Author Topic: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time  (Read 50819 times)

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #440 on: July 17, 2020, 07:03:35 AM »
Man with a Movie Camera
DZIGA VERTOV, 1929
3 STARS OUT OF 5

As a continuation of my commentary of the nature of the canon in the previous review on The Passion of Joan of Arc, I feel a bit painted into a corner with Man with a Movie Camera. Discovering the work of Chris Marker has been one of the biggest positives in marathon-ing the Sight & Sound 100, and as well, I got a ton out of Histoire(s) du Cinema in addition to the narrative pieces of Jean Luc Godard. Since Man with a Movie Camera is considered one of the works, or perhaps THE work that connected cinema with modernism, I should be worshipping at a shrine of Dziga Vertov, not debating the quality of his masterwork. So be not confused:


Thank you for your experiment, which you don’t shy from but call an experiment right at the beginning of the film. I wonder what you’d say about narrative filmmaking today; however, I totally understand why you felt the need to subvert the values that went with early film coming from sources such as theater and literature, older forms that symbolized bourgeois values, whereas you wanted to celebrate the proletariat with a brand new language. CINECAST! yeah, rock on. The Soviet Union is an incredibly problematic political entity for me and many, but your film seemed to encapsulate an ideal you truly believed in and comes across as exceedingly optimistic, so good for you.

Now, my actual reaction is a little more complicated. I don’t have much experience with the city symphony or Constructivism of the time, so this is pretty new. However, out of context, you truly are getting a fast-paced slew of images without any great meaning behind them. If you don’t understand the time and place, as I really didn’t when I first started watching, it’s intriguing, but also a bit bewildering. I do think that whatever one tries to accomplish with filmmaking - and Vertov may have invented every other editing technique in the book if what I’ve been reading is even somewhat accurate - the film does still need to create some context at some point. My thoughts in my chair taking this all in were like, “Objects that are...round?” Wait a few minutes. “Moving! Everything is moving! Busy!” Eventually, I broke down and paused it and read a few things before I continued. “Hey, I was close, the industriousness is part of this.” Then I started connecting the dots with Soviet propaganda, and came away in some respects exhilarated, in others maybe even a little disappointed. The vision is amazing, the intercutting between watching the film being made and the film itself is - with footage of actual editor Elizaveta Sloveta editing portions of the film and a lot of film spent watching Mikhail Kaufman recording the people of the prototypical Soviet city -  fascinating and open to a number of interesting interpretations. Yet, it’s nowhere near as advanced or thought-provoking as other works on this very list that it may have helped spawn, ala Sans Soleil or Breathless. To really get involved with the minutiae of giving ratings, this is my trouble with calling something “Good” as opposed to “Great”, it almost seems like a slight even though you’re positive, which indeed I am. I respect the work, by and large enjoyed it, but even now can’t think of an image that truly lingered with me like those three blonde kids at the beginning of Sans Soleil or the books out to dry in Color of Pomegranates. I like the jump cuts better in the context of jazz and Godard’s subversive narrative in Breathless. Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera may well even be the most uncompromising of all experimental documentaries in that it gives us nothing and expects everything of us, but that also makes the work often inscrutable to its detriment. I rather wonder if anyone understood it as a piece of propaganda. While I’m glad I learned about Dziga Vertov and got to see this film, as I’ve said about several other works here, it’s a building block for greater things.
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 #441 on: July 18, 2020, 12:01:32 AM »
The Searchers
JOHN FORD, 1956
1 STAR OUT OF 5

If John Wayne’s Ethan is the hero, then the film aggrandizes a racist old Confederate soldier with a hatred of Native Americans.

If John Wayne’s Ethan is the villain, then John Ford presumes to teach us about the wanton cruelty of the American West from the perspective of the race of people that invaded the land and attempted to kill all of its indigenous people. We get a little rundown of why the Native chieftain Scar (played by German-American Henry Braydon in redface) has it out for white people, as they killed his sons, but otherwise this film has little sense of history of the plight of the indigenous person post-contact with white Europeans. To presume to exhibit to us the American west in this way is head-scratching at best. As well, if he’s the villain, then the final scene, where he returns Debbie home and we leave looking at him in the doorway makes no sense, as it’s absolutely not how you part with a villain in a film.

If John Wayne’s Ethan is neither the hero nor the villain, neither bad nor good, then why are we following him over the course of five years to find his niece that had been taken by the Commanche? There has to be some worth to this cause to have us embedded with him for so long. It might be plausible that he’s neither good nor bad, and Scar is the same way, but there isn’t an equal power dynamic at play. It’s the difference between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter, the former being a claim to humanity by a racial group that has been marginalized and excessively policed, harassed, and murdered for ages, and the latter an attempt spearheaded by, and in service to the majority culture to cancel the calls for justice of the former. To say that John Wayne’s Ethan is neither the hero nor the villain is to say you “don’t see color,” or to flat-out deny history.

The Searchers is considered a balanced, or at least more-balanced, portrayal of relations between indigenous people and whites in the American West. It’s possible, at least some motive is established for the murderous Scar. Yet, that perspective is far from sufficient to have achieved any level of actual balance, it just shows how truly despicable past portrayals must have been.

The sets, especially the houses and their arrangement for the fluid filming of family dynamics, are pretty great. They aid the establishment of the decent family of the West at the outset more than aptly. I’m a personal big fan of set and art design, it’s the aspect of film I want to get to know better, and from what I’ve seen from John Ford, his films do a great job in this aspect. As well, Monument Valley. What more can you say? When I finally have a mind to just get in my car and drive this beautiful state of Arizona, it’s on the list, and Ford consistently captures it at its most serene, even if it’s often backgrounded by problematic white characters. It’s another case of seeing the quality of the filmmaking while finding the story being told and the plot as its paced and developed, to only give token attention to one side and focus so heavily on the other, to be troubling.

Ultimately, the Ethan character gets a hero’s treatment, and regardless of the complexity and evenhandedness some like to attribute to this film, it's actually fairly straightforward if you understand situation of the indigenous and the white people at that time. The redface just adds insult to injury. When it comes to canonizing films, this is one that sincerely needs to be rethought.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2020, 08:42:39 AM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #442 on: July 18, 2020, 12:29:31 AM »
So, I don't like The Searchers, but that has no bearing on what I'm about to say because I dislike the film for other reasons.

You are actually a lot closer to understanding why the film is so acclaimed. Ethan is the villain. He is a racist whose hatred has eaten his soul. John Ford gives him a hero's treatment as a trap to the audience. Put aside the outside text of John Wayne (which isn't as cut and dry as some try to make it, but that's a detour.) John Wayne was THE American Hero and THE utopian cinematic vision of a cowboy. John Ford uses that, he plays into that, but by the end he leaves the audience to question it all. He doesn't tip his hand because until the last scene, Ethan believes what he's doing is right. He believes he's the hero of this story. However, once he rescues Debbie he realizes his racism has taken deep roots. He cannot just turn it off and accept Debbie like the rest of the family, and so he must walk away from the domestic scene, out into the wild west.

Have you seen Dead Man Walking or Swingers? They're the only two films I can think of right now that do this hero/villain turn without it being a genre gimmick, but I don't want to write about it if you haven't seen the films.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #443 on: July 18, 2020, 03:18:48 AM »
I haven't seen Swingers since college, and just didn't understand why my suite mates in the dorms liked it. I wasn't so deep into movies then, mostly just played the same five or so a lot. Might see it a lot different now. I've never seen Dead Man Walking.

I don't think the film shows enough from the perspective of the Native Americans to pull-off what you describe. It's hard to expose someone as racist and hateful to productive means if you only ever see things from their perspective; there's no mechanism to feel any empathy for the Natives beyond the half-assed attempt at perspective where Ethan and Martin meet with Scar. There's even a supposedly funny scene where a Native woman is kicked down a hill. Super cringe-inducing. It may well have been Ford's intention for the motive that Ethan is the villain, I don't know, but if it was, it wasn't successful. Granted it was a long time ago. We need to get indigenous people behind the cameras for these type of stories, if they're to be told at all.

I think I may be with Bondo when it comes to anti-heroes or villains with whom we're embedded. I'm glad I'm doing this marathon, no question I've found some new favorites, but there is also a component of traditional masculinity, of a very white variety, that has me a little exasperated, even in light of the fact I've liked some films with tough guys. I think it plays into why I responded to The Wild Bunch as positively as I did, it was almost a cleansing of the system from the tremendous amount of  "badassery" in cinema by just turning it to the most extreme level possible and saying, This is what it really is. That's one film where I feel like scum is truly exposed as scum. Da 5 Bloods worked for me as a revisionist war movie in a similar way.

So, I don't like The Searchers, but that has no bearing on what I'm about to say because I dislike the film for other reasons.

So what doesn't work for you?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2020, 03:21:28 AM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #444 on: July 18, 2020, 09:53:36 AM »
Discussion starts here.


I prefer Two Rode Together starring James Stewart and Richard Widmark, and you might too because of this...

Despite a stern warning by Stewart, they are unprepared for how much Comanche life has changed the missing. This time it's the superstar lead who plays the lone level head while everyone else must confront their racist attitudes. I find that less mythic, but more believable.

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #445 on: July 18, 2020, 02:18:14 PM »
There are no heroes here in the LONESOME DOVE sense, though both LONESOME and THE SEARCHERS attempt to expose the harsh realities of the period.  The history is one of total devastation of the indigenous population as the manifest destiny to expand westward pushed out the Native Americans. Ethan is not meant to be a hero at all, in fact the movie opens up with Ward Bond telling him he might have to investigate him for a robbery (and those mysterious double eagle coins).  Racism is prevalent, as is misunderstanding and outright hatred that absolutely existed during that time.  The scene that is mentioned in my signature where he tells the men to not ask him again about what he found was likely raped and mutilated bodies of their loved ones.  No one is good in this film except perhaps Martion who himself is trapped between two worlds, belonging to neither. 

This is the same issue I mentioned to you before of what is the responsibility of the filmmaker in using history in film? Do we ignore the realities and make clean sweep that racism didn't exist and pull DJANGO-style heroes out of fantasy to give us happy and politically correct endings.  Films are absolutely symbols, but it is in the light in and context in which you understand them that can shape how you think.  This is in my mind a masterpiece because there are no heroes, there is only the darkness of the west that engulfed nations of peoples, unfortunately.  Spielberg's use of Schindler was also something I really liked because he showed his womanizing, unfaithful and profiteering off Jewish labor, he likely initially wanted to just become rich and make lots of money, but his moral compass was adjusted when he realized the horrible reality that awaited his workers.

Ethan's brother and family were killed, likely as part of the endless cycle of violence that existed on the frontier during that time. He despised Scar and his tribe for their approach, which was the approach of any group whose home and lives are threatened by the massive hordes of invaders. They are not that much different Scar and Ethan and I'll grant you Ethan winning is the white man winning, which unfortunately was the sad, but true outcome.  I love this film because it is about darkness, but not one to revel in and enjoy like a CAPTAIN AMERICA film, but one to see the harsh realities that existed during these periods-the book LONESOME DOVE also does a great job of showing these aspects.  I don't believe westerns all need to have Wyatt Earps prevailing over criminals to be useful symbols, we can see the depravity and realize what the past was and where we need to go. Also holding up an older film to more modern enlightenment is probably a bit unfair, especially when we are burning down relics that probably can and do still have some use.
"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!"

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #446 on: July 18, 2020, 03:37:52 PM »
Well said, Col.



Evolution is a thing.
Film is a snapshot of a moment in time. When filmmakers attempt to create awareness, we should see those efforts as milestones on a very long journey. The Searchers and Imitation of Life are indicators of shifts in perception and are vital for the steps that are taken further down the road. Willow and Young Sherlock Holmes are milestones in CGI animation and we don't judge them on how CGI looks today. They are historical CGI milestones. To not take a film and see it through the historical time line lens, is to miss out on its place of importance in our evolution.



As for Lonesome Dove, Deets is my hero. :)

Cheerful in all weathers
Never shirked a task
Splendid behavior

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #447 on: July 18, 2020, 05:57:25 PM »
I did want to say in reply to your last paragraph about Passion that I think we need to realize a lot of these cannons were made by old white males who made up film directing/schools for years. Now as we begin to see more diversity in those areas I think it's certainly time for a new cannon.

That being said, when looking at the history of film, I think we also need to recognize a cannon of films that are important for the techniques and trends they developed. Birth of a Nation is a heinous film. I watched it across the isle from a Black person in film school and felt extremely uncomfortable the entire time, but the teacher made sure to contextualize the film both before and after as racist propaganda that we were only watching because of the techniques and not because he condoned the message or content of the film.

Canonization is a whole can of worms that I think we could have, and have had, some great conversations about. I think a lot of these lists are still holdovers from an era I hope we are soon coming to the end of but I still see the value in watching just about every film on this list even if there are a good chunk of them I didn't think were good films.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: ET v. Sight and Sound's 100 Greatest Films of All Time
« Reply #448 on: July 18, 2020, 08:57:11 PM »
I'm just going to address all comments in one:

I would accept more of what was said about The Searchers as a window into history if it weren't a one-sided, ethnocentric affair with the central Native figure played by a white man in redface. I'm fine with exposing the darkness in things and ending on ambiguous or difficult notes, but a film can't be instructive in these regards if the creators are only willing to portray one side with any detail. Or unless we're willing to burn it all down. There are a good number of examples of films with such endings that I have rated highly.

Do we have to portray history correctly in film? That depends on what the film depicts. It's a film-by-film basis. Again, I will say white men trying to teach us about the struggles of the marginalized is something destined to fail a hundred times over, and why we need to hang on to them when they get it wrong is something I don't understand or agree with. In terms of CGI milestones vs. milestones in discourse on race, the difference is fairly obvious in that CGI is a technique and racial discourse is a highly sensitive culturally-based topic to which a person can be wrong and have a deleterious impact on the culture in which they're embedded (and likely beyond given how America transmits popular culture all over the world). We can indeed appreciate past attempts at CGI, as well as any other technique, which forms the basis for my enjoyment of Man with a Movie Camera, for example, but should identify our fraught past with racial discourse, know it, get past it. It goes to the idea of film as an educational tool, where we can learn from past mistakes, which I agree with. But holding onto some of these things as legitimately good art considering what's taking place on screen, I don't agree with. Art should represent truth, whether it's actual truth, metaphysical truth, or whatever kind of more abstract truth exists, and it shouldn't be exploitative.

On 1SO's problems, interesting that you just didn't think the film was well-paced or all that well-made in comparison to some other Ford films. I hadn't considered that, though I KNEW THAT GUY WAS STILL BREATHING!

On Joan of Arc and the canon, I largely agree with everything you say Sam. I even agree with recognizing films specifically for contributions to cinematic techniques regardless of their social or cultural problems. Big time agree in the value of watching the films on these lists. Scott Tobias wrote a really great article about the visionary work in this list. This has been one of the best cinematic experiences of my life, maybe THE best. I bet 10-12 of these films end up on my 100 the next time I have my film month (May 2021!). There is value in watching all of these films, but also value in dissent, as I know you would agree considering that you also let it be known when you have a problem with something otherwise considered good. (Most/All people here do, which is why I like it here.)
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 #449 on: July 18, 2020, 09:00:27 PM »
2001: A Space Odyssey
STANLEY KUBRICK, 1968
5 STARS OUT OF 5

The art of invoking awe was mastered in the middle to late 1960’s, where Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick decided to come together to make possibly the greatest many things of all time: genre film (science-fiction), modernist art film, and by far “the greatest trip”. Maybe the greatest film, period. As I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey again, as my marathon with the Sight & Sound list is coming to a close, I couldn’t help but feel it’s just probably better than anything on the list or off it. Daring to put together that ape scene at the top, using the monolith to nudge us toward using tools, eating meat, conquering our area, and evolving into what would become us, it’s a got a strength and belief in a vision you don’t see 1 of every 500 films. Those shots with the mimes and other actors portraying the evolutionary charade was incredible in its dedication to vision and execution. It really messes with me because it’s as if the monolith had given them the secret to evolving and dominating, which leads to a lot of the plights we have today. And that’s just the first (something like) 15 minutes of the film!

All the space stations and installations are intricately conceived and look and feel real. The furniture looks straight from today’s IKEA catalog. Even though the background might reveal themselves a little, all the whirling ships and stations look undeniably real, and the balletic movement to the music of Richard Strauss is simply wonderful. Toying with physics led to some fun tricks with flight attendants putting together meals in one axis, and have to walk to another, with their sticky shoes on, to enter the cockpit and feed their pilots. The camera tends to stay back a little during some of these, sitting behind the character, to show the stewardesses on a shuttle or the astronauts preparing to go out as they move slowly, from one ring to the next, going toward the hole, their next assignment or adventure, or death. This is all to establish the brave new world of space and the next evolutionary stage of humankind.

To cull the ultimate meaning from the film, especially the final act - which is one massive psychedelic trip - has been attempted by many, but I think is still open to interpretations for a long time to come. I’m not the biggest on trying to figure out what something means specifically or concretely, I like mystery and believe in the power of abstract thought. Therefore, the following is enough for me: The universe is enormous and ever-expanding, and our ability to measure it all is quite limited , so we can’t properly inquire as to the totality of the universe, only use certain inferences. Thus, speculation over the reality of existence has its shortcomings. That doesn’t mean I think it’s all relative and every interpretation is equal, no, evolution and gravity, for example, are real. However, there is room to imagine and speculate on the concept of being, whether we’re all alone, and what the implications of another, more advanced lifeform existing and intervening in our little world might look like. That’s where Kubrick and Clarke stepped in with this speculative and highly imaginative space film. They portray alien lifeform in such an unexpected way to move away from what is a more human-centric expectation of the humanoid alien. That element right there begs for us to reconsider the paradigm on which we interpret reality. Not only does this open us to modernism, it may also open us up to a more charitable view of each other, as it begs us to question the nature of reality and how each of us are just acting on our perceptions day by day. This is reinforced by the death of HAL, the murderous AI. Hearing him say, “I’m scared,” repeatedly at the end, then sing to us as his consciousness fades away is incredibly sad and frightening. If we can feel that sadness for him despite what he had just done, we should be able to extend that to anyone in this strange place where everything is possible, and yet all we have is us. That’s about as far as I go in interpreting the film, at least out loud where people can hear or read me. There are volumes written on this beast, and both the book written to provide a basis for the film as well as Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubric, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece are high on my to-read list.

2001 is simply riveting. It’s interesting how divisive it was upon release, and how it’s now canonized and highly recognized as Kubrick’s best. My Kubrick marathon in the early 2010’s was the first extended marathon I had ever attempted, and my mind was blown with nearly every feature, so to say this one film is definitely the finest of all that greatness is kind of overwhelming to think about. Yet, when something is such a massive work, I think the best you can do is sit back and soak it in. If you can enter the slow, evocative rhythms of 2001 and get caught up, your mind will be blown. Every time.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

 

love