|
Post by AD on Dec 1, 2010 4:12:22 GMT -5
Well, November was a let down after a solid start in October, but this thing will catch on yet, you just watch.
Let’s get to it, shall we?
Challenge: Watch any film released in the 1960’s and review it by the end of the month.
The 60’s are a particularly interesting decade to me. Everybody knows it was a period of great change throughout the world, and the cinema was no exception. The beginning of the decade saw the birth of “modern cinema” with the rise of the various European New Waves (French, Italian, British, German, etc.). By the end of the decade change had come to the American cinema in the form of the New Hollywood movement. And during this period of great innovation many of the established masters continued doing some of their finest work as well. From the classic technique of a John Ford, to the avant-garde styling of a Jean-Luc Godard, or the controversial bloodletting of a Sam Peckinpah, it really is a decade that offers something for every taste.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 1, 2010 8:16:09 GMT -5
Perfect timing! I just got the Criterion Collection's New Hollywood box set in the mail yesterday, so i'll watch Head and Easy Rider. Additionally, I know i'm watching The Birds and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? for school, and probably Clouzot's La vérité for a paper.
Some recommendations:
The Apartment (Wilder, 1960) - Arguably Wilder's best, arguably the finest comedy ever made in Hollywood.
Billy Liar (Schlesinger, 1963) - My favorite of the British New Wave. A great film for our age group - cynical, angry, hopeless.
La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960) - My personal favorite Fellini, who might be my favorite director.
Elmer Gantry (Brooks, 1960) - Up there with Burt Lancaster's finest work. A blunt critique of organized religion.
Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais, 1961) - Mysterious. Intoxicating. Many people don't like it because of it's mysteries... but accept them, goddamn it.
Persona (Bergman, 1966) - Bergman is essential viewing. I picked this solely due to it's popularity, although Hour of the Wolf might be my favorite of the films that he made during the 60s.
Playtime (Tati, 1967) - The best film ever made. Well... atleast according to me at this point in time!
Two for the Road (Donen, 1967) - Romantic comedy with very modern sensibilities. Way, way, way ahead of it's time. My favorite Audrey Hepburn performance. The upcoming film Blue Valentine, with Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, rips off this film's structure (which juggles two narratives set in different points of a relationship).
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Demy, 1964) - The film that made me reconsider my disdain for musicals, which I now love whole-heartedly. A beautiful, heart-breaking movie.
And on and on and on... I haven't even begun with the Bunuels and Godards!
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 1, 2010 10:43:47 GMT -5
I've got the BBS Story Box Set on my Christmas list, so I'll be able to review from that set, too.
I'm also planning on watching Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 2, 2010 19:21:03 GMT -5
Billy Liar (Schlesinger, 1963) - My favorite of the British New Wave. A great film for our age group - cynical, angry, hopeless. I saw this when it aired on TCM over the summer. Loved it! Definitely second the recommendation... ...and add the following: In Cold Blood (Richard Brooks, 1967) - "I thought Mr. Clutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up to the time I cut his throat." An essential film from the New Hollywood era. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford, 1962) - Possibly John Ford’s best film. Almost certainly his most nuanced. Undoubtedly his most pessimistic. Features a scene stealing turn from Lee Marvin, the most bad ass movie star of all time! Army of Shadows (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1969) - This is the best Melville film that I’ve seen, and I’ve loved everything I’ve seen from the man. The Collector (William Wyler, 1965) - An incredibly subversive British thriller that followed in the footsteps of “Psycho” and “Peeping Tom” (two other sixties movies you should also see, if you haven‘t already). A new DVD is being released on Dec, 7, check it out. Shock Corridor (Samuel Fuller, 1963) - There is nothing even remotely subtle about it, but it’s still a great satire of American culture in the early sixties. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) - I’m sure nobody needs to have this movie recommended to them, but I just revisited it recently, and was once again blown away. If you haven’t seen it, do so as soon as possible. If you’ve only seen it once, see it again, and again, and at least one more time after that. It gets better every time.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 14, 2010 18:47:31 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: December 2010The Birds (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1963) Even considering the complexities of Vertigo, I don't know if there's a Hitchcock film that baffles me more than The Birds. The lack of an explanation for their attacks is interesting, but it also makes it incredibly difficult to analyze what Hitchcock is going for. Is this a film about divine punishment? There are a few shots that would suggest it. But who knows. The first half of the film is also worthy of discussion despite the fact that it becomes overlooked once the attacks start coming in greater numbers. I want to hate the first half. There are such petty, unimportant developments. The relationships are without any warmth. It's almost as if the appearance of the birds is used to bring some life to these mannered, mundane bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, I find the film's slow first half to be sort of entrancing, and you almost need that lengthy of a set up in order to get some plausibility out of the bird attacks. There is a great sense of impending danger, which is probably part of the reason that it's so difficult to sit through. Most interesting technically about the film - which is a huge contrast from just about every other Hitchcock film - is the lack of a score. His films are often known for their scores, and without exception they are aided significantly by them. This film, on the other hand, is so quiet and uncomfortable. Hitchcock, to me, is an extraordinarily theatrical director. In one of his most eccentric, absurd works it's curious that his style seems to be more linked with realism than his familiar theatricality. My MMC History:
12/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/5 10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 16, 2010 18:30:17 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: December 2010Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (dir. Robert Aldrich, 1964) This was the last film that we watched in my Bette Davis class, and it was a good bookend to the series of films. There are a number of homages to her previous efforts - most notably Jezebel and The Letter - and she's as wild and fiery as ever. Watching her shout "You're a vile, sorry little bitch!" is worth the time investment. Somehow the film received a multitude of Oscar nominations. It's not very good. It's a gorgeous looking movie, but Aldrich makes some comical choices in his directing. There's one scene in which Olivia de Havilland notices a vile is missing from a table. Aldrich focuses on the table, fades in an image of the vile there, and then finally zooms in to the empty spot just to further cement the point that it's missing. It's the equivalent of a cartoon in which a character has something hidden in their pocket and the audience is given x-ray vision in order to see it. As ridiculous as the whole ordeal is, there is pleasure to be had in it's absurdity. I'd never seen Olivia de Havilland quite like this, and Bette Davis is out-of-her-god-damned-mind, shotgun wielding and all. As big as the performance is, though, it's also a good one. The opening credit sequence is an extended take on Davis' face in which she really gets a chance to showcase the extraordinary control of her facial muscles. There is also an interesting hallucination sequence which is nicely acted and well-conceived. My MMC History:
12/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/5 12/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/5 10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 18, 2010 17:12:47 GMT -5
THE SWORD OF DOOM (Kihachi Okamoto, 1966) Netflix product description: “The sword is the soul. Study the soul to know the sword. Evil mind, evil sword.” Those are the words, spoken by a great warrior, that reveal the philosophy behind Kihachi Okamoto’s “The Sword of Doom.” The movie is not about that great warrior, though. Instead it focuses on a samurai who has mastered a sword fighting technique so devious that it seems to have infected his very soul. Which raises the question, is he evil because he fights this way, or does he fight this way because he is evil? Sort of an ancient Japanese variation on the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. Also an interesting argument for the ritualism of martial arts. Those who follow an honorable style will remain pure of spirit, while those who fight with dubious tactics will be damned by their own power. The plot basically takes us from one bloody sword fighting scene to the next. Usually featuring one master samurai squared off against a horde of inferior swordsmen, allowing the film to build one seriously high body count. These scenes provide great entertainment value, but what I found most interesting about the story is how it inverts the roles in a standard revenge thriller plot. Because the film is about the villain, and those seeking vengeance are only in the peripherals, the viewer doesn’t care about seeing him get his comeuppance. Actually, even though he shows no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and we recognize the need for him to die, we would prefer him to continue living, if only because he’s so interesting to watch. The great actor Tatsuya Nakadai is more than up to the task of bringing this character to life, but I’m not sure there has ever been an actor of any nationality with more charisma than Toshirô Mifune. He makes only a brief cameo appearance in this film, but he dominates his only scene in such a powerful way that one might have thought the whole movie was about his character, if one didn’t know better. Even Nakadai, who has dominated the screen up to that point, seems to wilt in the presence of the great Mifune. It’s worth sitting through the two hours of running time for that one scene alone. It’s important to note that it’s an incomplete film. More accurately, one part of an incomplete trilogy. Thus, certain characters seem to be forgotten, several subplots are introduced near the end that appear to be pointless without the sequels, and we never do get the final showdown that seems inevitable from the start. It’s impossible to ignore the fact that these things do compromise the overall quality of the film. However, the film is still worth seeing for those extraordinary swordfights, the quality of the performances, and for the study of an extremely memorable villain.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 18, 2010 18:05:44 GMT -5
I love The Sword of Doom! It's the only Okamoto film i've seen. The ending is out-of-control.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 18, 2010 20:52:28 GMT -5
Yeah, the ending is pretty great. I found it more than a little jarring when I first watched it, but the more I thought about it, the more satisfying it became. It's certainly more interesting than the standard "you killed my brother, now you must die" climactic fight scene.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 19, 2010 20:36:34 GMT -5
TRUE GRIT (Henry Hathaway, 1969) IMDB plot synopsis: I have to admit that part of the reason I chose the sixties as this month’s focus was so I could review the original “True Grit” before seeing the Coen brothers’ remake when it’s released later this month. It was the first John Wayne movie I ever saw, and very likely the first true western I ever sat through as well. I’ve grown to love The Duke, and the western has been a favorite genre of mine for years now, but for some reason I’ve just never connected with this film. Revisiting it recently, I was able to pinpoint a couple reasons why I don’t believe it to be the classic it’s touted as. The direction of Henry Hathaway is, at times, almost laughable. There are a few unforgivable discontinuities, like when Mattie wades across a river in water up to her horse’s neck, and both her and her horse come out completely dry on the other side. Hathaway was a well respected director in his day, but he appears to have been on autopilot here. I personally just think the whole movie finds the wrong tone. With a story that seems meant as a meditation on the very nature of violence and our skewed ideas of justice, the film is reduced to light hearted entertainment. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems like a wasted opportunity to me. It also doesn’t help that the comedic elements aren’t amusing to me at all. Those things can be more or less forgiven or overlooked, but what can’t is that Kim Darby is nearly insufferable in the role of young Mattie Ross. As the character upon whom the emotional weight of the entire script lies, she provides dialogue so wooden Keanu Reeves would be embarrassed by it. Who could possibly care when she is in danger? Not me. The only pleasure I get from this film is from watching John Wayne in action. It’s far from his best role (the Oscar he got was likely more of a lifetime achievement award), but if one enjoys The Duke, then one can find at least a little bit of fun in watching “True Grit.”
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 22, 2010 23:28:03 GMT -5
A TOUCH OF ZEN (King Hu, 1969) Netflix product description: If David O. Selznik had produced martial arts movies, or David Lean had directed them, they might’ve turned out something like “A Touch of Zen,” the three hour epic from legendary Hong Kong director King Hu. With it’s combination of high-flying action, broad comedy, sweeping romance, and spiritual philosophy, this is undoubtedly a film that inspired the more recent great “wuxia” movies from directors Ang Lee (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) and Zhang Yimou (“Hero,” “House of Flying Daggers”). The film is broken into two parts, and each one has it’s own opening credit sequence, so I’m thinking it was originally intended to be shown in theaters as two separate films (think “Kill Bill”). The odd thing about this is that the climactic scene from the end of part one (a fantastic battle in a bamboo forest) is replayed in it’s entirety at the beginning of part two. It’s an extremely entertaining sequence, so I didn’t mind watching it twice, but it does make for some awkward pacing when watching the whole thing in one sitting. Otherwise, the three hours absolutely flies by because “A Touch of Zen” is a grand entertainment, and a true masterpiece of it’s genre.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 31, 2010 18:56:14 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: December 2010Alphaville (dir. Jean-Luc Godard, 1965) Godard is one of the few great directors that I just don't get. I love Vivre sa vie and the underrated Les carabiniers, but a lot of his body-of-work just leaves me cold. While I enjoy the first half of films like Pierrot le fou or even Alphaville, I find that they grow tiresome due to Godard's constant refusal to adhere to basic narrative techniques, which at some point I feel are needed. Godard famously said that all you need to make a picture is a girl and a gun, however I find many of his films so emotionally vacant that I don't find them particularly sexy or thrilling. Alphaville is a perfect response to people like me. The city of Alphaville is familiar of the dystopian science fiction genre - there's no emotion, no art, no ambiguities. We sense that Alphaville itself is Godard's view of the realm of cinema and the critics within it - a creatively castrating opposition. There are points in this film where characters dismiss poetry, for instance, because it's nonsensical. Godard, ever the egoist, seems to equate himself with his hero, Lemmy Caution, who battles such constricting forces. The film's aesthetic is unusual for it's genre in that, because it seems to be set in the 20th century, there are no glimpses of the familiar futuristic landscapes that we usually see in these sort of films. The set design does not strive to be anything more advanced than what was available in the 1960s. Alpha 60 is a super-computer not unlike HAL 9000, however as a character he grows tiresome with a grating, gargled narration that persists in the second half. Additionally, the concept of art as the fundamental element that makes us human takes all of five minutes to explore, and the film doesn't go in any particularly surprising or revealing directions. Ingmar Bergman harshly put it best: "Godard is a fucking bore." My MMC History:
12/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/5 12/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/5 12/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/5 10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 31, 2010 19:24:03 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: December 2010Au Hasard Balthazar (dir. Robert Bresson, 1966) Had I reviewed this film a few days ago I would have been slightly less favorable to it, but it's one that i've not been able to shake. I imagine that it will only grow finer with age. Tilda Swinton recently listed the donkey's performance in this film as the best in cinema history. Maybe that's a cheat, but the power is undeniable. Early on, I was wrestling with how I related to Balthazar. Is the tragedy that it's an animal who is dumb and unaware of life outside of essential slavery and cruelness, or is the tragedy that this is an equally competent living being who suffers just as anything else would? I do think that Bresson intends to anthropomorphize the character given a number of sequences - most notably, the long glances that Balthazar shares with a number of circus creatures. This scene gives a dialogue between the suffering animals and paints a connection of equality between various species. The most common analysis of the film, and the one that was the most apparent to me, is that Balthazar, who quite literally suffers for the sins of others throughout the film, is a christlike figure. What's also interesting is that the female protagonist, Marie, is christened with a holy name as well, and she is subjected to an equal amount of abuse throughout. Bresson, a Catholic, seems to be portraying a society that thinks little of religion, arguing that the world has forgotten God. My sole reservation about the film is how unrelentingly bleak it is. As a cynic, this is the world that I relate to and find most harrowing. However, I felt like there's something missing in that there is no contrasted society that is happy and secure. Everyone seems equally miserable, and the only "ups" we see are brief childhood flashbacks. Had these been extended, maybe the sense of loss would have added to the heartbreaking pathos. As it is, the characters suffer no fall, rather they're in an equal plane of misery throughout the entirety of the runtime. My MMC History:
12/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/5 12/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/5 12/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/5 12/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/5 10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 31, 2010 20:16:12 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: December 2010Le bonheur (dir. Agnès Varda, 1965) "Le bonheur" translates to "happiness", which is an unusual title for a film so disturbing. But isn't the pursuit of happiness one that is selfish? Don't people need to be miserable for others to be happy? I'm not as familiar with Varda as I should be. I've seen Cleo from 5 to 7 and two of her recent documentaries, The Beaches of Agnès and The Gleaners and I. All of them have simply floored me. In 2011, I vow to see as much of her work as I possibly can. She is rapidly emerging as one of my favorite filmmakers. One of the things that most fascinated me about this film was studying how a female's voice influenced the material. What's particularly smart about this film is that François isn't exactly an evil guy when compared to the cheating husbands of similar melodramas. Over and over again, he expresses that he does love his wife and that his relationship with Émilie is beneficial to him because it offers him something completely different than what he gets from his Thérèse. He's selfish and naive, but his intentions - the pursuit of happiness - are not poor. The women in the film are presented in deep contrast with one another. Thérèse, the obedient wife, is seen in soft-focused, dreamlike sequences such as an early picnic. Émilie is characterized as a sexually liberated vixen, and her appearance literally unravels the film's techinique. The editing changes drastically with her appearances, as alluded to in the opening credits, and later examined most notably in a series of rapidfire shot-reverse-shots between Émilie and François. Along with the fascinating editing choices, Varda uses a number of unusual color techniques - she fades out into and in from various hues which seem to have no practical significance to the film. Such artistic choices are not only beneficial as being distinct and inspired, but they enhance the material rather than suffocating it. This is modern, stylish cinema at it's finest. My MMC History:
12/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/5 12/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/5 12/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/5 12/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/5 12/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/5 10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 31, 2010 20:47:51 GMT -5
Well, I had planned to write some more reviews this month, but the holidays really cut into my me time more than I had planned (laziness played a role, too). I suppose this will have to do:
THE VIRGIN SPRING (Ingmar Bergman, 1960) - I stupidly put off seeing this movie for a long time. Having seen Wes Craven’s “The Last House On the Left” I thought that I wouldn’t be able to fully enjoy the film upon which Craven based his script. Oh what a fool I was! It’s a true masterpiece, what else can I say?
LE DOULOS (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1962) - A masterpiece by the standards of most directors, but from the guy who gave us “Army of Shadows,” “Le Samourai,” “Bob Le Flambeur,” and “Le Cercle Rouge,” among others, this is only a minor work.
YOUTH OF THE BEAST (Seijun Suzuki, 1963) - I don’t really have anything too interesting to say about this movie. I’m usually pretty good at following densely plotted films, but this one was too much, even for me. It all comes together by the end, in it’s own way, but I felt like I was playing catch up the whole time. Not a bad movie, but one I don’t feel like revisiting anytime soon.
THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (Jacques Demy, 1964) - This is just an absolutely wonderful film! Lots of musicals feature great romances, but to find one that tells a love story as grownup, perceptive, and beautifully bittersweet as this movie is a rare treat. One of the most aesthetically pleasing films I’ve ever seen as well. Thanks for the recommendation, Eric.
|
|