, I literally just finished watching it; but it is certainly quite the experience and Welle's genius is evident throughout. Essential viewing for serious movie fans, whether they are Welles buffs or not (I am certainly not).
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,084
Yeah, I suppose curiosity will eventually get the better of me but not sure about this Criterion cut considering it's something like an extra 40 mins. As you say, is it really necessary?
This is actually news to me! I didn't know that there was a different cut for the US market, I will have to get round to this myself some time.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,440
- Reaction score
- 18,232
About 25 mins longer so not insignificant at all, came out on as one of those "premium collection" Blu-ray's awhile ago in the UK.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,440
- Reaction score
- 18,232
Bernardo Bertolucci has died aged 77...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46342644
The Comformist definitely stands out as one of my favourites and I think you can see the influence of Coppola pretty strongly in The first two Godfathers and Apoc Now. I'v not seen Last Tango in Paris or The Last Emperor in probably 15-20 years so might have to get around to rewatching them, never seen 1900 either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46342644
The Comformist definitely stands out as one of my favourites and I think you can see the influence of Coppola pretty strongly in The first two Godfathers and Apoc Now. I'v not seen Last Tango in Paris or The Last Emperor in probably 15-20 years so might have to get around to rewatching them, never seen 1900 either.
