Appreciating movies

>Alain Resnais

lol, my av, I just got mindf*cked by Marienbad. And yeah, what you said, mark.

And that's the part that is so foreign to me--why do I need to re-evaluate the details at all? And do I really need to see the film again to re-evaluate it? Can't I just do it in my head based on the first viewing? I appreciate your sharing your point of view, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass about it, but it just doesn't seem reasonable to me that you have to see a film several times to enjoy it. I mean, even professional critics don't view a film over and over before writing a review of it.

Serious question: in your evaluations have you ever decided on second viewing that the movie you liked the first time around you now can't stand as a result of your reevaluation?

If I like a book the first time I read it, I don't have to reread it to be sure I really like it. If I see a play that knocks my socks off the first time I see it, I don't go back the next evening to see if I still like it. And if I like a song, I don't replay it over and over to see if I get it. So why is this necessary with movies?

Why are you disturbed by the fact that I don't like that film? It doesn't disturb me that you like it. You can goldplate a DVD of the film for all I care. Your liking it doesn't paper over the parts I dislike about it, and me disliking it doesn't subtract one whit from your enjoyment. I'm sure you don't like some films I like, but so what? If it wasn't for differences of opinion, they'd never have invented horse racing.

Couldn't bother me too much since I don't know what the hell you mean as "precise." Anyway, I'd never presume to know what does or doesn't bother you based on a couple of postings. Maybe it would help if you reread and reevaluate mine. But if you don't, it certainly won't bother me.

The reason I don't care for Vertigo has nothing to do with the photography--in fact, I'll give you that the photography is just beautiful--or the way most scenes are staged (although a few do bug me). What I don't like about Vertigo is simply the holes in the murder plot. I can't believe the plot and there's no good reason to suspend my disbelief. If it makes you feel any betterl, I like several other Hitchcock films. I just don't care for this particular one. I don't even feel strongly enough to say I hate it (What's the point of "hating" a film?). It just doesn't satisfy me.

Enough with the wry ad hominem, please.

I said on the twist thread that I liked the film especially because the murder plot is so contrived.

Ostensibly the film is about the murder plot in which Scotty is used as a kind of staged false witness.

But what is the film really about? Desire and fantasy, isn't it? When Scotty is following Madeline around, he slowly falls in love with her. But she, due to the murder plot, is just a fantasy image, mainly his fantasy image. This is later shown when Scotty forces Madeline to become his fantasy image.

What is the most contrived part of Vertigo? The end right? How the dark shape is in the corner and Madeline is scared and falls. Isn't this the dumbest, stupidest sort of situational irony, especially since Scotty and Madeline are embracing right before?

That's because the murder plot and Madeline's rehabilitation is a fantasy that Scotty weaves in order to come to terms with Madeline's death. A defensive fantasy construct intended to explain her death or deny her death, either way it is a poorly built fantasy that can be disturbed by the presence of a nun. The nun is The Real imposing on Scotty's fantasy and she destroys his fantasy just when he thinks he has conquered it. Isn't it like how you always wake up from a dream just before the best part?

Thus is Vertigo from a different perspective, utilizing a specific focus on details other than the murder plot, something that seems to be the main plot with Madeline's romance on the side, when it is entirely the opposite.

But some songs are growers. I'm sure you've found songs that grow on you after you've heard them more than once. Although with movies, you often don't get time for that second chance- songs are much shorter than movies.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

[quote=mark f;647800]rufnek, I think you're being way too literal. We don't rewatch movies to see what our eyes may have missed. We rewatch them to see what our hearts and minds may have missed. We aren't especially rewatching the films to clarify the plot. We're rewatching them to try to figure out what it really means. What is the deeper meaning and how does it affect us in some non-superficial way. It could just be the way certain characters interract and how their relationship seems more (or less) meaningful than it originally did. I like to be able to understand what a film's plot is but if there are more-symbolic things occurring in the film and you only look at it from the point of view of just trying to understand "what's going on", you can easily miss many images which have significance far beyond the plot./quote]

Ah, Mark! I was just waiting for you to explain it all to me. "We rewatch them to see what our hearts and minds may have missed." Now that's beautiful, damn near poetic. Of course, me being me, I gotta wonder what your heart and mind were doing in the first showing that distracted their attention. Sorry, just messing with you--you'd probably be disappointed if I didn't pull your chain just once.

Now symbolism I can understand. We used to have some great arguments about that in our college English lit class about a million years ago. I remember one scene from the book Crime and Punishment where one of the protagonists is standing under a small tree planted by the street in this city. It has just rained. I think the man is wearing a raincoat or some protective garment (this was decades ago, so forgive me if my memory is rusty). Anyway, drops of rainwater are dripping from the leaves of the tree onto the man's coat. The man stands there looking into the setting sun. There's another man across the street--some military guard, I think, maybe a policeman. And the man under the tree tells him, "I'm going to America." Then the man pulls out a pistol and shoots himself.

The scene is just dripping with symbolism, of course: standing under a tree by the city street, the dripping rainwater, the coat that encloses the man and seals him off from the life-giving water, the setting sun, the authority figure, the man about to set out on a journey west--not to the promised land of America, of course, but certainly a place far away where he will remain permanently.

But what if the reader doesn't know anything about symbolism in literature? He reads the short passage and learns the man kills himself. Does the symbolism tell us any more than that? Does the reader still get the essence of the passage even though he doesn't recognize the symbolism? Or is all the symbolism sort of a belt and suspenders approach to relaying the simple fact that the guy shoots himself?

As you can see, I have mixed thoughts on symbolism, but as you say some directors and some viewers enjoy the hunt for symbols. However, while some books like Crime and Punishment and The Scarlett Letter are chocked full of symbolism, would you expect to find it in a Mickey Spillane paperback? (Sorry, I don't know who might be the modern equivalent of Spillane.) I would assume the symbolism would be kinda thin in films like Transformers and Meet the Fokkers. So I guess a lot of films--maybe even the majority?--aren't worth a second viewing, at least not to uncover any deeper meaning or symbolism.

Oh, Mark, I love your blithe assumption that I'm just some clod who fell off the turnip wagon and into your blueberry patch! I hope you don't make such snap judgments of your other students. I had some teachers like that back when I was in public schools--probably why I turned out this way.

Anyhow, counting the number of films you've seen is nearly as crass as counting the number of women you've loved. I will say I liked Bergman's The Seventh Seal the very first time I saw it. And it was still good at my most recent viewing. Of course, it's not something one would want to tackle everyday, but it's a hell of a story even if one doesn't know a damn thing about symbolism. And Wild Strawberries probably has more meaning to me at my age than to you at yours, yet I'm sure we both enjoy it in our own simple ways.

I'm not familar with Resnais' name although I think I've heard of Tarkovsky, but then I may be confusing him with someone else. Anyway, I can't say for sure whether or not I've seen any of their films--maybe I have. Or maybe not.

I think our main difference, Mark, is that you're an aficionado of the cinema while I sometimes enjoy a good pictureshow. But what the hell difference does it make if we both enjoy what we're seeing?

Sorry, my grades in Latin weren't very good. And I'm not of the Catholic faith.

Haven't read that thread so I didn't know.

Actually, no. Like my real life, my dream life is different from most.

I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this film and have worked out a version you're happy with. Good for you! Glad you enjoy it. My view of the film is so different that I don't think the two touch at any point. But I won't go into detail as it would only upset you. But really, I am glad you like it.

It's called analysis. I'm done listening to you sh*t on one of the greatest works of cinema ever.

I've got a CD I recorded of several of my favorite songs that I've been playing for a month or more driving to and from work. I don't get tired of the tunes but of course I don't discover anything more meaningful in them either. They are just tunes I like. Tunes I've been listening to for years.

On the other hand, sometimes repeated playing of a tune just drives me up the wall. Take what'shername Montana's long-haired daddy. Years ago he came out with this Achey Breaky Heart. First time I heard it was on a radio station that sometimes played tapes from local amateurs and at first I thought that tune was one of them. Thought the band needs practice and surely they could find a better singer, but for a bunch of amateurs, they weren't too bad. At least they started and ended together.

But then I learned to my surprise they were a professional bunch! Second time I heard it, I thought well, it's kinda a cute offbeat number. Maybe they'll do better on their second try. Third hearing I said to myself, These guys are never gonna make it to the big time. Fourth time it came on I noticed it was playing about halfway through and switched to another station. Fifth time, the moment the song started, I switched over. Sixth time, I turned off the radio. Seventh time, I veered across 3 lanes of heavy traffic on a Houston interstate and damn near clipped a van load of Girl Scouts as I yanked my radio out of the dash and chunked it out the window. Then I went home and recorded a CD of songs I do like and put it in my pickup.

Damn, you're thin-skinned!!! What would have happened had I actually said anything about the film itself??? I'm still glad you like it. Wish you all the best.

I watch movies over and over. I'm pretty sure I've watched "The Women" at least 60 times.

__________________
**Tia**
Movies in Tucson

First off, ruffy, I could be wrong about you because you're probably much-wiser and open than I am, but most people I know have these walls surrounding them about something. The size of the walls may change and the something obviously changes, but all humans have at least one other thing about them besides the fact that they are mortal. They all want to express themselves and allow expression to enter in. However, everybody I know is hesitant to allow everything in and/or out unless they are 100% accomplishesd as a fully-developed person. This is why I believe that every human will not be able to grasp all the significances of every film. And yes, I'm including anathema such as Pearl Harbor and Avatar, so I don't believe that intellect or age really have anything to do with it. Maybe Gandhi could watch a film and get everything out of it the first time, but I believe his philosophy may even trump his openness. Of course, I'd love if I was wrong about that.

As far as the part about blueberries, your own walls created that statement because at no point did I act like you were an idiot about films. You are erudite about film as far as I'm concerned. At least as long as everything you share is totally honest. I also have no idea how you connect my simple question to my having "blithe assumption"s. I think you are the wise old fart assuming here.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Thin skinned? Maybe just fed up with you completely dismissing my attempt to demonstrate Vertigo's multiple levels of meaning with "good for you".

Any work can have several layers of meaning. It's called deconstruction, ya heard? Just because Dostoyevsky, the Russian guy, is some Russian guy doesn't make his novels the only cache of symbolic meaning. It's easy to find symbolism in Hawthorne 'cause he smashes you over the head with it. Same with Bergman from what I've seen. Resnais might be the minor one here, but Tarkovsky, the Russian guy, is some Russian guy and he's much more subtle than Bergman.

Resnais made Last Year at Marienbad for the precise reason of resisting any meaning, but I think this is a prime example where by being as random as possible, he gives us the perfect building blocks to craft a beautiful, symbolic structure within the work, where, as Resnais said explicitly, there should exist none.

Your attitude of "what if the reader doesn't know 'bout the symbolism" is very simplistic, as if there is that one intended symbolic structure that Dostoyevsky intended. The scene could be read in a multitude of ways. Who's to say any particular one is right or wrong? It's a symbolic reading after all. Hawthorne is a good example of someone who specifically writes a novel to illustrate something on the symbolic level. The Old Man and the Sea is a classic allegory for Christ. The story works well on both levels. But whose to say that those are the only readings, even if they are the supposedly intended ones?

And I'm glad that your dreams are unique and special snowflakes. Good for you.

Going back to the topic of this thread, I believe that movies with a twist (especially a particularly big one) can be appreciated even more when watched a second time around because (and this is especially relevant with Fight Club) you might notice the clues that the film gives you throughout it that lead up to the big twist, that you might not have noticed before.

__________________
"Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?"

There can always be something new in a film. You can always see a different perspective in a character which can give you new insight in on a film that you have watched before.

Okay, here's my general opinion (don't mind the maths so much yall) of rewatches in relation to judging a film.

Score: essentially the percentage of film run-time that was "positive" in your eyes.

1. The first watch is the most important. I'd say something like 75% of your score should be in the first watch.

2. The second (and from second onward) "purely for enjoyment/emotional experience" watch is also pretty important. If a movie noticeably diminishes in impact on the second watch (e.g. Memento) then it should loose something, because the "content" was solely dependent on your misunderstanding of the occurrences; these are "one-trick ponies" so to speak. 15% of the score.

3. The critical watches make up the last 10% of the score. These are the deconstructionist hunts for multiple levels of meaning. Some films seem very shallow by there very nature, or maybe their symbolic message is obscene. Hell, maybe their outwardly avowed message is obscene. You should totally take off for that, but not so much, I think. Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will is not a zero, let's be honest. It sure has a lot more emotional impact than Zach Effron films.

Actually, I give The Triumph of the Will a 7/10. It's a one-of-a-kind combo of artistic composition and scary *****.

I can't really think of any other female film directors in the first half of the 20th century (I'm sure there are some but none are springing to mind). How strange that the Nazi ideal of women was so backward yet they have a female director who's produced one of the most famous propaganda films ever.

Hey, Mark! Good response, although I'm not sure what you mean about walls. I've always considered myself as an open book--what you see is what you get. And I tend to take others at face value, in which case I'm sure I do take things more litterally than I sometimes should. But I did like your earlier post about revisiting films to pick up what your "heart and mind" might have missed. I really like the way you put it, and I can understand where you're coming from. I on the other hand just can't take films that seriously, at least to the point of comparing them with my own life, because I don't see that much of a match between most movies and real life, certainly not my life except only in the most superficial way. But maybe it's my life that has been superficial. For instance, I've mentioned in this forum before about going to see Love With a Proper Stranger the night my first wife and I split. In fact, earlier that day I had put her and our daughter on a flight back to the states from Germany where I was stationed. Natalie Wood had a line in the film where she complained about the usual concept of love when in reality you end up with someone who is a stranger. And I thought to myself, "You got that right!" because my ol' lady and I were complete strangers to each other when she arrived in Germany, although we celebrated our first anniversary before I was shipped over. But that was as much "reflection" as I was capable of. I wasn't Steve McQueen and she damn sure was no Natalie Wood, and our relationship wasn't anything like what was pictured in that film. But I did think it had a good cast and was well acted, and I've watched it multiple times for that reason alone. Never think about my ex when I watch it, because I've always been with someone better since then.

Well, it's certainly possible I was wrong, and so I appologize for my misjudgment. But that wasn't the first time you've asked how many films I've seen by this or that director, although I think it was the first time I responded in that manner. Questions like that always gave me the feeling that I wasn't exactly the most urbane or adequately educated movie goer you'd ever encountered. And probably I am not.

It sorta reminded me of an ol' boy I knew in the Army who always made such a thing about how to properly drink wine--hold the glass up to the light, admire the color, swirl the glass, sniff, sip, roll it on your tongue. Me, I once caused a scene in first class on an Air France flight when I insisted on have the red wine with my dinner instead of the white wine that the rules say should go with that dish. I didn't care what the proper "rules" were--I just liked the red wine better.

The problem with these written exchanges is that they lack the facial expression, tone of voice, and body language of face-to-face conversation, cause I really was trying to play nice and not offend when I said I was glad you enjoyed the film on any level you want. I've seen too many people get all hacked off in these posts thinking someone was putting down their favorite movie. It doesn't matter to me--you can zap any film you wanna, cause I don't have a single investment of time, money or even emotion in any of them. Movies are simply entertainment to me--if I want meaning, I'll read the book.

So if you want to deconstruct any motion picture, I wish you nothing but the best. I personally don't choose to go that route because I've never seen a movie that has anything beyond a superficial relation to real life.

[quote=planet news;648527]Your attitude of "what if the reader doesn't know 'bout the symbolism" is very simplistic, as if there is that one intended symbolic structure that Dostoyevsky intended. The scene could be read in a multitude of ways. Who's to say any particular one is right or wrong?[/qute]

Ah, but then I'm a very simple guy! And I really doubt if many of 15-35 males most movies are aimed at today know even as much about symbolism as I do. But if a film can be read any way you want to, then my simplistic point that it fails as a murder plot is just as valid--for me, anyway--as your more complicated assessment.

As for being thin skinned, it just seemed odd to me that you accused me of chitting all over a great film when I don't recall even criticizing the film itself. In fact, I thought my whole post was mild. Although I disagreed with your assessment, I tried to make the point that it was just as valid to you as mine to me.

Who plays Christ? The Old Man or the swordfish he brings down? Either way, I figure the sharks are cast as the pharisees.


Why, thank you! See what a gracious compliment that can be. What makes my dreams unique is that they usually take the form of a movie, with me watching from the audience, totally uninvolved. Sometimes they're real movies with different casts--I distinctly remember dreaming High Sierra with Alan Ladd playing Bogart's role. In others, I've come up with really odd casts like F.D.R., Ava Gardner, and the cartoon version of Dagwood. I don't recall any like you suggested in which I awake before something good or bad happens. Good or bad is meaningless when you're just watching the show.

I hear ya. It's a classical view that literature, text, is some kind of higher art form than music or film even though many films are based on novels and most have music.

I'd say film is the highest artform, but let me get back to you on that, because it requires a pretty in depth argument. Seriously, I need to think.

Other than that, you need to watch more films or different films or change something about the way you watch films, because, while I agree that Hollywood is a steaming pile of trash, there is far more to the universe of film than Hollywood.

If you think cinema is merely entertainment then watch Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr. They, and many others, specialize in difficult films--meditative, not visceral; films enjoyable mostly on an intellectual level. If you've seen Bergman then you must know what I mean. I think it's quite vulgar to call Persona entertainment. It is, at most, intellectual erotica. Other than that it keeps you as far away from a visceral experience as possible.