Author Topic: Top 100 Club: Teproc  (Read 17219 times)

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 18937
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2019, 07:42:04 PM »
I watched the extended version this week, and I think Sam hit on all the major weaknesses.  Still enjoyable, but not his best.  I have more hope for his Hollywood film.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17641
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2019, 10:45:54 PM »
I don't get the n-word thing here, these characters would use it and it is relevant for it to be used

Funny how QT keeps coming up with scenarios where the characters would use the n-word, though, isn't it?

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #72 on: July 28, 2019, 04:09:00 AM »
I don't get the n-word thing here, these characters would use it and it is relevant for it to be used

Funny how QT keeps coming up with scenarios where the characters would use the n-word, though, isn't it?

I don't remember it being used at all in Reservoir Dogs, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds or any of the Kill Bills. He made two films that take place in 19th Century US and feature black people, and two centered around L.A. criminals (going to assume it's used at some point in Jackie Brown though I'm not entirely sure). It's not exactly a stretch.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35723
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #73 on: July 28, 2019, 04:18:38 AM »
Mr. Pink says it when breaking up a fight in Dogs. I’m happy to report it doesn’t occur in Hollywood.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17641
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #74 on: July 28, 2019, 10:44:54 PM »
I don't get the n-word thing here, these characters would use it and it is relevant for it to be used

Funny how QT keeps coming up with scenarios where the characters would use the n-word, though, isn't it?

I don't remember it being used at all in Reservoir Dogs, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds or any of the Kill Bills. He made two films that take place in 19th Century US and feature black people, and two centered around L.A. criminals (going to assume it's used at some point in Jackie Brown though I'm not entirely sure). It's not exactly a stretch.

You're missing my point. Those scenarios aren't forced on him, HE IS CHOOSING THEM. And choosing to use the n-word under the guise of "it's appropriate for the characters". I'm not saying QT hates black people or anything, but I think he has an unhealthy relationship with that word and likes to put himself in situations where he feels entitled to use it.

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #75 on: July 29, 2019, 03:53:22 AM »
I don't get the n-word thing here, these characters would use it and it is relevant for it to be used

Funny how QT keeps coming up with scenarios where the characters would use the n-word, though, isn't it?

I don't remember it being used at all in Reservoir Dogs, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds or any of the Kill Bills. He made two films that take place in 19th Century US and feature black people, and two centered around L.A. criminals (going to assume it's used at some point in Jackie Brown though I'm not entirely sure). It's not exactly a stretch.

You're missing my point. Those scenarios aren't forced on him, HE IS CHOOSING THEM. And choosing to use the n-word under the guise of "it's appropriate for the characters". I'm not saying QT hates black people or anything, but I think he has an unhealthy relationship with that word and likes to put himself in situations where he feels entitled to use it.

Right. The place that word has in the American culture is completely unique (there is really nothing close to it in French for example), and worth exploring... is he the "right" guy for it ? You could certainly argue that he's not, but I guess I don't have a problem with that.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 03:56:04 AM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #76 on: July 31, 2019, 04:19:43 PM »
A Man For All Seasons - Fred Zinnemann (1966)

Thomas More may be a man for all seasons, but I'm not sure Fred Zinnemann is a director for all stories. In a film like Day of the Jackal, where the sound of a latch clicking shut or the slight movement of a curtain against the breeze has life and death consequences, his austere presentation is a perfect compliment. Small but important details loom large on his otherwise barren cinemascape. In that film we love the microphones for their omnipresence. However when it comes to the story of Henry the VIII seeking a divorce, those same details loom large but lack importance. Shoes shuffling on the floor, a cloak ruffles as a man sits, oars clunking in their oarlocks... we hear it all with perfect clarity and it makes the film exceedingly noisy. We have little choice but to listen as Zinnemann's style dictates that there be no other distractions. He seems determined that there should only be one or two active elements in a scene. If there is music there will be no dialogue. If the characters are in motion, the camera will be still. All is well provided there is a character speaking, which is often, but when the dialogue stops it is like listening to someone eat popcorn in a quiet theatre. Nothing masks the general clamour. It makes for a very raw, stage-like presentation and never quite engages me fully.

My familiarity with this bit of history comes by way of Wolf Hall (the TV series), which is very much the other side of the coin. It was interesting now to see More painted in a more heroic light, and not as a stubborn, heartless villain. Both tellings do little to paint their respective antagonists in a sympathetic light, so I found little to be conflicted about in either case. More feels on firmer ground than Cromwell morally, but those morals exist in an absurd political structure so I found conflict existed in appreciating him for being principled but disliking the foundations of principles on which he stood.

The performances are quite fiery, which is something I often enjoy. Here in this style though the sound is raw and the voices make me wince. There is something anemic about it all and the atmosphere it creates. That is not a quality unique to this film... perhaps I am taking particular issue with it here because it is so contrary to the grandeur of the kings and popes and castles and courthouses which populate the story. It's has the ambition to be an epic (or something near to it), but not the style to convince me it is one.

There were a handful of interactions throughout the film that I enjoyed... all of them featuring Thomas More. His way is fair and just. Sometimes he can be downright Vulcanesque, but usually he's more pleasant than that. I liked him.

Not a completely successful presentation for my tastes, but I appreciated the story it was telling.

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #77 on: July 31, 2019, 04:46:03 PM »
A Man For All Seasons - Fred Zinnemann (1966)

Thomas More may be a man for all seasons, but I'm not sure Fred Zinnemann is a director for all stories. In a film like Day of the Jackal, where the sound of a latch clicking shut or the slight movement of a curtain against the breeze has life and death consequences, his austere presentation is a perfect compliment. Small but important details loom large on his otherwise barren cinemascape. In that film we love the microphones for their omnipresence. However when it comes to the story of Henry the VIII seeking a divorce, those same details loom large but lack importance. Shoes shuffling on the floor, a cloak ruffles as a man sits, oars clunking in their oarlocks... we hear it all with perfect clarity and it makes the film exceedingly noisy. We have little choice but to listen as Zinnemann's style dictates that there be no other distractions. He seems determined that there should only be one or two active elements in a scene. If there is music there will be no dialogue. If the characters are in motion, the camera will be still. All is well provided there is a character speaking, which is often, but when the dialogue stops it is like listening to someone eat popcorn in a quiet theatre. Nothing masks the general clamour. It makes for a very raw, stage-like presentation and never quite engages me fully.

My familiarity with this bit of history comes by way of Wolf Hall (the TV series), which is very much the other side of the coin. It was interesting now to see More painted in a more heroic light, and not as a stubborn, heartless villain. Both tellings do little to paint their respective antagonists in a sympathetic light, so I found little to be conflicted about in either case. More feels on firmer ground than Cromwell morally, but those morals exist in an absurd political structure so I found conflict existed in appreciating him for being principled but disliking the foundations of principles on which he stood.

The performances are quite fiery, which is something I often enjoy. Here in this style though the sound is raw and the voices make me wince. There is something anemic about it all and the atmosphere it creates. That is not a quality unique to this film... perhaps I am taking particular issue with it here because it is so contrary to the grandeur of the kings and popes and castles and courthouses which populate the story. It's has the ambition to be an epic (or something near to it), but not the style to convince me it is one.

There were a handful of interactions throughout the film that I enjoyed... all of them featuring Thomas More. His way is fair and just. Sometimes he can be downright Vulcanesque, but usually he's more pleasant than that. I liked him.

Not a completely successful presentation for my tastes, but I appreciated the story it was telling.

I think Zinnemann is trying to be out of the way of the performances, and it does feel like a play in some ways (it is an adaptation of a play after all), except you do get a good sense of 16th century London with the way they keep traveling up and down the Thames.

For me, Paul Scofield gives one of the best performances I've ever seen in this film, and that's why it's in my top 100. Robert Shaw is also perfect as Henry VIII of cours but I love Scofield's More : a man who you can't help but have conflicted feelings towards. He's eminently respectable even though the ideals he is fighting for are not ones we particularly share today, but there is a certain nobility in being so commited, and it doesn't hurt that he is very eloquent. He's as unlikable hero, and the larger point the film makes is that all one has is what one fundamentally believes, so it's well worth standing up for it. I don't mean that it is an inspirational film for me at all, I see it more as an exploration of humanism and individualism in a context where those ideas are burgeoning, and through a particularly interesting figure.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #78 on: July 31, 2019, 05:52:25 PM »
Well said.

Speaking of travelling up and down the Thames, I thought the scene between the boatman and More was interesting. About his having a license to ferry people up and down the river (like a modern taxi) and that the government dictated the fares they charged. Such a neat detail about day to day life in those times.


PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Top 100 Club: Teproc
« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2019, 02:19:20 AM »
Astérix & Obélix: Mission Cléopâtre 2002 — a.k.a. Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra
Jackie 2016
Umimachi Diary 2015
Bir Zamanlar Anadolu'da 2011
Les ogres 2015
Decided to go with the highest ranked one, which is obviously a more personal taste choice than the others. Still, I've never seen an Astérix & Obélix movie. It was much as I expected in tone and style, but held together better than I could have guessed. A lot of the jokes fell flat for me, there's a big variety from puns to modern day references to silly slapstick but for as much as a lot didn't really work for me none of it was really bad, just the kind of thing that makes you go "I wish I found that funny, but eh." Also, maybe it's my bias against Depardieu, Obélix was kinda boring and one note and Depardieu definitely seemed to be phoning it in. Everyone else, though, was pretty enjoyable. The movie really captures that unique comic book feel in a way I'm not sure I've seen another film do. It's a heightened reality where everything is absurd, but it's grounded in its own sense of self. It's hard to explain but it has a consistency in tone, characterization, and visual style that is hard to achieve in a live action film, where everything is obviously fake but it doesn't feel fake. That helps carry it through the ups and downs of the comedy, helped by a story that is pretty straight forward but still has just the right hooks to keep a viewer engaged. A pleasant, imperfect, viewing.