Author Topic: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time  (Read 50784 times)

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2020, 03:29:32 AM »
Partie de campagne (A Day in the Country)
JEAN RENOIR, 1936
3 STARS OUT OF 5

Stated plainly, I have a difficulty when people fall in love too easily in movies. I'm not one to say there's a time requirement for love, but in the course of one breezy afternoon, a short boat ride, and a crude come on later, as in A Day in the Country, I just don't buy it. It's the same type of romance that cut me off from last year's Transit, which I find generally wanted to cut to the good parts of several key human relationships. At least build it up over a day and unforgettable conversation, with maybe an little Hawke and a little more Delpy. But just a little boat ride without much talking or relating? I don't know that I've ever been capable of that level of naivete.

Didn't make it a total bust for me, though. There is a lot of joy in this little package, even in just Henriette and Madame Dufour's swinging or sitting by the cherry trees. The frolicking of Rodolphe and Madame Dufour is hysterical. Past humor is something that doesn't often translate for me; I have a strange sense of humor that's usually by turns vulgar, raunchy, and dry, and even I'm surprised by what I do and do not laugh at. But for whatever reason, Renoir caught me in a good place with this one. Anatole and Monsieur Dufour had me cracking up, too. There is some mild misogyny, and I started feeling a bit uncomfortable during Henri and Henriette's encounter on the riverbank, but that may be more just me fretting a little too much over modern social concerns. Maybe. (See: postscript.)

I read some lofty verbiage about the visual poetry of this film, and tried to get attuned to it, but I'll admit that I did not sync up to it the way it appears others have. Such an idyllic rendering of love in a country day without further comment is admittedly a tough sell for me. Also, those tears.

---------------------------------

Just as a postscript, I do struggle as a time traveler going back to many of these films and dealing with past worldviews that were less enlightened on issues of race, gender, and animal cruelty, just to name three of many. At same time, I don't want to forfeit what I think is a pretty solid ethical and moral foundation and passively accept, and thereby cosign, past cultural views and assumptions. And still, were I to strictly apply critical theory to everything, there'd be very few films, classic or modern, let alone music, literature, etc., that I'd ever enjoy and find value in. I'd stay permanently in the hell of demanding absolute purity, something that really doesn't and shouldn't exist in human-constructed art, because even the most conscientious of us fall well short of such purity. All this is to say, I'm trying not to let it invade all of my thoughts on these - or really, any - films except for in what I see as the most obvious circumstances. I'm probably also being a little more critical because these are canonical works and need to be held to higher standards. Again, just something I wanted to put out there before I move along...
« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 03:31:22 AM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2020, 03:38:23 AM »
Aguirre has been a treasure ever since I first saw it and I am fascinated with how the hubris transforms into vanity and madness. I like very much the different views expressed here, especially the man v nature stuff.

And speaking of nature, lately, the relationships in this diagram has been on my mind:

Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2020, 03:46:30 AM »
Where's that from?
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2020, 08:29:19 AM »
Our daily paper had a pie chart of similar content some time back. I did a search on Google and found the diagram here. I think that it at least peripherally connects to Herzog’s Man v Nature ideas. I did not mean to hijack your thread for any political means whatsoever.
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2020, 11:53:20 AM »
FITZCARRALDO is also very good
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2020, 02:13:39 PM »
---------------------------------

Just as a postscript, I do struggle as a time traveler going back to many of these films and dealing with past worldviews that were less enlightened on issues of race, gender, and animal cruelty, just to name three of many. At same time, I don't want to forfeit what I think is a pretty solid ethical and moral foundation and passively accept, and thereby cosign, past cultural views and assumptions. And still, were I to strictly apply critical theory to everything, there'd be very few films, classic or modern, let alone music, literature, etc., that I'd ever enjoy and find value in. I'd stay permanently in the hell of demanding absolute purity, something that really doesn't and shouldn't exist in human-constructed art, because even the most conscientious of us fall well short of such purity. All this is to say, I'm trying not to let it invade all of my thoughts on these - or really, any - films except for in what I see as the most obvious circumstances. I'm probably also being a little more critical because these are canonical works and need to be held to higher standards. Again, just something I wanted to put out there before I move along...

I don't find it helpful, for myself, to neglect the offensive items in older films, just because they are older.  I'm not going to excuse the 30s for their racism, nor the 60s for their sexism.  Instead, I want to watch all these films as a mirror-- how am I responding to them?  Do I find something offensive against women funny?  Am I drawn into the drama of a white couple more than I would a black couple or a gay couple?  I may or may not have something to say about the film, but I certainly have something to say about myself.   For instance, my wife and I have always enjoyed the film The Gods Must Be Crazy, ignoring the stereotypes and lies that the film is filled with.  Sandy, on the other hand, strongly dislikes this film.  This causes me to reflect-- what is wrong with the film?  Is there something that I should be seeing that I am not?  I am not going to shame my past self for liking a film based on insufficient knowledge, but I am hoping to grow to be a better person, who can see what the filmmakers do not see and call it out.  Again, I don't want to shame folks into not enjoying the latest Michael Bay, if that's what they are into.  But seeing the problems (even if I am not enjoying a film because of them) and mentioning them as Bondo often does, is a positive, because it is a mark of my personal growth.  I'm not sure if that has anything to do with what you were writing, but that's my side reflection.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2020, 03:35:17 PM »
---------------------------------

Just as a postscript, I do struggle as a time traveler going back to many of these films and dealing with past worldviews that were less enlightened on issues of race, gender, and animal cruelty, just to name three of many. At same time, I don't want to forfeit what I think is a pretty solid ethical and moral foundation and passively accept, and thereby cosign, past cultural views and assumptions. And still, were I to strictly apply critical theory to everything, there'd be very few films, classic or modern, let alone music, literature, etc., that I'd ever enjoy and find value in. I'd stay permanently in the hell of demanding absolute purity, something that really doesn't and shouldn't exist in human-constructed art, because even the most conscientious of us fall well short of such purity. All this is to say, I'm trying not to let it invade all of my thoughts on these - or really, any - films except for in what I see as the most obvious circumstances. I'm probably also being a little more critical because these are canonical works and need to be held to higher standards. Again, just something I wanted to put out there before I move along...

I don't find it helpful, for myself, to neglect the offensive items in older films, just because they are older.  I'm not going to excuse the 30s for their racism, nor the 60s for their sexism.  Instead, I want to watch all these films as a mirror-- how am I responding to them?  Do I find something offensive against women funny?  Am I drawn into the drama of a white couple more than I would a black couple or a gay couple?  I may or may not have something to say about the film, but I certainly have something to say about myself.   For instance, my wife and I have always enjoyed the film The Gods Must Be Crazy, ignoring the stereotypes and lies that the film is filled with.  Sandy, on the other hand, strongly dislikes this film.  This causes me to reflect-- what is wrong with the film?  Is there something that I should be seeing that I am not?  I am not going to shame my past self for liking a film based on insufficient knowledge, but I am hoping to grow to be a better person, who can see what the filmmakers do not see and call it out.  Again, I don't want to shame folks into not enjoying the latest Michael Bay, if that's what they are into.  But seeing the problems (even if I am not enjoying a film because of them) and mentioning them as Bondo often does, is a positive, because it is a mark of my personal growth.  I'm not sure if that has anything to do with what you were writing, but that's my side reflection.

It's a good reflection, I appreciate it. I'm not trying to excuse anything. As I said, I'm extremely leery of cosigning dated and offensive views and assumptions on gender, race, etc. I'm also leery of imposing a purity test on everything I consume, because I'm hyper-conscious of those types of issues, and it can prevent me from enjoying basically everything. This is likely just a case of me learning to pick my battles with care, which I think I've done here so far.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2020, 03:42:39 PM »
Our daily paper had a pie chart of similar content some time back. I did a search on Google and found the diagram here. I think that it at least peripherally connects to Herzog’s Man v Nature ideas. I did not mean to hijack your thread for any political means whatsoever.

No problem. This goes back to my point on the hard truth we have to learn that man is a part of nature, and the unsustainable nature of our civilizations will come back to us because we cannot extricate ourselves from that truth. That's an interesting graph, I just wanted to try to gauge its veracity. No offense, I'm very outspoken and opinionated on the topic of the Anthropocene, but I always want to check that what I'm looking at is based in science and true.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2020, 04:52:07 PM »
The Wild Bunch
SAM PECKINPAH, 1969
4.5 STARS OUT OF 5

If you want to take on the traditional western and traditional wild west mythology, it's go hard and go home. If you're going to do it through film, save the speechifying, the well-planted messages, and just make it a bloodbath from which hardly anyone escapes. Show people what these huge shootouts, whore-mongering, and lawlessness is all about for real. That's how you touch those that are already in love with the idea of the western. Do it like The Wild Bunch.

I got down on some westerns this past March, the first time I had ever done much thinking about the genre. I liked what I saw, the push and pull between lawlessness and civilizing forces created some classic conflicts and showdowns as well as moral codes meant for preserving one's humanity in the midst of such chaos and cruelty. I also realized that these films do need a reality check, to be challenged, whether it's because they put themselves too far onto moral high ground or are not realistic about what a life of crime entails regardless of a person's moral code, especially when they are making a lot of decisions at gunpoint. The Wild Bunch brings the blood to bloodless westerns and says, Now what?

The "old school" gang we travel with is led by Pike (William Holden) who seems like your old John Wayne type, cool-headed, smart, and trying to maintain the code while committing atrocities. And from the incredible opening scene, we know there will be atrocities because the body count in the first twenty minutes or so is very high with only the promise of more to come. This runs parallel to children torturing scorpions by throwing them into a nest of red ants, and then, at the end, after it's really hit the fan in the city, they put the nest up into flames. Burn everything, that is the ultimate result of all this one upmanship, chest beating, and lawlessness.

Throughout the film, Pike is pursued by former partner Deke Thornton, who has been given the ultimatum by the law to pursue his partner to be hunted and killed himself. That's essentially the last we see of any truly civilizing force the rest of the film. You may think this is leading to some sort of showdown in the end, but what happens is actually far more delicious and unexpected as we seem to get closer to their eventual confrontation. Ultimately, when you do the balance sheet, you will realize that Pike got a lot more harm than reward in his most recent adventures. You must ask yourself, For what? OF course, Thornton partially answers this for you at the end with his last decision, which is basically to say, The post office isn't hiring me anytime soon.

Pike and his gang working between America and Mexico reminds me a bit of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, where the main players there worked between the Union and Confederate armies as suited them, and the cynicism that comes with this sort of portrayal. Pike's first visit to the Mexican town of gang member Angel's birth does what seems to be the traditional western thing to idealize the town, its inhabitants, and especially its women. But when they must return, its truth is exposed - these are oppressed people, fearful of the soldiers from their own country, willing to sell-out anyone to garner favor with those with power who would otherwise harm them. Now, we start to see the reality for the prostitutes, the babies having babies, the rip-offs and the poverty, the real misery. We also see the reality of the children, who mimic and feed into the people with power that use said power for cruelty. We see kids who sell themselves, we see kids who kill, we see kids who brutalize. Whatever moral high ground Pike and his crew, including the local, Angel, would like to keep from themselves, certainly doesn't look like it's to be maintained in the future.

I totally bought the main performances, especially via William Holden and Robert Ryan as Thornton, and felt like I was on the same wavelength with this from the very start, especially with how much that scorpion and ant bit communicates. (And maybe I'm being a bit hypocritical here, but the sentience of scorpions and ants, or lack thereof, makes this less worrisome than, say, the position of the horses during certain stunts.) Both Pike and Thornton are trying to maintain their humanity and dignity through this all, but Peckinpah doesn't let them off so easily. I genuinely believe I can have room in my heart for both The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Wild Bunch, feel for Tom Doniphon, while also realizing how dangerous it can be to buy his live-by/die-by the gun approach, and finally, understand that the bloodless western and good guy codes are, indeed, things of mythology.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2020, 06:50:36 AM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #89 on: April 07, 2020, 03:26:12 AM »
A Brighter Summer Day
EDWARD YANG, 1991
5 STARS OUT OF 5

Not only did I easily give up my mind, body, and soul to this film for its 4-hour run time, I was also enlightened on a dark piece of Taiwanese history that I previously had no clue about. And though it's only been two films, I think I've found myself another all-time director in Edward Yang, who has provided me with seven hours of cinema that has inspired awe, love, heart-break, and the affirmation of life over the past few weeks. Both Yi Yi and this, a Brighter Summer Day, are films that will be with me until the end, and I love them to the point that it doesn't matter if I even like anything else on this Sight and Sound 100 list, because it will still have been worth it.

A Brighter Summer Day and Yi Yi intersect visually in striking ways. Yang is a master of positioning. He knows when we're best spying in through a window or being closer to our characters. He does a wonderful job at framing and reframing scenes without unnecessary cuts or showy camera movement. His scenes develop naturally with no real rush, and he never gets closer to his characters than he needs to. Even when we're in a character's bunk bed, we're at the other end, absorbing their emotions without being intrusive. A Brighter Summer has several acts of shocking violence, including by one very sympathetic character (at least until then), that gut you, but they only do so because you have been absorbed in this politically fraught, socially distressed world of Taipei in the throes of the White Terror, with real people really going through this. Not that they are actual people - the events they surround are real, but the characters are not based on real people - but part of Yang's brilliance is in totally convincing you otherwise. Xiao Si'r's transformation into a monster is facilitated by a time, place, and situation that involves his status as an immigrant (of sorts, China's mainland-->>>Taiwan) and absorption into the street gang that conforms with his identity, a less-than desirable school situation where he's in a stigmatized night school status, and an overall social climate that sees him as second-rate. There's no way anyone can ultimately condone his actions or argue with his culpability, but perspective changes mightily when you sit in school with someone, experience a first kiss with someone, hang-out in a gang and feel acceptance and support with someone, and see someone's father get sucked up by the secret police in the midst of a decades-long crackdown that resulted in a pretty high body count. And our ability to empathize comes primarily through Yang's filming style, as seamless and naturalistic as they come, patient and totally humanistic.

In A Brighter Summer's Day, Yang puts his characters in distinctly difficult situations, asking them to cope with disappointments in love and the shortcomings of society, and yet he evokes natural performances. There are heightened emotions when there deserve to be, but his performers don't draw attention to themselves, and simply serve the story. This again falls heavily in line with what I value in films (granted, with some exceptions). Naturalism in craft and performance facilitate the cinematic dream state that merge our own lived experiences with what we are seeing on the screen, allowing us that third reality that is so often interfered with by showy performances or even the presence of a celebrity, let alone fancy and unbidden camera movement and cuts. The films I think are great are fairly varied, but works such as A Brighter Summer's Day, even with their contrivances, i.e. a screenplay or the presence of a director, are the purest distillation of what moving images and synchronized sound can produce.

----------
Note: Assume spoilers throughout this marathon, just as it says on the first post, but also note that Kiarostami's The Taste of Cherry is about to be spoiled as well.

Just to go on a tangent, the reason I think Kiarostami's The Taste of Cherry works so well is because, up until that crazy ending, the conversations in the car draw you in as seeming natural and real. Only at the end do you come to understand the artifice as Kiarostami rather roughly puts it right in front of your face, to the point where I understand people's reactions as feeling betrayed or condescended to by the director. From there, the conceit behind each individual conversation and the conversations as a whole is revealed. The naturalism is the key to getting you to care. And even though Kiarostami is literally drawing our attention to an actual truth, that films aren't real, Edward Yang's films get at more truth about the human condition than anything I've seen from the Iranian auteur. (That wasn't the conclusion I came to in my head before going on this Taste of Cherry tangent, but it's the one I just came to and feels more right than anything else I previously had in my head.)
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

 

love