Bouncingbrick's Criterion Viewing

[bouncingbrick]

I've decided to do at least one constructive thing with my blog (http://deludedon3.blogspot.com/). I'm going to watch the entire Criterion Collection that's available on HuluPlus (hopefully). The following is a copy/paste from the blog:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ys_BeJcTgvA/U6ti_QvigeI/AAAAAAAAAZM/WQiI_PhvQLA/s1600/21+days.jpg

Up first, 21 Days starring Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. It's the story of Larry and Wanda (Olivier and Leigh), a couple who start the film in a happy place in their relationship. They are travelling to Wand's home at the end of an outing together to find Wanda's husband in her place. Larry wasn't aware Wanda was married and it is revealed that Wanda was only with her husband a short while before running away. The husband tries to blackmail Larry and the confrontation becomes violent when Henry, Wanda's husband played by Esme Percy, pulls a knife. Larry kills Henry in the struggle. Determined not to wind up in jail for the crime they dump the body in a dark doorstep. Larry later meets a homeless man on the street who ends up becoming the prime suspect in the crime.



The film then becomes a character struggle for Larry as he must choose between allowing the homeless man to pay for the crime he committed or turning himself in to relieve his conscience of the burden.

Overall, it's a decent film, though it was a bit slow despite only being 71 minutes long. I guess it's worth watching if you're a fan of Olivier or Leigh, though she isn't given much screen time.

Next film: Two or Three Things I Know About Her
Based entirely on the screen cap on Hulu, I'm excited for this next film. It's a lush and vibrant shot and I'm hoping that's the look of the whole film.

[bouncingbrick]

Oh yeah, if anyone with a HuluPlus account wants to watch the films and follow along with me it would be better than a dozen birthday presents for me! :D

[The Gunslinger45]

I actually have Hulu Plus. I have watched a bunch of films from it but have neglected it recently due to transitioning from the Army and also my move. So I do need to get back into the swing of things. IDK if you and I will be watching the same movies though, but I will peek in as time allows.

[wintertriangles]

I very well may own a lot of what you're watching but I do not have hulu plus, so I can follow along sporadically like an electron between orbits

[donniedarko]

I cancelled my hulu plus in favor of Amazon prime, looking back I'd switch the too, which I probably will once this year cycle with Amazon is over.

[bouncingbrick]

Nothing like taking my time with this...

From the blog: (http://deludedon3.blogspot.com/2014/07/criterion-2-2-or-3-things-i-know-about.html)

Criterion 2: 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her


2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (1967)



Full disclosure, and I feel like a dope for finally having to admit this, Jean-Luc Godard is one of my many film geek weak spots. In fact, this is the first of his films I've ever watched. Truth be told, I'm not really blown away.




2 or 3 Things I Know About Her is an interesting film. It tells the story of Juliette, a Parisian housewife who earns extra money for her family as a prostitute. But there's so much more than that.



The film often takes on a documentary feel as the characters are prone to breaking the fourth wall (actually, there practically is no fourth wall) and speaking directly to the audience. Punctuating this is narration whispered by Godard that varies in content.

The film is beautifully shot, the frame is often full of vibrant colors and I love the composition, but the film just seems overloaded with themes and ideas. I felt like I was constantly lagging as the opinions and ideas range from art to commercialism to the war in Vietnam. The mundane and emotionless way these subjects are treated is undeniably potent, but I never really clicked with the film.



This is not to say I didn't admire the film, maybe I'm just not smart enough for this one, but half the time I watched it I felt like I was lost in a pretentious student film. Overall, I'm glad I watched this film, but it just wasn't for me. And yet, I think I would watch it again...

I'm conflicted on this one. On to the next, I believe it's The 400 Blows.

[wintertriangles]

This is not to say I didn't admire the film, maybe I'm just not smart enough for this one.He's not nearly as profound as he wants to think he is, don't look too hard.

[bluedeed]

You certainly picked an odd spot to start with Godard, one of his most difficult of the decade, and most significant. Godard is much easier to digest if you watch his films in order; Breathless is probably his most accessible and while it doesn't exactly slope linearly, the films certainly follow a certain logical evolution of style.

[bouncingbrick]

You certainly picked an odd spot to start with Godard, one of his most difficult of the decade, and most significant. Godard is much easier to digest if you watch his films in order; Breathless is probably his most accessible and while it doesn't exactly slope linearly, the films certainly follow a certain logical evolution of style.

I'm just watching the Criterion films in alphabetical order according to my PS3. LOL! I'll just have to deal with it. :D

[The Gunslinger45]

The 400 Blows is an excellent film. You will enjoy this one.

[honeykid]

and while it doesn't exactly slope linearly, the films certainly follow a certain logical evolution of style.
He's right. They start poorly and get worse. :p:D

400 Blows is excellent, though. Hope you enjoy it. :up:

[bouncingbrick]

The whole time I was watching 2 or 3 Things I just kept picturing Godard saying "isn't it deeply profound the way I'm juxtaposing images of construction with these characters who keep breaking the fourth wall?"

To which my response would be, "Yeah, but it would make a far greater impact if it was a straightforward narrative film. You had a powerful juxtaposition just in the bland way the characters treat their extraordinary circumstances..."

Meh, on to the next!

[bluedeed]

He's right. They start poorly and get worse. :p:D

400 Blows is excellent, though. Hope you enjoy it. :up:

The forum's overall distaste and dismissal of Godard, and radical approval of it, is one of its worst aspects

[wintertriangles]

I wouldn't call it dismissal when a lot of us have seen plenty of his work. You don't undergo that with a closed mind.

[bluedeed]

I wouldn't call it dismissal when a lot of us have seen plenty of his work. You don't undergo that with a closed mind.

True, but those who have seen him and dislike him encourage dismissal of him rather than exploration of him. Along with that, I've found consistently that those who dislike Godard often refuse to engage with him rather than give reason for their dislike, such as calling him pretentious without any sort of reasoning or logic, which is in itself somewhat pretentious.

[wintertriangles]

I see this on both sides. Though, if it makes you feel any better, my old French teacher and I had a decently long discussion about why we don't enjoy Godard. We both agreed nonetheless it was watching-time well spent.

[jiraffejustin]

I've noticed some Godard "hate" here, but I thought he had some fans here too. I can't think of any other than bluedeed off the top of my head though, so maybe I am wrong.

[bluedeed]

I see this on both sides. Though, if it makes you feel any better, my old French teacher and I had a decently long discussion about why we don't enjoy Godard. We both agreed nonetheless it was watching-time well spent.

I agree with that somewhat, and some of that's due to the fact that few people give more than a sentence or two with some popcorn bags to a movie and move one. Personally, I've written boatloads on Godard, but I haven't put much on here because I'm never confident in my writing, and I feel that there's more harm than good putting it on here, because I could say invalid or offensive things unknowingly, and my writing here usually doesn't provoke any responses.

[wintertriangles]

No one's writing here provokes responses.

….oh, but please continue your thread BB :shifty:

[mark f]

The thing about Godard and me is that to really analyze what he may be trying to do specifically (any valid interpretation), you have to have the film in front of you or have recently watched it once or twice. Then you have to go into it in more detail than I'm able to type given my current handicaps. If you and I (or anybody else) were watching the film in the same room we could discuss it in-depth, pause, rewind, constructively criticize, argue, agree and maybe learn ways to appreciate and look at (his) films from different perspectives. If I seem too often to attack him out of hand, it's because I only have time to highlight my first or second or third impressions in a cursory fashion, and they have been (fairly or not) most often negative. That doesn't mean they are entirely negative. Plus I think we have quite a few fans here, but his oeurve is quite intimidating to try to study and tie everything together. I'm much better at discussing Fassbinder and tracing his cinematic and thematic evolution since I've seen 31 of his full-length films and have most fresh in my mind. I still have the typing problem though. :).