| Author | Message | ||
     Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
Let's be honest most old movies -- even those we're told are classics -- are a chore. They feel like bad theatre flattened into two dimensions. But I've just finished watching GRAND HOTEL and as it unfolded I could not believe what I was seeing. I didn't want it to end. It has restored my faith in old films. The atmosphere is enchanting -- a luminous black and white hotel interior shot through a haze of cigarette smoke. The characters are vivid and utterly modern. It avoids traditional plot structure -- I defy anyone to predict the outcome. Some of the characters do totally unexpected things, but everything has verisimilitude. You're shocked, but not surprised at what happens. It demonstrates such a subtle understanding of the layers of human nature, self-deceit and longing, that it brought the whole of the 1930s closer to me. And that final shot... (Maybe it helps that I didn't know anything about it before watching -- that it won Best Picture in 1932 or that it was a source for one of the most famous movie lines in history.) | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
Let's be honest most old movies -- even those we're told are classics -- are a chore. Blasphemer! Name these films! | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.18.42 |
I'd say far more films released this century are. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
I did in another thread. Of the b/w ones, I think I mentioned THE THIRD MAN. Having recently re-watched it, I'm a bit baffled by the popularity of rather pointless THE MALTESE FALCON, too. (But this is supposed to be a positive thread..!) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
Let's be honest most old movies, even those we're told are classics -- are a chore. Couldn't disagree more. THE MALTESE FALCON is great: lovely performances, neat script, crisp dialogue. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
"I'd say far more films released this century are." I'm not sure about that. It was a mill back then, too, possibly producing as much throwaway star-laden formulaic rubbish as today. Anyone have the figures to hand? It's subjective, but can we calculate a % hit rate for "then" and "now"? | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 89.19.75.34 |
Of course, we're looking at the old stuff through a filter. Remove the YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHANs and leave all the THERE WILL BE BLOODs and today's movies start to look healthy too. So, GRAND HOTEL. Anyone like it? | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
Have to disagree with this. Sure, there was a lot of churned-out fluff done back in the day, when movies were cheap to make and millions went every week to see them because there weren't a lot of other options. But even a lot of the fluff is eminently watchable in a way that today's films often aren't, once you realise what they're up to: popular escapist entertainment featuring actors who often could only do one thing (wisecracking best friend; bluff old codger; comedy foreigner; formidable dowager) but usually did it very well, and designed to appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. Nowadays movies are made (usually) to appeal to one well-defined segment of the population (often 18 to 24 year old males), and while the look of modern films is often a lot better than that of older films, the scripts are often pandering to the lowest common denominator. Let's put it this way: Tim, who's 11 next week, can (and does) watch almost anything that's on Turner Classic Movies, regardless of whether it was originally intended for adults or for children; some of it (as when we watched Citizen Kane or Treasure of the Sierra Madre) might go over his head, but he can enjoy the overall experience, and I don't have to worry that he'll end up watching something I'd rather he didn't see just yet. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
Bet you wish you'd never started this thread, Proto! I love THE THIRD MAN and FALCON; however, I've also seen GRAND HOTEL and think it's a wonderful film, although it's many years since I've seen it. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.217.79 |
Yeah, it's a bit exasperating to have everyone bludgeon one sentence of my post and completely ignore the remaining three paragraphs and the subject of the thread itself. I was all excited when I posted, too. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.217.79 |
Sheep/lamb: A lot of the Marx Brothers films are pretty bad. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
"Anything further father? Shouldn't that be anything father further?" | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.217.79 |
"I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally." Maybe I'm not being fair -- we shouldn't judge the films they made to cover Chico's gambling debts. How come the least funny of them has the funniest name? | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.217.79 |
I mean Zeppo, of course. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
Wot about Gummo? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
I know what you mean Proto. I agree about Third man which bowled me over in that it annoyed the shit out of me - I wanted to stick that zither up whoever it was's arse once i realised it was NEVER GOING TO STOP. And yes, shot like 60's Batman. I think it was trying to be Wellesian because he was in it, but it failed. Reed has made much better films. I'll say a great deal of old films were bad because so many were made that are just forgotten, but when an old film is good it's good in a way ours aren't; there's an effervescent innocence about old movies that we can no longer do. But yes, folk are picking up on one sentence you wrote and ignoring the rest. I've not seen the old Grand Hotel, but have seen the sixties one with Rod Taylor, and I quite liked that one. The Marx movies did bore me on occasion. Too zany. I remember Barry Norman saying he felt it was a myth that there was a 'good old days' of film, that there was always quality in whatever era you looked at. I've always agreed with that. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.213.92 |
Gummo sounds horrible! What a movie monster that'd be. Do try to see GRAND HOTEL, Tony. It's subtle, but still has that innocence and technical crudity that makes old b/w films so magical. "The Marx movies did bore me on occasion. Too zany." They're like wibbly jelly -- fun for a bit, but you need structure too. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.62 |
"But yes, folk are picking up on one sentence you wrote and ignoring the rest." Oh, come off it, Tony. If you open a thread with a line like that, of course its going to get feedback! Proto, I haven't seen it in years, but I liked GRAND HOTEL. I'm with Ramsey regarding old films not being more of a 'chore' compared to today's. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.6.221 |
Most of the films pre-60's, I'd say (there's no hard-and-fast line, but I place it somewhere in the 60's), were plot-dominant, rather than character-dominant (not exclusive, mind - dominant). Nowadays, having an "arc," an inner-trajectory, a burning "Central Question," a Relationship-In-Transition (RIT), etc., to your protagonists, that competes in importance with plot, is expected - from the most ludicrous comedy to the most banal slasher flick, on up. Those who aren't used to, or expecting, this, might find movies < 60's feel somewhat "incomplete." It's a reaction to a whole different kind of structure in film. Most classic noirs, for example, are more morality fables, than careful character deconstructions: Character-X does something wrong, and so bad-things-Y is the inevitable result (don't forget the Hollywood Code). But overpowering plot is the mechanism for these bad things, and the overwhelming focus of the film. In the vast majority of pre-60's films, there's very little introspection, ethical/moral dilemmas, existential questions, etc., that affect critical RIT's - either the Protagonist with him/herself, or with another/s. These RIT's are vital to our film experience today. We so expect RIT's now... on most TV shows too!... that it's difficult to remember a time when we did not... if we even think about it at all.... Yes, yes, I'm being general, there's lots of "exceptions"; but, they're all exceptions - and they stand out mightily, like THE HEIRESS. And if one doesn't accept the structure of the time, and rebels with today's expectations, then all sorts of films will be tossed mindlessly under the bus. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
But Huw! he said this; 'It has restored my faith in old films.' Proto's told me before he finds old films tricky, which, you know, he's entitled to say. He's saying he's been swayed again, which was surely a nice thing. It's funny but many bad films nowadays still have accomplished this element of psychological insight, and in a lot of cases we see folk being more 'natural', and it's this that makes even the worst films watchable. Some old films can feel odd, wooden, and yes, like cogs to propel a story. I do, however, love old movies for this odd sense; just the other day I watched House Of Frankenstein and it was totally unreal - fun, absolutely, but it could have been acted by puppets. What made it watchable was the total absurdity of the plot, and the imagination on show. And the simple darned sweetness of it. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.187.4 |
I agree with you, Tony! I was just saying, it's not really surprising that people are focusing on Proto's opening statement, as it's a wider issue (and therefore more likely to generate discussion) than just asking whether or not anyone liked a particular film. Sorry if I came off as snappy. My cat just died of cancer, and I've just been discussing the results of an MRI that I had the other day, which turned out to be much worse than I thought they'd be. My doctor says I have to have another spine operation soon, or I may end up permanently disabled.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Goodness, sorry to hear that, Huw. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.196.18 |
Thanks, Gary. I still have to discuss the details with my doctor at the pain clinic and a neurosurgeon, but it seems pretty definite. I'm not thrilled about it, as the last time I had surgery it didn't help. But the docs seem to think it's necessary - my lower back looks like rotting wood on the scan, and the pain is unbearable at times. Thank goodness for books, DVDs, and the internet (sorry, Joel!). | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.246 |
God, Huw, I'm so sorry to hear that. Makes gripes about movies almost trivial!  | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.213.92 |
I hope things work out for you, Huw. "Let's be honest most old movies -- even those we're told are classics -- are a chore." I stand by this. Emperor's new tracksuit, many of them. Let's chuck a few more on the fire. RIO BRAVO, HIGH NOON, REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (sorry, Tony!). On the other side, how can you not adore KING KONG or LIFEBOAT or THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN or THE SEVENTH SEAL or SUPERMAN III? By choosing technically inferior formats (DV rather than HD) David Lynch could be the spearhead for a movement back to the magic of '30s films. The lack of clarify gives "room to dream", he says. Crackly soundtracks and beautiful grain. Check out GRAND HOTEL for an example -- everything seems to glow. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.213.92 |
"God, Huw, I'm so sorry to hear that. Makes gripes about movies almost trivial!" Yeah, but Huw's post also shows how important these little things are, how they can make life worth living. How artists are as important as any other "proper" job. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.246 |
Yeah, I was aiming for that with my 'wink'. I agree these things, Proto. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.213.92 |
What, even about SUPERMAN III? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.237.56 |
Sorry to hear about your predicament, Huw. It sounds much worse than a hernia. A friend of mine was operated on two years ago and as a result he's now become addicted to painkillers (heavy stuff) which don't seem to help all that much, plus now he's beginning to lose his teeth . . . | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I confess I haven't seen Grand Hotel for many years but would happily see it again. High Noon I find as insipid as nearly all Zinneman (Act of Violence has some edge). Rio Bravo and The Third Man I can watch with intense pleasure again and again - Reed's finest along with The Fallen Idol, and one reason is that most cinematic of novelists Graham Greene). Rebel without a Cause isn't Ray's best film - that might be the grievously underrated King of Kings - but it's a considerable piece of work, and far more of a melodrama - look at the use of colour and the Scope compositions, which are hardly naturalistic - than mere social comment. It's surely the best and most eloquent use of James Dean. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
Proto - nope - RIO BRAVO, in my opinion, which, let's face it, is correct, is a wonderfully enjoyable film. You'll be telling us PSYCHO's not much bottle next... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.193.199 |
RIO BRAVO is staid and old-fashioned. The Duke is great in it, but otherwise it's one of those depressing Sunday technicolor westerns that make me want to die. The genre needs another re-invention and I hear Ridley Scott's doing one. There was DEADWOOD, which at its best was close to being modern Shakespeare. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
I think you're reacting to a feel, Proto, a sense of nausea at old times, death etc. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.200.175 |
Some old films (ie, 30's to early 60's)appear melodramatic (hence 'melodrama' of course). When I first saw Citizen Kane I was amazed at how natural some of the acting was, I don't think I have ever seen another film from the same period that seemed so natural in this way. Unless anyone can tell me otherwise..? gcw | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.200.175 |
...That teach me to skim threads! Grand Hotel I guess. gcw | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Huw, I'm really sorry to hear you're so ill. Take care. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.182.97 |
Thanks for the kind words of concern, guys. Hubert, has your friend been on methadone? I've heard it can result in teeth loss. Without going into too much detail, what I have is chronic neuropathic and muscular-skeletal pain caused by multiple ruptured disks in my back that have been pressing down on the spinal nerves for years. On top of that, this latest MRI showed bone spurs, lesions, degeneration of the bone marrow, and severe spinal stenosis. They also think that because the nerve damage has been going on so long, my nervous system may have undergone alterations which are affecting the way pain signals are transmitted. I'm going in for more neurological tests next week so I'll know more then. I've been prescribed dozens of medicines over the last sixteen years. I've been on opiates (morphine and the like), muscle relaxants, anti-depressants, anti-convulsants and just about every anti-inflammatory pain killer known to man. Some help, but most do little. The most useful have been the stronger opiates and the muscle relaxants. I am very careful with the way I use them so as to minimize tolerance (not the same thing as addiction), and they only mute the pain, rather than 'kill' it. When the pain is bad it's like having the television on at full volume. Taking the medicine is like lowering the volume so that the racket can be reduced to a more bearable background noise. It's not ideal, but it makes life a little easier. I'm hoping this operation will allow me to cut down on the medications. I'd much rather be free of them. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
Very sorry to hear all that; sounds grim, Huw, to say the least. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Lord, Huw! Get well! Rio Bravo staid? Perhaps I keep seeing a different film - Hawks in relaxed mode. Old-fashioned? Good God, Fuller (for instance in Hell and High Water) had to make an issue of the attitudes Hawks had been taking for granted in his films for decades (which isn't to denigrate Fuller as a whole). | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.4.183 |
Huw - I so respect your honesty and telling us. I've always said that 'life' should not be concealed but talked about and from that.. we can show empathy/sympathy. All of us are vulnerable. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
Bloody hell, Huw. You have my utmost sympathies with all this. Why is it that the nice guys always get fucked over in some way? :-( | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.26 |
"Hubert, has your friend been on methadone? I've heard it can result in teeth loss." He takes morphine drops. At one point a morphine pump was suggested, but he's totally opposed to that since apparently it can cause severe damage - when concentrated amounts of medication are delivered to the spinal cord the patient can move about unhindered, which he wouldn't/couldn't do when in pain. He showed me the phial and suggested I take a few drops. I was severely tempted, but declined. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.220.5 |
Good God, this is humbling. Even in person, we never know who we're really talking to. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.220.5 |
And briefly back to the shallow end of the pool... ...I didn't expect this, but the more I learn about Hawks, the less I admire him, both professionally and personally. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.220.5 |
Modern films have more bandwidth than old ones. They provide information in many separate streams (dialogue, cinematography, sound, editing). Even if the film is hollow, you can just tune into one of those channels and it can entertain separately. Many old pictures have a solid bed of music (e.g., Laurel & Hardy) and proscenium-like cinematography (though the lighting in old pictures is often stunning). So if the film as a whole doesn't grab you, you're in for a long 70 minutes + newsreel. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.242.10 |
So if the film as a whole doesn't grab you, you're in for a long 70 minutes + newsreel. Sugar-coating-bandwidths or no, Proto, nothing has changed... except now, you're in for an even longer (average) 90 minutes.... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.188.96 |
Thank you all again for your kind words and sympathy. I really appreciate it. Things are bad, but they could be a lot worse. I can still get around some of the time, albeit with difficulty, and I'm hoping that this new team of doctors I'm seeing can help me find solutions so I can strengthen my back and get back to having a normal life, or something approaching one. I know folk who have it a lot tougher than I do, and it's something I try to remind myself of as often as possible. It feels a little strange having mentioned this health problem, like I've divulged a long-kept secret! I didn't say anything specific about it before because I've become so used to it, I guess, and there didn't seem to be much point. Lately it's taken a turn for the worse, though, and I can't be sure sometimes whether it's affecting my mood (I've been diagnosed with depression too, unsurprisingly) to the extent that I'm being grouchy or snappy on the board. Apologies to anyone if I've been unreasonable at times. Hubert, I had something similar to morphine sulphate drops (basically morphine mixed with water, which come in vials for drinking) a while ago when I was back in the UK seeing doctors. I also had diamorphine (pharmaceutical heroin), which they put into my spine directly for acute pain relief after my first operation. It was very effective, but not something I'd want to take on a long-term basis. The morphine pump is something I don't want to consider at this point, at least until all other options have been tried. I'm still relatively young ('relatively' being the operative word) - the problem started back in my twenties - and I'm still hoping I can get it better somehow. I found the traditional opioids quite effective, but didn't want to be on them long-term due to the potential side effects and dependence issues. I found something that is related but much safer, and I take that mostly, with other medicines (muscle relaxants when muscle spasms are the main concern, epilepsy medication for the neuropathic pain) as needed. I'm hoping that it will not reach the stage where I need to be on something like Fentanyl or Palladone around the clock. Anyway.... I'll know more about my situation and the options for surgery and/or other treatment after my next couple of appointments. Thanks again everyone for being so supportive. ;-) | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.243.132 |
What we recognise as medicine is only about a century old. It's making astronishing progress in many areas so you never know what breakthroughs are imminent. Who would have thought Alzheimer's could be affected by a simple pill, but a couple of months ago it was announced that a trial drug seems to slow it down a lot if diagnosed early. There's YouTube footage somewhere of man with a mechanical hand, controlled by his thoughts in a way similar to a normal hand. It's a cliche, but there IS always hope. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
Hey Huw you have my sympathies - that all sounds utterly miserable. I hope something can be done to at least stabilise the situation. I used to work for a surgeon who claimed that as Welshmen we have inherited weaker backs anyway from our ancestors having been stabbed there so many times by the English. So now you know who to blame ;-> | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.4.183 |
Now that Lord P - made me spill coffee all over my keyboard :>) That usually happens with Joel's puns too. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"Modern films have more bandwidth than old ones. They provide information in many separate streams (dialogue, cinematography, sound, editing). Even if the film is hollow, you can just tune into one of those channels and it can entertain separately." I see what you mean, but in a way, why bother? Surely it's the totality of the work that's important. And hang on, didn't all films since the advent of sound cinema have all those elements? "Many old pictures have a solid bed of music (e.g., Laurel & Hardy) and proscenium-like cinematography (though the lighting in old pictures is often stunning). So if the film as a whole doesn't grab you, you're in for a long 70 minutes + newsreel." I don't think you're saying this, but to protest that there isn't more to a Laurel and Hardy film seems to me like complaining that a solo cello suite doesn't have an orchestra backing it up. Some of the greatest films have been made with a static or virtually static camera. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.212.164 |
"I see what you mean, but in a way, why bother? Surely it's the totality of the work that's important." It's very rare that a film succeeds on all levels. The films I love most dearly tend to be lopsided diamonds. PAPERHOUSE, at least in its DVD incarnation, has simply dreadful sound. THE EVIL DEAD (which I believe will be on film school syllabi one day) has dreadful sound and is badly lit. HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG, though having many of the problems common to a novel adaptation, demonstrates wonderful blocking and editing (the scene where Kingsley changes into a suit in a hotel bathroom violates the 180 degree rule to great effect -- halfway through it, the character effectively swaps places with his own reflection). "And hang on, didn't all films since the advent of sound cinema have all those elements?" Yes, but at a much lower level of sophistication. Old films either work or don't work in totality because their ratio of noise to signal is so high. (Sometimes literally: paper props in early film had to be kept wet because the microphones were too sensitive to high-frequency crackles.) Technical artists were working against a lot of visual or audible "noise", which explains a lot of the crudities. If an old picture works holistically then that noise -- the crackle of the soundtrack, the flash of a cigarette burn -- is just a final pinch of fairy dust alighting on something wonderful. If the soul of the film isn't right, it's very difficult to tease its elements apart to appreciate them separately. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.212.164 |
"I don't think you're saying this, but to protest that there isn't more to a Laurel and Hardy film seems to me like complaining that a solo cello suite doesn't have an orchestra backing it up. Some of the greatest films have been made with a static or virtually static camera." I guess we're talking about the size of the palette, which of course has no effect on the quality of the art. But if there isn't much modulation in (for example) staging then that's one less possible channel for creativity, one less way the film can entertain. I do truly love Laurel & Hardy, by the way. We've come to accept the background music -- has anyone ever tried removing it? Sacrilige? Today's sheep/lamb: they might also be funnier in bullet time. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.26 |
"to protest that there isn't more to a Laurel and Hardy film seems to me like complaining that a solo cello suite doesn't have an orchestra backing it up." Funnily enough, the first Laurel & Hardy's I saw (at a very tender age) made me wonder about the kind of society these people lived in - no colour, everyone behaving in extraordinary ways . . . After watching the Keystone Cops I'd always come away with a feeling of boy, we've sure come a long way since then  | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
I watched some Laurel and Hardy recently and became taken with what was going on in the background, which was entirely natural in a lot of scenes - cars goind by, people walking about, impervious to the filming. It was essentially a document of olden times, one with no narrative or agenda but entirely absorbing nonetheless. I can't decide on the background music in these old movies. Sometimes it feels right, like in Gone with the Wind, and others - as in the aforementioned Third Man - you (I) really do wish it would just stop. It's like a phone going off at a play - permanently - and every bit as annoying. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.246 |
And Proto - someone! - has seen House of Sand and Fog! At last. I really liked that one. What did you think? You know, that sense of him (Kingsley) becoming his reflection might have been intentional now I think about it. It would fit. What a tough film. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
There's a lot to like in it. My favourite detail is Behrani eating a Marathon bar in the convenience store where he works, then carefuly writing it into the ledger. I loved him for that. But when things go wrong at the end it seems melodramatic, less real, than when things were ordinary and mopey. It feels like an adaptation of a novel -- a few too many things happen. One tip -- don't listen to the commentary. It's a nauseating back-slapping session. The writer and director refer to him as "Sir Ben" throughout (presumably at his request). | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Proto, I find CGI virtually unwatchable because I'm not actually seeing anything: it's not a special effect, it's not animation, it's just someone twiddling dials. What you describe as the unreality of 'old' films only happens to me with very early (pre-1930) silent films, and not always then. I must admit to an intense fondness for THE MALTESE FALCON – a great adaptation of a groundbreaking crime novel. There are four reasons why it's a classic: 1. Hammett was ripping the piss out of the Knights Templar nonsense before Dan Brown had even been born. 2. Bogart and Lorre between them have more fun with the sexual ambiguity of Hammett's dialogue than you'd have thought possible in those days. I've been known to use 'Joel Cairo' as an Internet handle... 3. It's a critique of capitalism – it mocks the mystique and worship of money, and says clearly that money only has value because we fabricate that value. That was even harder to get away with than sexual ambiguity. 4. The closing line – almost the only thing not taken from the novel – is a moment of pure brilliance. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I agree with all of that, Joel. Number 3 is echoed at the end of Treasure of the Sierra Madre, do you think? But for me the great Hammett film - the one that best conveys the sense that all the characters are corrupt or (in the nominal hero's case) blindly loyal to someone who is - is The Glass Key. I prefer it to the Coen Brothers remake. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
"Proto, I find CGI virtually unwatchable because I'm not actually seeing anything: it's not a special effect..." Me too. I'm not arguing in favour of CGI, except when used subtly. Listening to the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN commentaries is jaw-dropping when they casually mention that they removed some of the actor's blinks, or made his eyes glance elsewhere. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it could corrode the reality of the moment. I almost feel sorry for the Knights Templar -- has any other smear campaign has lasted almost a millennium? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Ramsey, I haven't seen the film of THE GLASS KEY but the novel is astonishing. One of the most powerful crime novels I've ever read. And yes, THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE is a critique of the mystification of money – quite straightforward and conventional on the surface, perhaps, but far-reaching as a political allegory. |