love

Author Topic: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons  (Read 75805 times)

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #280 on: November 15, 2016, 09:48:07 AM »
I've watched The Killers and will review it later today (spoiler : I liked it better than Double Indemnity) but I noticed that I started this thing exactly one year ago. Well, technically the first review went up a day after that, but you get the point.

When I started, I listed 30 marathons comprised of 177 films, but with the addition of the three 2016 marathons Josh & Adam did (Elaine May, Contemporary Nordic Cinema and Luis Bunuel), the count is up to 195. Of those, I've finished 12 marathons (with Bunuel and Noir ongoing) and watched 81 films, which amounts to 6.75 films a month. Which means that, if I stay on that rythm, I'll be done in about a year and five months. That doesn't account for any new marathons that might pop up in the meantime though, so realistically I'll be done in about two years at the most... which is pretty long, but hey, I knew that going in. Anyway, time for pointless stats, because numbers are fun.

81 films (including rewatches)
33 Black and white / 48 Colours

Median/average year : 1966/1964
Oldest/Most recent : The Birth of a Nation (1915) / 1001 gram (2014)
1 film from the 1910's
6 from the 1920's
8 from the 1930's
10 from the 1940's
11 from the 1950's
7 from the 1960's
18 from the 1970's
10 from the 1980's
3 from the 1990's
4 from the 2000's
3 from the 2010's

Median/average length : 101/106
Shortest/Longest : Un chien andalou (16 minutes) / Andrey Rublyov (205 minutes)
2 under 60 minutes
3 between 60 and 80 minutes
9 between 80 and 90 minutes
25 between 90 and 100 minutes
24 between 100 and 120 minutes
12 between 120 and 150 minutes
5 between 150 and 180 minutes
1 over 180 minutes

Median/average rating : 7/6,41
1/10 : 1
2/10 : 4
3/10 : 7
4/10 : 6
5/10 : 5
6/10 : 9
7/10 : 20
8/10 : 19
9/10 : 6
10/10 : 4

Five favourite discoveries, celebrated in gif form of course :

Andrey Rublyov (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)



Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero, 1978)



Strangers on a Train (Alfred Hitchcock, 1951)



Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)



Fitzcarraldo (Werner Herzog, 1982)

Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #281 on: November 15, 2016, 02:47:45 PM »
smirnoff would condone your method of celebrating your five picks. 

I applaud your commitment to this. I know I would never last more than a couple of months at a similar rhythm, and I doubt any force on Earth could make me watch four (or however many it was) Tarkovskys in one month. There are a few other marathons I would have trouble with. So kudos to you.


(What marathon was Romero from ? And thanks for the extra nudge to rewatch Strangers by the way.)

Now for the important part:

STATS!

*does a little stats dance*

1. You've watched 15 new movies made before 1940 with this project. Is that a significant increase on your knowledge of that period ?
2. Did you detect a trend in your preferences regarding black and white or coloured movies with this selection ?
3. Did you dread those 18 movies that were over two hours long at all ?
4. Considering those average and median, do you still believe this to be a worthwhile endeavour ?
5. Is this too many questions ?
6. What are the other 9/10s ?
7. What were your favourite and least favourite marathons ?

Now good luck and solider on!


NB: You may want to post a link to that post on your index post.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #282 on: November 15, 2016, 03:17:49 PM »
Have you had bad experiences with Tarkovsky DH ? There wasn't a whole Tarkovsky marathon in this case, they did an "Overlooked Auteurs" thing early on that had 2 Fuller, 2 Tarkovsky and 2 Ozu, so the super-long super-slow Soviet masterpieces were kept to a minimum. Coincidentally (unless my subconscious was trying to do something), quite some time passed between films at that particular point in my marathon because I was focusing on rewatches in anticipation for my top 100 Club month.

Dawn of the Dead was in the Horror marathon. Since you're doing your own version of Noir-vember it seems, you should definitely watch Strangers, since that's apparently considered Noir. Regardless, it's very good and Robert Walker is fun.

1. Very significant. Like, hugely, which is part of the reason I got into this. The vast majority of pre-1940's film I've seen are from this marathon, still.

2. I didn't really think about that. I don't see them as being substantially different... or at least I don't have a clear preference. I might look at the numbers to see if there's a noticeable difference, but I doubt it.

3. Well... To a degree, yes. I certainly dreaded Andrey Rublyov, even though I had loved Solyaris, and especially Birth of a Nation because that had a combination of factors working against it (which made it a relatively pleasant surprise, racism notwithstanding). The other I remember being weary of was West Side Story, and I loved that too, so I guess I just like long movies. Except The Wild Bunch, that was just unpleasant.

4. Absolutely. Looking at my ratings curve on Letterbox'd, 7 is my median overall... I guess I expected the average to be higher than this, but I think the bad ones are easier to get through because I know I'm watching them for a specific purpose (and can look forward to hearing whether or not Adam & Sam/Josh shared my experience).

5. There's no such thing as too many questions.

6. Solyaris (rewatch), West Side Story and Songs from the Second Floor.

7. Hmmm. Well if I look strictly based on ratings my favorite would be Animation, but... I knew I liked Animation already, and had already seen two of them. I think Hitchcock ends up being my favourite, because it's the one where I had the easiest time drawing connections between the films : I remember noticing early on that almost all the films featured stairs in prominent and interesting scenes, and then I got to Vertigo and went "well, duh".
As far as my least favorite... overlooked Auteurs, probably. It had my favourite and my least favourite films so far (Andrey Rublyov and The Big Red One), but mostly it just didn't have the benefits of a marathon, which is contextualisation.

Thanks, and will do.  :)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 03:19:36 PM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #283 on: November 15, 2016, 04:10:45 PM »
Aaand back on track.

The Killers (Robert Siodmak, 1946)



Adam & Sam's takes (starts at 34:46)

From my perspective, which is that of a Noir Philistine*, The Killers looks and feels more like the idea I have of noir than anything I've seen so far. I don't exactly know what it is... actually I think I do, and it's Ava Gardner. Not only her of course, but her first scene is exactly what I picture when I think "femme fatale", and Burt Lancaster's reaction of stunned infatuation seems like the most natural thing in the world. I struggled a bit with Lancaster here (as Adam & Sam did), but ultimately I think he's excellent. Yeah he plays his character like a dummy which feels counterintuitive for a Noir protagonist... they're supposed to be clever men who get in trouble because of a woman, not dummies from the start, right ? In thise case I think it works because of the story's structure.

The structure in question is more reminiscent of Citizen Kane than Double Indemnity, and I'm left wondering if that film could have worked better with us following Robinson's character as he uncovered various aspects of the plot... but let's stay on target. This is why I think Lancaster's performance works well : he's a tragic character from the start, and his relative stupidity is made up by the fact that we're following a more satistfyingly clever investigator in Edmond O'Brien's Jim Reardon. Now the plot is... wonky, tying itself into knots that lead to necessary contrivances, and that's certainly a problem, but one that I ultimately got over, because...

It just looks great. There's the opening, of course, and I wasn't that surprised to discover that the first five minutes were all that Hemingway wrote, because the dialogue in particular seemed to be on a higher-level there... but I think it'd be unfair to reduce the film to a disappointment after that scene. Partly because of Ava Gardner, who might not give as good a performance as Stanwyck, but just oozes sensuality and danger. The direction is simply masterful : there's that shot of Lancaster's girlfriend looking at him looking at Gardner, the heist and the final in the restaurant... but yes, the best scene comes right at the start. I don't know if Hemingway invented the kind of patter we now associate with pairs of wiseguys on the job (this has got to be one of Tarantino's numerous sources of inspiration), but it feels iconic regardless. Charles McGraw and especially William Conrad are perfect, and the whole scene just completely pulls you in. What follows might not be quite on that level, but it's close enough for me.

8/10

*Apparently the right translation for "béotien", ie someone who is ignorant in a particular domain ? I guess we think Greeks are dumb but you guys are all about those Palestinians, huh ? Let's not think about that too much.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 04:16:44 PM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #284 on: November 15, 2016, 04:11:40 PM »
I don't have a Tarkosvky problem. I have a long movie problem that has led me to not watch the Solyaris that has been on my filmshelf for two years.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #285 on: November 15, 2016, 04:15:02 PM »
I don't have a Tarkosvky problem. I have a long movie problem that has led me to not watch the Solyaris that has been on my filmshelf for two years.

I see. Well, if you like slow, beautiful and sometimes/often confounding sci-fi reflections on the human condition, you should pull the trigger. But you know that already.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #286 on: November 15, 2016, 04:43:35 PM »
Yeah well, I am still going to wait until I am out of noir.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #287 on: November 15, 2016, 10:05:30 PM »
smirnoff would condone your method of celebrating your five picks.





the bad ones are easier to get through because I know I'm watching them for a specific purpose (and can look forward to hearing whether or not Adam & Sam/Josh shared my experience).

That does seem like a fun consolation prize. :)

I may watch along when you get to the 70's Sci-fi marathon. I haven't seen a single one of those films.

I haven't seen a great many of the classics from these marathons but the ones I have I find you tend to come down in the same ballpark.  When it's all said and done maybe I'll just watch everything you rated 9's and 10's. :)) I trust your ratings.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 10:08:48 PM by smirnoff »

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #288 on: November 16, 2016, 12:08:17 AM »
The Killers (Robert Siodmak, 1946)

From my perspective, which is that of a Noir Philistine*, The Killers looks and feels more like the idea I have of noir than anything I've seen so far. I don't exactly know what it is... actually I think I do, and it's Ava Gardner. Not only her of course, but her first scene is exactly what I picture when I think "femme fatale", and Burt Lancaster's reaction of stunned infatuation seems like the most natural thing in the world. I struggled a bit with Lancaster here (as Adam & Sam did), but ultimately I think he's excellent. Yeah he plays his character like a dummy which feels counterintuitive for a Noir protagonist... they're supposed to be clever men who get in trouble because of a woman, not dummies from the start, right ?

When I saw you were watching this film I thought it might give you that comparison between MacMurray as weak man and the ever heroic Lancaster in a weak role; and you explained the differences in emphasis beautifully. Neff is central while the man in the bedroom waiting to die is a stop on the road. So two differences; the utter brilliance of the writing of Wilder/Chandler/Cain of a terminally unsympathetic character (which starts to predominate on rewatches in my experience). The other difference is that Stanwyck acts the role of femme but Gardner IS the role. I think of Gardner when I think of femme fatale. Double Indemnity was a background noir for me for a long time until the writing came through so powerfully the last time. It's a prime example of no bad characters just bad writing.

Also shadows. It might feel more noirish for that reason. The standout moment in this film is the camera movement during the heist scene. I don't go looking for these technical moment in films; they have to serve the film and then I'll see how effectively they convey the story or emotion. In this case; Siodmak cases the joint for us with a crane movement. Sheer joy!

You mentioned Conrads presence over McGraw but he's an actor in noir who jumps out of the screen because of his work in other noir like Narrow Margin. Again, less acting more sheer presence. There's a visceral emotion that comes through in noir that people are part animal. Zola called it acting on your senses not on your character. People like Marie Windsor or William Talman or the greats like Widmark and Ryan who are exuding pheromones almost more than they are acting.  ;D
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 12:12:51 AM by verbALs »
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #289 on: November 16, 2016, 02:16:32 AM »
I may watch along when you get to the 70's Sci-fi marathon. I haven't seen a single one of those films.

That 70's Sci-Fi Marathon, squarely between Ingmar Bergman and Pedro Almodovar... will be an interesting change of pace, would be very interested to see you follow along. I guess that'll be in January, probably. That and Blaxploitation are the most intriguing marathons to me, no idea how they'll go.

I haven't seen a great many of the classics from these marathons but the ones I have I find you tend to come down in the same ballpark.  When it's all said and done maybe I'll just watch everything you rated 9's and 10's. :)) I trust your ratings.

Feeling the pressure now ! I'll think about that the next time I rate a 3-hour extravaganza. ;D

The other difference is that Stanwyck acts the role of femme but Gardner IS the role.

That's an excellent way to put it.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

 

love