25th Hall of Fame

Tools    





And what about Chimes at Midnight with a good sound quality? I just tried watching it and I can't understand a word.
Even the "restored" edition BluRay I watched has sub-optimal sound, so whichever copy you tried might be as good as it gets. Turning on subtitles made a huge difference though, so hopefully that's an option for you.



That way, we can increase the likelihood of providing a safe space for everyone who joins these threads.
I wonder if this might be the main issue at play. Siddon said something earlier about not feeling safe trusting people due to repeated exposure to underage nudity and supposed troll nominations.

I don't personally support a screening process for the HoFs (unless it's a specialty HoF, then the host should make sure the films all fit the theme, as we have been doing already), but I do want the HoFs to feel welcoming to everyone to wants to participate. I'd be perfectly fine with adding nonrestrictive measures like the already mentioned content labelling if it makes participants feel more comfortable. As long as a film is not a blind grab, the person nominating it would know details a quick google search might not bring up.





BlacKkKlansman (2018)

Spike Lee is a fascinating film maker a man who started his career in essence launching some of the greatest african american films of all-time. Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X, Jungle Fever, and School Daze are all classics, after making those films he sort of went into a minor slump with several underperforming works. Then in 1996 we got a 2nd Lee wave where started focusing on nonfiction and historical pieces like He Got Game, 4 Little Girls, Get on the Bus, 25th Hour and When the Levees Broke. Lee's work dropped like a stone after that often times making middling to average to in some cases terrible films. The Oscars had written him off and given him a lifetime achievement award(a dubious distinction considering how many legendary directors the Academy had snubbed).

But then this movie came out and suddenly everything changed and Lee found and seemingly is starting a third wave, a fairly incredible accomplishment for the filmmaker. The irony is he receive criticism for his portrayal of police brutality in the film. I disagree I think what makes the story so good is that Lee is grounded and given set framework to work off. Having actual people at the center of the story creates an atmosphere where Lee has to look not towards the narrative of the story but the style. Sometimes it's the little things that have the greatest impact.


In the 1970's the first black police officer in Colorado decides to infiltrate the KKK. Being a black man he needs to use a partner to help him with his plan. While doing this he ends up in contact with David Duke a rising political figure. The story is simple and to the point it doesn't attempt to say or doing anything grand but rather to tell a tense story. Adam Driver is a real standout here, watching this film for a second time his work undercover and at the station is remarkable. We can tell he's stressed dealing with the Klan because we're given context earlier on. The conversations between Topher Grace and John Washington are very good, the way the racist is humored and exposed by Washington is great. The film always has a level of contempt for the Klan people without going overboard.



The only failure the film has is it's closing credit sequence. Not to say it's a bad idea to draw the line between earlier racism and the racism of today but it was a bit over the top. The subtext was strong, you have a great and powerful police stoppage scene in the film that I felt elevated the film. We didn't need a propagandist ending to the story with the documentary footage. What it does is it dates the film..when you are telling a timeless A plot giving it a specific denouncement at the end was a mistake.


Still great nomination.



The Green Years -
CONTAINS SPOILERS

Don Henley said it best in "Sunset Grill:" "you see a lot more meanness in the city." This is doubly true for the unequipped like Julio, a young man from the country of humble means who tries to make it in Lisbon. We first see him as eager, willing to work hard and open to finding love, but city life is no picnic for him and his transition to beaten down, cynical and hopeless is heartbreaking to watch. I especially like the scene with him and his girlfriend Ilda on the hillside that I dub "the sweater affair" for how it captures this transition. It's a mostly wordless scene, but the couple’s actions say everything that needs to be said. Also, the twist with the narrator, Julio's uncle Afonso, is a nice touch for how we're led to believe that he's found a happy medium with his similarly humble background and city life. It turns out, though, that his only - or at least the most fulfilling - part of his day is being a barfly. Another highlight is the scene that might as well be in Parasite where Ilda tries on her wealthy employer's outfits for Julio for how it defines "so close, yet so far." This is the first movie from Portugal that I've watched, and I believe that it's a good introduction to their cinema. Even so, and to namedrop Parasite again, I've seen a lot of movies that explore being a fish out of water, class differences, city vs. country life, being ground up by the machine, etc., and while this is not the worst one I've seen, it's also not the best. Credit goes to Paulo Rocha and company for making this movie on what is reportedly a very small budget and that is critical of the country's direction at the time, but I couldn’t help but think about similar movies while watching it - Il Posto is another one - that I liked better. Again, I still enjoyed the movie quite a bit, especially for how it proves that Millennials and Gen-Z are hardly the first generations to be left with table scrap opportunities. It's a crime that’s been going on for a long time, not to mention around the world.

By the way, I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the cut of the movie on the website where I watched it or if I simply have bad viewing comprehension, but I can’t help but feel like some footage is missing. Between Julio returning to the dance hall after feeling ill and the couples’ awkward walk home after leaving, it's as if a scene or two is missing. Is that the case or is it I who is missing something?







Sundays and Cybele (1962)


So this is a film about an abandoned...really forsaken orphan (Cybelle) and a PTSD pilot who tries to become a surrogate father to the girl. The story is uncomfortable and tone deaf. Once again we have yet another nomination about sexualization of a child. It's a complicated film to digest and critique as the central character is clearly being groomed to love Pierre, Cybele often speaks of a future between the two, and this is what the movie is about.


While it's very easy to dismiss the film as trash, visually it's a stunning achievement. The photography is easily some of the best from this era often times the camera feels like it's very own character. And while normally it's a cliche you really feel like you are observing the story though a third narrator. The film confronts it's main issue head on, but 70 years later it still doesn't feel right. Hardy Kruger is stone faced throughout the film. Patricia Gotzi is fine as the female lead though nothing really to write home about from her performance. Nicole Courcel plays the girlfriend of Pierre and she's very strong in this. Perhaps the story would have been better handled if it was told through her eyes with a degree of suspense, not empathy.


The whole idea of a grown man seeking companionship from a child is uncomfortable and sadly the film's production values can't move past a terrible message.







Sundays and Cybele (1962)


So this is a film about an abandoned...really forsaken orphan (Cybelle) and a PTSD pilot who tries to become a surrogate father to the girl. The story is uncomfortable and tone deaf. Once again we have yet another nomination about sexualization of a child. It's a complicated film to digest and critique as the central character is clearly being groomed to love Pierre, Cybele often speaks of a future between the two, and this is what the movie is about.


While it's very easy to dismiss the film as trash, visually it's a stunning achievement. The photography is easily some of the best from this era often times the camera feels like it's very own character. And while normally it's a cliche you really feel like you are observing the story though a third narrator. The film confronts it's main issue head on, but 70 years later it still doesn't feel right. Hardy Kruger is stone faced throughout the film. Patricia Gotzi is fine as the female lead though nothing really to write home about from her performance. Nicole Courcel plays the girlfriend of Pierre and she's very strong in this. Perhaps the story would have been better handled if it was told through her eyes with a degree of suspense, not empathy.


The whole idea of a grown man seeking companionship from a child is uncomfortable and sadly the film's production values can't move past a terrible message.
I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the film. I don’t think Cybele is being groomed or sexualized in any way. I think he loves her as a friend and not in any kind of sexual way.







Sundays and Cybele (1962)


So this is a film about an abandoned...really forsaken orphan (Cybelle) and a PTSD pilot who tries to become a surrogate father to the girl. The story is uncomfortable and tone deaf. Once again we have yet another nomination about sexualization of a child. It's a complicated film to digest and critique as the central character is clearly being groomed to love Pierre, Cybele often speaks of a future between the two, and this is what the movie is about.


While it's very easy to dismiss the film as trash, visually it's a stunning achievement. The photography is easily some of the best from this era often times the camera feels like it's very own character. And while normally it's a cliche you really feel like you are observing the story though a third narrator. The film confronts it's main issue head on, but 70 years later it still doesn't feel right. Hardy Kruger is stone faced throughout the film. Patricia Gotzi is fine as the female lead though nothing really to write home about from her performance. Nicole Courcel plays the girlfriend of Pierre and she's very strong in this. Perhaps the story would have been better handled if it was told through her eyes with a degree of suspense, not empathy.


The whole idea of a grown man seeking companionship from a child is uncomfortable and sadly the film's production values can't move past a terrible message.
I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the film. I don’t think Cybele is being groomed or sexualized in any way. I think he loves her as a friend and not in any kind of sexual way.
I have to agree with Allaby. You saw it the way other adults in the movie saw it without any understanding, and that's part of the tragedy of the film. I saw Pierre as childlike due to his PTSD.





Vertigo (1958)
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes

Vertigo is a psychological thriller with a rather slow, yet tense pace that cleverly uses colour and lightning to enhance the mood of specific scenes. It sometimes takes on a dream-like aesthetic, and the actual nightmare sequences are beautifully realized. If nothing else, the film should be applauded for its innovative camerawork. The invention of the dolly zoom technique, which the film uses to great effect during Scottie's bouts of vertigo, has had a major impact on the industry as a whole.

The performances are great, particularly from Jimmy Stewart. And tough the story starts simply enough, it becomes more elaborate and twisted as time goes by. As one mystery morphs into another, Scottie himself shifts from a fairly sympathetic former detective into an obsessive, controlling man who may be losing touch with reality. I actually wasn't as engaged this viewing as I had been previously, but as it stands,
Vertigo is a classic that I could've called a masterpiece if it had simply removed one scene.

Warning: this last paragraph contains spoilers.

If the “letter writing” sequence had been cut, it would completely alter the perspective of everything that followed, and opened the film up to other interpretations. If the viewer is unaware of the true connection between Judy and Madeline, the extent of Scottie's obsession would remain unclear. The audience could never be certain whether Judy's resemblance to Madeline was all in his head or not. We could ask if he really pieced together the details of a crime, or had his delusions simply gotten out of control, and possibly driven a poor girl to suicide.



Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Vertigo.jpg
Views:	347
Size:	182.7 KB
ID:	77650  



Warning: Spoilers for Vertigo below.

Only in my version Kim Novak grabs the bell tower ledge and dangles perilously, just like Stewart did in the beginning of the film. Stewart is the only one who can save her, but he struggles with his vertigo..Will she fall to her death? Or will he save her?...After a few tense moments, Stewart finally musters the courage and does save her...Then a final end scene is: a far shot from the tower looking down at a cop car, as we see a blonde in a gray suit dress being placed into the cop car.
I'm with you on this, up to the "...or will he save her?" bit. I'd stop it right there, because I clearly love ambiguous endings haha.



Warning: Spoilers for Vertigo below.


I'm with you on this, up to the "...or will he save her?" bit. I'd stop it right there, because I clearly love ambiguous endings haha.
That ending works too



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Les dimanches de Ville d'Avray (1962)

I actually prefer the original name because the English name gives away a mini-spoiler, which is a shame.
WARNING: "VERTIGO" spoilers below
It reminds me of the name Portuguese gave Vertigo: The Woman who Lived Twice... Like, f*** you, I didn't need to know that!


Well... I see I'm the first to review this film, and I'm really curious to see what the general reaction will be. I'm expecting it to be the most debatable film of the HoF, so I can't wait for you guys to see it.

First, let me say that this film is tremendously well shot!
In fact, it's so beautiful that it helps to make the viewer more comfortable with the morals of the film. Les dimanches de Ville d'Avray is a film that at least tries to have a debate on whether pedophilia can be acceptable or not and at most openly condones it. So, there's that...

The love story between Françoise and Pierre begins in a very innocent and paternal way, to the point I thought this was going up a very different path. A 12-year-old girl, abandoned by her father, is being visited by a 30-year-old man that quickly assumes the father figure. However, we soon see the girl admitting she loves him and talking about marriage which wouldn't be necessarily bad if Pierre didn't start to talk about the same things. From that point on, their dynamic is the same as the one of a loving couple. Pierre's wife is seen as an obstacle but she eventually sees them together and understands and Pierre's best friend, Carlos, an artist, supports the union since the beginning. Carlos' wife and Bernard are the only ones who appear to be firmly against it, citing the obvious reasons, and yet they are portrayed as the villains of this story, especially Bernard who eventually calls the cops on Pierre which would lead to the very tragic end of this story.

Now the question arises: Can a film still have value if it supports or at least suggests such an objectionable moral principle? I'd say yes.

Technically, this film is very very good. As I said it has an amazing cinematography, the few moments when music is heard are incredibly powerful and well-executed and the acting is very very good from everyone involved. My problem with it is that it's never clear how mature does the director wants Françoise to be. One moment, she's clearly a child, the next moment she quickly gains 10 years. The last line for instance: it's a beautiful line but it seems out of character.
Then you have Pierre, who is mentally disturbed by PTSD, looking sweet and innocent most of the time, but then he has that moment right after knowing Françoise's real name, where he blatantly looks like a psycho. We later know that by "surprise" he meant the rooster on top of the church, but that's not clear at first, which I think creates an unnecessary doubt.
The final scene, though inflicted by that small issue I've already explained, has an amazing gravitas to it, and made me feel sorry for Pierre, which goes to show how effective was Bourguignon's direction.

A challenging film, but a beautiful one nonetheless.

-



The Truth is next for me.

Also, is @rbrayer still in this?
He's almost done with the Asian HoF. The deadline for that one is coming up soon so he's probably working on finishing that HoF before starting this one.



Tonight I rewatched Sundays and Cybèle (1962) on blu ray. Masterfully directed by Serge Bourguignon, this beautiful, Oscar winning French drama tells the story of a traumatized pilot named Pierre who forms a close bond with Cybèle, a neglected 12 year old girl. I unapologetically love this film. The screenplay is excellent and the cinematography is gorgeous. Hardy Krüger does a great job as Pierre, haunted and seeking connection. Patricia Gozzi is a revelation as Cybèle, charming, haunting, and heartbreaking. Hers is one of the best child performances I have ever seen. I really liked the way the film developed their relationship. They are two people hurting, in need of love and they find each other. I don't think there is anything sexual or perverse in their relationship and those who see something sexual here may be reading in to the film and missing out on the point. For me, Sundays and Cybèle is an essential masterpiece and one of the greatest films of all time.



I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the film. I don’t think Cybele is being groomed or sexualized in any way. I think he loves her as a friend and not in any kind of sexual way.

The central idea of the story is Pierre having this relationship and Cybele seeing him as someone to marry when she turns 18. You also have a fairly obvious phallic symbol that runs through the film and even plays into the finale. It's a troubling film to discuss because of our social morays and the sexual undertones of the film.






Bicycle Thieves (1948)


Post WWII Italy provided a goldmind for Italian filmmakers, Bicycle Thieves is often considered the classic of this time period. Vittorio Di Sica tells the story of a man looking for work with a young wife and two small children. Obviously based on the time frame one child can around before the war with the other one during the war. For me this is the best part of cinema taking you to world and showing you the complexities of a reconstruction.



The issue of class is so well shown here...where the young are crooks, the elderly have survived and carved out little niches and the middleaged are stuck in these rough moral quandry's. Antonio is a good man who tries to do the right thing, who is careful and not a fool in any way shape or form. Antonio is still hit in the face with reality when his bicycle is stolen, the first one he had to sell to pay for food.


Every shot in this film is framed very well, the city is it's own character. The extras are given a sense of life and once again we get that snapshot at history which I love. Still though while the film is good it's still a step below perfect the third act drags a bit, it feels about twice it's runtime and unlike the Chaplin films (which clearly inspirations) the son doesn't have the same charm as Chaplin's sidekicks.



Still I have fairly high hopes that this will be a winner or in contention at the end of the competition.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
The central idea of the story is Pierre having this relationship and Cybele seeing him as someone to marry when she turns 18. You also have a fairly obvious phallic symbol that runs through the film and even plays into the finale. It's a troubling film to discuss because of our social morays and the sexual undertones of the film.
I missed your review, sorry!


I agree. There's clearly something weird going on. Even some of the other adults recognize and accept that. While it's a kind of pure love, in the sense that is not sexual, Pierre still loves the girl.
Now, you can tell me that he has PTSD and behaves like a child, but that's no excuse! What he's doing has a name: grooming!





La Vérité (1960)


Le Sigh, one of the things that annoyed me about the other Hall is when a great directors lesser works get nominated. A film like this peaks in the first 30 minutes and then goes downhill because it can't maintain any sort of momentum. This is the story of a murder and attempted suicide by Bardot. The initial death is handled so well..shocking even but then we get an hour and half to digest and deal with what we've just seen. For me the experiment just doesn't work and it's the editor/cinematographer and directors fault.


Bardot is good in this, her person journey is effective when we see her in court we get all the proper emotions including boredom. The problem is often times her reactions are in a sea of people when the camera really should be cutting to her. 80% of the cast just exists for exposition, and while I enjoy the duality of these elderly judges looking down on this youthful woman it's more than half the film...less can be more.



It's hard to watch someone obsess over suicide for two hours, especially in just a dry and somewhat melodramatic situation. Several characters seem to exist solely to contrast with Bardot and that's not a way to tell a story. This was a movie made in 1960...the sexual liberation of young people was just starting to begin but the stuffyness of the story just never moved into the next gear.