love

Author Topic: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time  (Read 50820 times)

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #320 on: June 22, 2020, 11:46:06 PM »
It's all too much to quote!  ;)

I'm glad for the conversation. I'm going to try not to repeat myself too much, because I think a lot of sub-topics being argued are already sub-topics I've addressed.

In general, I'm seeing an argument that since Keaton didn't make an overtly/blatantly pro-Confederacy movie that it's somehow neutral or non-offensive on the subject. That is wrong. Once you include the context and set the protagonist as a Confederate soldier, do so because they are more sympathetic, and portray the lead sympathetically, the damage has been done. He ends getting the girl and a commission with the Confederate army as his happy ending, all the worse.

A thought experiment: The remaining Confederacy supporters could very much watch this film and cheer on the ending as a victory for the Lost Cause. There is nothing here that would contradict their position, and the outcome would be greatly pleasing. Even if Keaton's impetus for joining the cause was a girl, that doesn't make it better. He's still fighting against the Union.

In my opinion, I think the application of critical theory in entertainment is for the better, and am glad we are not remaining at the embarrassingly low threshold that was once applied, which left unscathed a lot of Mammy caricatures, white savior narratives, and, yes, pardons for the Confederates on the table (among other issues), completely thoughtless of what the messages actually being conveyed are. We avoided the subtext because we loved the entertainment.

A few specific points, and then I don't mind continuing. I don't see the problem if new points are raised. Being challenged has never bothered me, I just want to be understood. Only thing is, I think with a lot of these points, I previously said my peace. Perhaps I didn't express it well enough, but I do believe a lot of this is there.

Teproc - I should've been more specific in saying people for the South, better to say people who were slaveholders and/or fought for the Confederacy. And yes, I think sympathy for them is problematic, I don't bend on that.

I appreciate your interpretation of my intent and trying to give me a little benefit of the doubt. You are correct in that these films being part of a canon impacts my overall thoughts, but even if I saw this apart from this marathon, I would still think it problematic for points I've raised above and in previous posts. I just oppose it even more because it's considered a top forty film of all-time by a reputable source.

Sam - I don't believe in telling stories about sympathetic Nazis, either. When I saw Inglourious Basterds and the Swastika branding, I totally got it. You can't live that down. There may be a certain narrative where they flip on their cause to make things better, but that doesn't apply to The General, and you can also never bring back the lives that your efforts have taken. To Teproc's point about being sympathetic for Generic Southerner X, if they didn't own slaves or support secession, then they didn't choose the Cause and aren't the problem. There are certainly interesting stories to be mined there, resistance narratives can be quite powerful (though also problematic if you're resisting, say, school integration). But once you've joined the Cause or owned a human as property, there is no sympathy for you.

1SO - When it comes to creators defining/redefining problematic work, the problem is that nearly anything can be rationalized. If the work isn't problematic - which again, I've picked out 3 (mayyyybe 4) of something like 70 films in this marathon that I consider truly problematic - then authorial intent is more interesting and meaningful.

Nowhere in here do I say that this film was weaponized in one way or another, I think you're reading into my words a bit. I have no idea the direct impact this had on people in the 20's, but representation and iconography matter a great deal regardless, and in this film, the representations and symbols are really straightforward. We are learning as a country the importance of such, and are acting accordingly. Andrew Jackson's statue at Lafayette Park was under assault as recently as today.

When it comes to expecting anyone to agree with me, or go on any particular journey besides seeing how I react to a lot of canon films that are new to me (and hopefully keep it interesting), I put this at the end of my Keaton review, and I think it bears repeating, with some emphasis:

To be truly honest, this is the only place on the internet I really discuss anything of value, because I think most forms of virtual social gathering require you to be in lockstep with one way of thinking or another. That's not for me. While I think the time has come to "cancel" certain works that have long been thought to be great, I know that there's room to discuss and agree and disagree. On Twitter, for instance, agreeing or disagreeing on one particular issue gets you lumped in with a group you may not be a part of, i.e. defund the police or you are a white supremacist. For me, though, I actually think the Sight & Sound list is important as an arbiter of the cinematic canon, and I think it's important to call out the ones that no longer fits the evolving vision of a multicultural and inclusive society (where America lags behind many of its European counterparts). Fortunately, here we have a place to discuss all of this and figure things out for ourselves, but all have our thoughts mediated through the thought we put in our posts and natural reflections that occur while posting, as well as by our conversations with others. (At minimum, a lot of you challenge me. I don't stop being me, but I do think I'm becoming better as a thinker and critic because of you all.)

------
Ultimately, I'd like to be in a place where all historical figures, icons, symbols, etc., are put in their correct places according to the tenets of freedom and justice for all people. That will always be a part of my evaluations, and nothing can get a positive rating that so greatly offends my morals or ethics. Truth be told, I let more things slide than not, because I think they are minor enough to overlook or put in the "people aren't perfect and the process of consciousness-raising will always be ongoing" category. I digress...There are so many great stories that have been told and are to be told, we don't need one about a guy who enlists in the Confederate army and fights the Union, period. It's just unnecessary. I think a particular truth is that The General is old, not popular on the level of a Gone with the Wind (officially canceled now), and so goes under the radar anyway. Yet, I think if such a thing were made and released today, there'd be all sorts of objections, and yes, I'd be on the side of the objectors. I know it wasn't, it was released almost a century ago, but it is on a current, highly-regarded critics' list of best ever films, so though I normally look at things through the lens of today anyway, it's even more acute for a film that's still considered one of the greatest of all time.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2020, 09:46:16 PM 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 #321 on: June 22, 2020, 11:48:18 PM »
Bicycle Thieves
VITTORIO DE SICA, 1948
5 STARS OUT OF 5


Offside, Fish Tank, The Florida Project, Too Late To Die Young, Children of Heaven, Tangerine, and Turtles Can Fly are among my all-time favorite films that have one thing in common: They are works of what is, in contemporary terms, social realism; or, they follow in the footsteps of Italian Neorealism within a modern framework. Not too long ago, I saw Shoeshine, and that exposed to me the lineage of some of my favorite films back to their roots. Bicycle Thieves was, at least as I see it, a step-up in production and cinematography, and is one that greatly exemplifies the genre: nonprofessional actors (debuts for both Lamberto Maggiorani as Antonio and Enzo Staiola as Bruno), a focus on the marginalized in society and their problems, and naturalism in manner and speech. These elements have the effect of creating a bridge between classes in terms of empathy and understanding and are among the most important accomplishments of the cinema arts as they seek and display life’s truths.

Generally, when you see Rome on film, you’d expect to see some of the major landmarks such as the Coliseum or Pantheon. In Bicycle Thieves, you instead see the narrow corridors lined with the one-room apartments of the commoners, the gathering place for the poor to get together to trade info on jobs and take-in some basic entertainment, and the street marketplace for secondhand bicycles. Setting is crucial to the success of the film, and while the more “common” areas are a focus, the cinematography still captures angles, compositions, and the black-white contrast to a beautiful, if practical effect. While the point of production isn’t made for ohhs and ahhs, it’s much more than merely functional, which elevates the picture.

Even though the people in this film live in a way many viewers probably do not, Bicycle Thieves is not at all a pity part; while it’s about the trials the impoverished regularly face, it’s also about the resilience and hope of the common man. Any good piece of social realism or Neorealism finds a way to balance these aspects, and Bicycle Thieves is a good model. When Antonio finds a way to get his bike out of hock, so that he can work, there is this great sense of positivity, which is obviously derailed when its stolen. The bike itself is emblematic of how the poor in Rome truly live on the margins, as Antonio’s ability to provide for his family hinges on this two-wheeled prosperity machine.

De Sica does a great job in the screenplay managing tension and tone without unnecessarily heightened emotions or theatricality. Of course, the lack of theatricality is another key element of the Italian Neorealism that he was developing. Antonio and Bruno’s hunt for the bike, and the subsequent tour through the lesser-seen parts of Rome has them picking up leads and coming across dead ends at a proper pace that keeps you interested and engaged. The closer Antonio gets to the bike, the more your hopes are raised, until the ultimate compromise of Antonio’s ethics that’s made out of pressure to keep his job and provide for his family. It manages to be heart-wrenching without excessive drama or flair. That’s part of the genius, and you come to be so concerned over finding a stolen bike that the mere 90+ minute run time really zooms by.

Gave it a perfect score the first time I saw it and quickly threw it in my All-Time 100 for the movie club, so you can say it made an impression. Seeing it for the second time, it already feels like a well-worn, go-to film. Maybe the best part is that it’s the gift that keeps giving, since it has inspired a larger film movement toward telling stories about the underprivileged and marginalized and the art form continues to be a more worldwide phenomena with many more films being set in the third world, which often focus on inequality, seemingly ever year. But even in and of itself, Bicycle Thieves endures.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2020, 09:45:24 PM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #322 on: June 23, 2020, 06:25:48 AM »
Because of all the great discussion about the General and problematic narrative. I wonder if there will come a time when films depicting meat eating in a positive (or not negative) light join the list of troubling films. I do not see this coming anytime soon, but who knows.

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #323 on: June 23, 2020, 06:32:18 AM »
Because of all the great discussion about the General and problematic narrative. I wonder if there will come a time when films depicting meat eating in a positive (or not negative) light join the list of troubling films. I do not see this coming anytime soon, but who knows.

More generally, it is inevitable that our ways of life will seem immoral and unacceptable to people in, say, two centuries, and likely that we would cast similar moral judgement on their society if we got the opportunity to. Which is not to argue for moral relativism, but a simple observation of how quickly social mores evolve. Even the most progressive 19th century thinker, who would certainly be enchanted at some of the progress that has been made in some areas, would also find much of what we consider moral to be quite objectionable.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #324 on: June 23, 2020, 06:49:22 AM »
I agree with the direction you are going with this, the question is always how much time will it take. Think of the how we contribute to global climate change: Internal combustion engines, factory farming and meat-eating, plastics in everything. Then, social progress: people still dying because they can't get to a doctor or afford treatment, minority neighborhoods overpoliced and without the resources to help them get ahead. I think dietary choices will certainly be noticed and pointed out, as will travel choices and norms in traveling short and long distances. Hopefully our still-segregated (at least in America) neighborhoods and schools will seem dated and oppressive.

Now think about Bicycle Thieves, a film from '48. How have class divisions and overall economic opportunity changed since then? Is it appreciably better? What programs are available for the un- or underemployed? It's good to be able to witness the issues in film, but then what?
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 #325 on: June 23, 2020, 07:02:53 AM »
A quick announcement about my "Wrap Day Party"...

Basically, I'm going to do awards for best films, best performances, directors I intend to further pursue, and recommendations from the members. Some of you give me recommendations over time. I'm not looking for huge lists, I only want you to know that I went through the thread and wrote down all the suggestions made and by whom, and these are films I intend to get with soon after the marathon ends. If you have anything you think I'd like or that would challenge me based on what I write here, please post them, I LOVE recommendations, and I WILL watch them.

Thanks!
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #326 on: June 23, 2020, 07:09:12 AM »
I think "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" has to be my suggestion if you haven't seen it already.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #327 on: June 23, 2020, 09:05:51 AM »
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm late to this discussion but I wanted to bring up a point that I don't think was discussed on the whole General front.

At one point in your last response here, et, you say that Gone with the Wind has already been cancelled. But it hasn't, of course. What it has been is contextualized with a pre-roll explanation of why the film is problematic.

GwtW is a different movie than The General, and I'd argue that Gone is more actively harmful than The General, which is more passive in its choice of milieu and characters. In other words, GwtW is immovably attached to the Lost Cause narrative it is telling, while The General could feasibly be life's out of the Civil War and implanted into some other conflict without any real harm done to its characters, plot, or thematics.

With that context, do you think a pre-roll denouncement of the Lost Cause bullshit that is admittedly present in the film via its setting would be enough to not consign what is otherwise a masterpiece to the dustbin of history? Warner Bros. has a great title card at the head of the racially insensitive Looney Toons episodes to do similar work of contextualizing and denouncing those elements of the film without blocking access completely.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #328 on: June 23, 2020, 09:40:49 PM »
At one point in your last response here, et, you say that Gone with the Wind has already been cancelled. But it hasn't, of course. What it has been is contextualized with a pre-roll explanation of why the film is problematic.

Do you think that will get people back to it, or help it survive into the future? The popularity of that film is its narrative and acting, is it not? Now that we are waking up to what the film is actually portraying, it bursts its bubble. That's where the "cancelled" bit comes in. Is there really an appetite for watching it as a problematic example of pre-woke cinema to learn from the past? I think it's something that we'll ultimately just move on from, knowing fully what it is.

GwtW is a different movie than The General, and I'd argue that Gone is more actively harmful than The General, which is more passive in its choice of milieu and characters. In other words, GwtW is immovably attached to the Lost Cause narrative it is telling, while The General could feasibly be life's out of the Civil War and implanted into some other conflict without any real harm done to its characters, plot, or thematics.

With that context, do you think a pre-roll denouncement of the Lost Cause bullshit that is admittedly present in the film via its setting would be enough to not consign what is otherwise a masterpiece to the dustbin of history? Warner Bros. has a great title card at the head of the racially insensitive Looney Toons episodes to do similar work of contextualizing and denouncing those elements of the film without blocking access completely.

I agree fully with the first paragraph here. You could switch contexts and maintain everything great about The General if he were, say, combating some evil plot of domestic terrorists. (I don't know how that would have worked in the 1920's, but that doesn't excuse the actual choices he made.)

To your question, I don't have a decisive opinion right now, but it does have me thinking. I definitely think it could be saved more readily than Gone with the Wind, because its problems are more about representation and iconography of the Confederacy and the Lost Cause, and Gone with the Wind (to my understanding, I haven't seen it all) is more entrenched and active in its problems.

One question I'll pose to you is, Why bother? There are so many other good films for us to enjoy, I mean we have members that have seen over 10,000! We are talking about leaving behind a pretty small quantity of movies, unless a movement arises to erase all films before the times of equal access and equal representation (which is still probably a future time to come vs. a time that has already come), which I don't see happening and would be unequivocally opposed to. So why can't we leave behind the problematic works, and move forward with an art that is becoming more accessible to all people, in the U.S.A. and around the world?

OK, so I guess my answer is, you could maybe put something at the beginning of The General and further context would make it a little less problematic, but I see no reason to hold on to it when there's so much more out there that doesn't come with the baggage and issues. As to what the messaging at the beginning would say, maybe something along the lines of "Buster Keaton made the fraught choice of representing a Confederate soldier sympathetically in The General. It was thought at the time that you could not make a hero out of a Union soldier or 'Yankee' in a film that people would want to watch. This film is renowned for Keaton's trademark humor and stunts, and the lengths one person would go to in order to impress a love interest, but it does so in spite of the fact that representing a Confederate soldier in the way Keaton does minimized the reality of the Confederacy's "Lost Cause," which included the desire to continue using African slave labor as the foundation of an economy that was fortuitous for white plantation owners, and immensely destructive for people of African descent. Understanding the manner in which Keaton abdicated his responsibilities as a creator and right-thinking human being in the making of this feature, we present to you his 1926 film, The General."
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 #329 on: June 23, 2020, 09:43:33 PM »
Taxi Driver
MARTIN SCORSESE, 1976
3 STARS OUT OF 5

Regardless of Travis Bickle’s psychological situation in Taxi Driver, it rings true that we all need a reason to get up in the morning, we all need a raison d’etre. Jack Kerouac famously found his in the search. Others have more conventional ones such as caring for their children, creating art, or just tending to their garden. Bickle had nothing but a Taxi and anger. He tried making it about a woman, failed. Then, with the help of a certain presidential candidate and a severely underage prostitute, he got the idea in his head that his job was to clean-up New York. Thus, he gets himself an arsenal of guns, gets serious about his health, and gets ready...for what? Being a hero should be a little more straight forward, no?

Obviously Travis is on a crash course with something terrible. A great part of this film is the impending sense of doom, as Bickle answers all the questions in his mind in terrible and distorted ways. That being said, another tremendous strength is the restraint on diagnosing Bickle and letting his choices indicate psychological difficult/instability without problematic psychoanalysis. The structure is somewhat episodic, marking Travis’ time alone, preoccupied with a woman, preoccupied with becoming some avatar of justice, identifying and working with someone for whom he can be a savior, and then the absolutely gruesome reckoning followed by an improbable and distressing bit of hero-making. Scorsese’s character study is penetrating, and can certainly be read as the anatomy and making of a domestic terrorist. There are times where I felt the pacing was a little uneven or meandering, and I wondered a bit at what the jazz theme was communicating. Was it just...America? And while I found the character development to be excellent, the overall tension well-maintained without descending into high-velocity thriller mode, there are a few issues I had a hard time working out that troubled me.

My first concern regards the shooting of the armed Black store robber, who Bickle shot and the store clerk beat with a pipe. How does this play today? His being armed certainly changes the equation from the killings of unarmed Black men in the country, so perhaps it’s all self-defense, but then we speak of de-escalation, and maybe the place to actually land on this is to ask, Why portray a Black man robbing a white man with a gun in the first place? Why have to show a Black man either being shot or beaten to death? It’s something Travis Bickle would definitely do, though I imagine he’d also shoot a white guy robbing the joint as well. Anyhow, the optics are troubling considering what we’re going through as a country right now; but, even tougher is heralding Bickle a hero after the ultraviolent scene at the motel “saves” Iris, the 12 year-old prostitute. Is he actually being elevated, or is this a bitter indictment of a society that has gone totally numb to violence and the loss of human life? (Of course, it should be mentioned that the cops are totally useless, responding far after everything has gone down.) It turned my stomach to see him lauded in the papers and by Iris’s family, who I also have a trouble excusing for their parental shortfalls.

I can’t help but feel there are people out there who actually identify with Travis Bickle and his thoughts on “cleaning up” New York City. These are people who believe in Stand Your Ground and Stop and Frisk, open carry and guns without restrictions, broken windows policing and mass incarceration. I’m caught on why there is no second thought as to why illicit drugs and unregulated sex work runs rampant in parts of NYC. Even as Bickle watches what looks like an episode of Soul Train, he looks at least minorly disgusted, but also a bit intrigued. I’m rather caught in a place as I was with Raging Bull; Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta are disturbing figures to anyone with a basic sense of right and wrong. But then, isn’t there a chance that more people than we’d like to admit will identify with one or both? Especially with Bickle becoming a hero by the end, Taxi Driver left me in a strange place, mostly feeling sickened, but wondering if that was the actual intention. If it is, the film was successful. If there’s even a notion that Bickle “has a point”, then it’s totally repulsive. There’s a potential middle ground, too, that people feel that way and want to burn the place down, and this film shows the trouble with that feeling, which again goes back to the anatomy of a domestic terrorist. It’s not Bickle that troubles me as much as society’s reaction to him.

Ultimately, I’m intrigued, though certainly not ready to give Taxi Driver a full-throated recommendation. Great character development, great profile of a person who sees the symptoms of society’s ills and wants to burn it all down, who is also prone to racism, homophobia, and all manner of prejudice. Some lulls, some pacing issues. An ending I’d like to interpret as ambiguous, though I’m not sure it actually is. Martin Scorsese is just one of those directors I feel I’m really battling with and consistently ending up somewhere in the middle on an increasing number of his films. Taxi Driver undeniably exemplifies the battle, and while I certainly can’t shrug off his work, neither can I get overly-enthusiastic about it.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire