love

Author Topic: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups  (Read 26769 times)

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2008, 12:12:48 PM »
Let's make it mandatory to have all write-ups include pretty pictures :D
What if the film isn't pretty?  ???

Just thrown in a picture of Lauren Bacall anyway.  :)
lol, that would be hilarious for mine.  ;D

jbissell

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10915
  • What's up, hot dog?
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2008, 01:20:39 PM »
Let's make it mandatory to have all write-ups include pretty pictures :D
What if the film isn't pretty?  ???

Just thrown in a picture of Lauren Bacall anyway.  :)
lol, that would be hilarious for mine.  ;D

I'm expecting some iced nipple.

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: October Movie Dictator Club Commentaries
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2008, 10:01:30 AM »
Ivan The Terrible part 1 (1944, Sergei Eisenstein) and Ivan The Terrible part 2: The Boyars Plot (1958, Sergei Eisenstein)

In 1944 Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein released the first chapter of the never completed trilogy which followed the exploits and personal tribulations of Ivan Vasilyevich, more commonly known as Ivan the Terrible. Critics, movie goers and, more crucially, the state enjoyed it tremendously. In 1946 Eisenstein’s followup, The Boyars Plot, was ill received by the state, at that time still under the authoritarian rule of Joseph Stalin, and therefore banned. Ivan’s cinematic portrayal in the sequel was deemed to resemble too closely the Soviet administration at the time, and saw the film as a thinly veiled criticism of Stalin’s regime. It was only in 1958, five years following the leader’s death, that Russians were rewarded for their patience. Director Eisenstein passed away before completing the final episode in the trilogy. To make matters worse, much of what had been filmed was destroyed by the state, although a little bit of footage can be found on the Criterion Edition of the film.

Of interest perhaps: Ivan Grozny (might and power), more properly translated to modern English becomes Ivan the Awesome. How awesome is the movie though?

Before viewing the film I took it upon myself to read on the subject for some personal knowledge so I could familiarize myself with the story going in. This did in fact make the viewing a smooth experience and the reasons are twofold. Firstly, when certain characters, peoples and events were mentioned, I knew what everyone was talking about. Secondly, I understood the focus of the movie. When telling as expansive a tale as Ivan’s, the filmmakers will undoubtedly concentrate on certain events of the man’s life more so than with others. The films that make up Ivan the Terrible are a presentation of the man as a leader stuck in a rut. He himself is a self aggrandizing and evidently paranoid, but it doesn’t help that he become Russia’s first tsar of Moscovy (the name given to the Russian empire at the time. I won’t go into historical details) when the country’s upper class/aristocracy, known as the boyars, were intent on preserving their influence in state decisions. The viewer is of course encouraged to know already what the situation was between Ivan’s father and mother and the boyars before he rose to power. That’s not to say that one can’t understand anything without prior knowledge, but it makes the viewing experience complete and satisfying to a certain extent. At its core, the films are concentrating on Ivan's relations with his friends and foes and less with conquests and political reform, even though the latter two are mentioned and seen on occasion.

This three hour film depicts the constant and shifting rivalries that threaten Ivan’s throne. The rivalry with boyars is a constant one. But other relationships, that at one time were healthy, such as with the Prince Kurbsky who eventually defects to Poland once Ivan has begun his expansionist mission to the West (although a certain tension came into being once Ivan married the beautiful Anastasia, whom Kurbsky adored from afar), turn sour. This is where my reading becomes a double edged sword however. Certain events as shown in the film appear as rather accurate. Most notable is the Russian conquering of Kazan (one of Ivan’s first expansionist missions). Another is when Ivan, now terribly ill and fearing death, commands the boyars to pledge themselves to Ivan Ivanovich, his infant son. They of course refuse, which, along with the death and presumed murder of his wife, prompts Ivan the Terrible to associate himself more closely with the commoners in the creation of a paramilitary force named the Oprichnina, who went on to terrorize the land more than anything else. In other instances, I was disappointed with certain omissions. There wasn’t a whole lot about the Oprichnina in the film. The film shows a scene in which thousands of commoners pledge themselves to Ivan (the scene is very well shot by the way), but little is heard or seen about the this paramilitary force afterwards. In fact, at one point a character pleads to Ivan that the Oprichnini must be disbanded, but if I’m not mistaken that’s actually the fist time in the film the name of the force is mentioned. A viewer would therefore be forgiven for asking what exactly the characters are talking about.

Another stranger decision, was to take the historical figure of Feodor 1, Ivan’s seemingly retarded son, and make him his cousin for the film. It’s not that the decision doesn’t work for the film, only that I couldn’t figure out why (perhaps the fear that the public would not want to see one of their historical leaders with a handicapped son? I don’t know…). Despite my research, I couldn’t find anything on a Efrosinia Staritska, who is Ivan’s evil aunt in the film and plots to have him overthrown. She has the retarded son in the story, not Ivan. I suppose certain decision were made given the political climate in Russia at the time which heavily dictated censorship, but for some historical buffs these may be annoyances. Then again, they may find the changes all the more interesting. I’ll leave the verdict to them.

The acting style is, theatrical to say the least. I don’t want to use the term ‘cartoonish’ since I’ve always considered it, for one reason or another, to be a bit insulting, but there is a particular energy to the acting on display that may be offsetting for some. A lot of characters use the old bulging eyes trick to mark anger, shock, fear, sadness, etc. I can take that every once on a while, but it seemed like everyone’s ‘go to’ trick here. I also found it rather amusing that in Ivan's coronation scene, he has a booming voice that Orsen Wells would have been jealous of, despite that fact that Ivan was only 16 at the time.

Having said that, I thought that Nikolai Cherkasov as Ivan was quite convincing. A dictator needs to have something rather grandiose about him after all and Ckerkasov pulls it off nicely. Serafima Birman as Ivan’s nefarious aunt was given a juicy role and certainly injected some ghoulish delight to say the least. The music is terrific. It sets the tone very well and is quite catchy as a matter of fact. I was recognizing certain themes as they returned throughout the film and always welcomed them back.
Arguably what struck me the most was the cinematography and the composition of various shots. My knowledge of historic Russian cinema is limited (apart from Andrei Rublev which I saw recently) and therefore I did not know what to expect visually. I was very much surprised to discover a lavish, Hollywood-esque type production. This movie is big, with plenty of costumes, massive sets and even a bloody battle sequence. There were a few shots that truly showcased expert filming at its best. I guess it doesn’t matter where you are in the world, people love big epics. Well, maybe Rwandans are different, but that’s another topic.



It’s with mixed feelings that I write this review, but let that not denote that I feel I’ve wasted my time watching Ivan the Terrible. Any opportunity to see cinema from another region of the globe, particularly historical cinema from another region, is one a relish very much. There is a lot to like about the film, and I would invite anyone who enjoys foreign cinema (based on North American tastes) to give this a try. It looks lavish (in a 1944 kind of way) has a great soundtrack and features one of history’s most controversial figures as its central character. Just don’t expect a history lesson.


My viewing and reaction to the film were courtesy of lotr-sam0711. Thank you.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 10:03:29 AM by edgarchaput »
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

Emiliana

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2239
  • Life is a Cabaret!
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2008, 12:23:15 PM »


Once Upon a Time in the West
The German title translates to "Play me the Song of Death", which I rather like.

So, duder sniffed out that a while ago, I said I was in no hurry to catch up with Once Upon a Time in the West.

Ok, I'll admit it: I was wrong.

I went into this film with no little amount of apprehension, because something about the Western genre has always been and always will be alien to me.

I sat down, the opening sequence began, and there is hardly any dialogue, only sound, and looong shots of beautifully composed images. I thought "Ok, so that's how you're going to play it", leant back and gave myself over to the film completely. From the very first moments, the film builds up suspense in every scene, you get surprised by events and find yourself asking questions the whole time about who these people are, what their history with each other is and what their motivations could be - and the most satisfying thing about that is that the film actually gives you all the answers in its own sweet time, but always at the moment you most desperately want to have them. Can a plot thicken and unfold at the same time? If it can, then it does in this film, and it's great.

Another fantastic aspect of the film is its music and sound design. A huge factor why the atmosphere of the film seemed so tangible and real was the attention to all the small and big sounds that filled (or didn't fill) these vast landscapes, the small town and the train. On the other hand, I found it extremely effective to have musical motifs for every major character in the film (and I couldn't believe how familiar I was with virtually all of the music, despite never having seen the film before).

From the leads to all the minor roles, the characters were portrayed beautifully - Claudia Cardinale's performance is wonderful in its balance of strength and vulnerability, and her male colleagues are extremely convincing as these hugely different types of men. Unfortunately, Charles Bronson seemed like a slightly weaker link in this incredibly strong cast. What I mean by that is that I still think his performance is very, very good - it's more a question of type: I would have wished for a more charismatic enigmatic stranger - and what a pity it is that you can tell that he isn't actually playing on the harmonica for real).

I can absolutely see why over at imdb, this film currently ranks as the 19th best film of all time, while the Filmspotting community put it at #35. It is brilliant, everybody should see it. However (and this is my very personal, very small however), I'm still not in a big rush to fill the gaps in my education in the Western genre. I can't explain what it is, and it certainly doesn't make sense to me after enjoying this film so much more than I ever expected I would, but that's just the way it is.

Duder, thank you so much for this fantastic dictation!

duder

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2008, 04:50:45 PM »
Yes!
...

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: October Movie Dictator Club Commentaries
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2008, 05:04:31 PM »
My viewing and reaction to the film were courtesy of lotr-sam0711. Thank you.
You're welcome. :D

You obviously didn't like it as much as me but I'm glad you got into the research and the background.

And I've always said screw historical facts (to a degree)...they're called movies for a reason. :P

Kevin Shields

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • CINECAST! You FLY, Clovis, & FroHam
    • thevoid99's Epinions Profile
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2008, 10:18:14 PM »
Romance & Cigarettes by John Turturro-***1/2/*****

This was a pretty good film.  Flawed in its third act as well as its pacing in the third act.  There's not much of a plot but it was nonetheless entertaining.  I loved the musical choices in the film.  I also enjoyed the choreography and dance numbers.  Kate Winslet was HOT!!!!  I can watch her dance and lip-sync in water and talk in a Scottish brogue all day.  I love watching Christopher Walken dance, notably the "Delilah" sequence with Cady Huffman.  It's got a great cast, great look.  The third act kind of lost steam but I liked it.  It should've been seen more.  Thanks Colleen. 
"I want to be bored"-Maggie Gyllenhaal

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5906
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2008, 01:12:57 AM »
Yay!  Glad that was a good pick for you!

Basil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9513
  • Entrepreneur, spiritualist, healer.
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2008, 08:09:20 PM »
I'm mostly ignorant about Bond films. Other than the most recent installments in the franchise, I've really only seen parts of most of the films. Starting my education to classic bond with the original was a great idea. Dr. No (Terrence Young, 1962) is quite a lot of fun. Connery's Bond is quite cunning, yes, and what his performance lacks in range he makes up for with charm. I don't think the film necessarily justifies the twenty-one sequels it has spawned thus far, but how could anyone expect it to?

As I said, I don't really know much about the whole franchise, so I'm not in a place to comment on how well it fits into, informs, or reflects the myths and conventions of what has become its own genre, nearly. Of course, logic is barely a consideration of the screenplay, but I guess the flaws were so obvious that they kinda added to the charm of the movie. I got the sense that just as Bond is learning and figuring out how to become the ultimate super spy we now know him to be, the filmmakers were just starting to discover how to bring that character to life in the most believable if not realistic way.

I guess I was a little bothered by the handling of the villains, since the film didn't seem to portray Dr. No as the ultimate baddie until the final act. I also expected him to be a little more menacing than he actually was, though perhaps Austin Powers has tainted my perspective. What I found to be the most exciting, suspenseful, and unsettling scenes were ones that didn't involve Dr. No at all, really. Bond's fight with his driver after the car chase was pretty great, and of course the entire beach sequence is rather amazing.



Edgar, you allowed me to realize how much fun Bond can be. I mean, I liked Casino Royale, but it barely felt like a Bond movie to me. Dr. No has inspired me to watch more; I'm off to the library for another one.

Dr. No: 4/5
Ursula Andress: 10/10
A$AP Fables

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Nov. Movie Dictator Club Writeups
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2008, 08:59:00 PM »
Great review, great picture, great movie.

 

love