Rate The Last Movie You Saw

That’s hilarious, I very much agree. I’d even say it persists as a problem. It’s very difficult to sufficiently ground romance even in the most sophisticated of films, so that you could actually see what attracted character x to character y and why. I can’t think of one film off the top of my head where that works, except maybe Only Lovers Left Alive (2013).

Great movie. Works on so many levels. It's probably my favorite Jarmusch which is saying something. It came close to making my Top 25.

Watched Duma today. A fairly decent and enjoyable movie, with a gorgeous cat.

Harper - Paul Newman looks like he's having fun with this and that's what sells the movie. He plays worn down private detective Lew Harper who's hired by the rich and paralyzed Elaine Sampson (Lauren Bacall) to find her missing husband. As is usually the MO with PI movies the seemingly uncomplicated case turns into anything but with the usual tangled web of likely suspects. There's the rich man's personal pilot (Robert Wagner) his oversexed daughter (Pamela Tiffin) his attorney and close friend of Harper (Arthur Hill) and lots of colorful riffraff including Shelley Winters, Robert Webber, Strother Martin and Julie Harris. The cast, as you can tell, is first rate and there are plenty of red herrings and Newman's character gets the usual amount of lumps and beatings. His Harper is equal parts laconic and sardonic and altogether entertaining. 90/100

I almost have to regard them as separate entities that I love equally. I took a Film Noir class in high school where we'd read the books and then watch the movies, and The Big Sleep was one of my favorites.

I don't mind that it's hard to "see" people fall in love (I mean, except when it really feels contrived and doesn't seem to fit with the characters).

But I agree that to often romantic subplots are compulsively wedged into films where they do not belong. I recently watched Lindsey Ellis's series on the Hobbit movies. She has a whole section about the romantic triangle (linked below) that was put in AFTER THE MOVIE HAD FILMED. So they made the whole movie, then made the actors come back to add scenes so that there was a romantic triangle. And the actress had even specified that she would take the part only if there wasn't a romance angle to it. SIGH. (The relevant part of the video starts at 24:09)

The Ipcress File (1965)

I subscribe to the aesthetic definition of noir - the "mood, themes and style" - under which a number of pre-1940 films qualify. Lang's noir style, evident from M and Mabuse, didn't radically change when arriving in Hollywood, nor did it substantially shift after 1941. If the only thing separating You Only Live Once and Scarlet Street from the noir designation is the year they were made, then I think the distinction is meaningless. MKS seems to subscribe to the more temporal and national criteria of what makes a noir, and that's the crux of our disagreement.


Maltese Falcon makes for an ideal tentpole in the genre. It's a fundamental and excellent example and was culturally iconic enough to shorthand the movement. I see it more as a crest than a conception.

I mentioned that one as a peripheral example. It definitely is at the outskirts of stretching the term. The relevant aspects being the grisliness of the murders (although largely inexplicit on screen) and the use of the camera to simulate "stalking". But these are not hard and fast rules, nor should they be.





Heh. Well, along the noirish themes of fate, temptation and existential dread, and the specific style of shadow composition in the genre, I still find pre-American Hitchcock and Lang well within the boundaries.

I made an essay on this particular movie for my class last week I loved it. It is a very deep movie. here it is:
CONTENT VS CONTEXT (200 WORDS)
In Gotham City, during the holiday season, a dark fellow named the Penguin comes out of the city's sewers and allies himself with a wealthy, unscrupulous businessman named Schreck. The latter wants to build a power station to drain all of the city's energy. However, when Selina Kyle, her assistant, finds out about Schreck's malicious plans, Schreck will attempt to eliminate her by throwing her out the window. Thus, Catwoman will be born. In order to eliminate Batman, Selina Kyle will also ally himself with the penguin, who in the meantime, pushed by Schreck, decides to run for mayor in order to make the latter's plans possible. As discussed above, the action takes place during the holiday season in Gotham, which as usual is rife with crime. Going from shootings to explosions, the metropolis will become a place of disorder for residents and authorities.
FORMAL AND AESTHETIC APPROACH (400 WORDS)
Tim Burton was obviously greatly inspired by the German expressionist movement when filming Batman Returns. Thus, we find in his work several characteristics specific to expressionism. First of all, the city plays a very important role in the story. Gotham seems alive and the director has fun filming it from all angles. Alleys, sewers, public places, roofs, poor neighborhoods, wealthy neighborhoods, nothing belonging to the metropolis is hidden. Moreover, the latter is filmed with very little light, which accentuates the level of fear and uncertainty specific to the expressionist cinema from which it is inspired. Then the puppet's roles are clearly defined by Selina Kyle, who, before becoming Catwoman, was Schreck's shy secretary, as well as the Penguin, who came out of the shadows and manipulated by the wealthy businessman. Next comes the theme of the double. Indeed, all the main characters of the film have a double identity. Whether it's Bruce Wayne and Batman, Selina Kyle and Catwoman or Oswald Cobblepot and the Penguin, all have an alter-ego. There is also the presence of the theme of moral revolt against the bourgeoisie, a recurring theme of German expressionism, is also present in the film. Indeed, it is important to remember that it is Catwoman and not Batman who will get rid of billionaire Schreck. Selina Kyle who, unlike Bruce Wayne, is not part of the bourgeoisie. We will deepen this analysis in the following paragraph. Additionally, Burton’s film is filmed entirely inside huge studios, as was largely the case during the German Expressionist film era. The size of the studios in particular allowed the construction of magnificent urban settings with very rectangular buildings (apart from the Schreck tower) forming rigid and aggressive lines. Finally, comes the processing of the circle and the angle. Indeed, Gotham marries the two types of traits very well. Going from rough, angular and straight for buildings, these lines become rounded and supple when we dive into the world of the Penguin. As proof of this, the sewers, the capitals and the spiral staircases, present in his marker when he became a candidate for mayor. In short, by noting the characteristics of German expressionist films, one can easily see that Tim Burton was inspired by this movement when he produced his film. Now, it remains to be seen how Batman Returns is such a mannerist movie. First of all, what is obvious is the exuberant presence of film references. Tim Burton likes to quote the big names in German expressionist cinema like Fritz Lang, Robert Wiene, Max Schreck himself and many others. (The aspect of the penguin as well as the chase towards the end of the film refers to Doctor Caligari (1920), the appearance of the city, the aspect of Schreck, the latter's office, the public square as well as the giant statue of the worker pushing the lever are all references to Metropolis (1927), the name of the rich billionaire businessman is a reference to the German actor Max Schreck, whose character in Batman Returns is reminiscent of the vampire who drains energy from the city) Aside from expressionism, the director will quote Orson Welles and his film noir The Third Man, when the time comes to film the sewers of Gotham. One can also find references to the films The Phantom of the Opera (1925), Vertigo (1958), The Feline (1942) and many others. In addition, Tim Burton will not hesitate to make self-reference. Whether it is the striped suit that Schreck wears, reminiscent of the one worn by Michael Keaton four years earlier in the excellent Beetlejuice (1988) or even a reference to his 1985 film Pee Wee big adventure since the parents of the Penguin are played by the actors of Pee Wee and Simone, two characters present in Pee Wee. Then, the interbreeding of the arts present in Burton's film effectively indicates that Batman Returns is a post-modern film. Indeed, the film does not only deal with the cinematographic universe, but also considers the art of the spectacle, with the services that the Penguin does when he presents himself for the town hall, as well as the world of the circus with the presence of clowns, which recalls the close bond that Tim Burton maintains with his characters, in this case the Penguin, often treated as "Freaks". Finally, as specified by Francisco Ferreira: “The“ mannerists ”will then offer a certain type of reinterpretation of the classics, by exaggeratingly deploying their great stylistic formulas in films openly presenting themselves as variations from a filmic work, d 'a sequence, or even a pattern, considered as matrix. »(Francisco Ferreira. 2006: Dead man (1995) by Jim Jarmusch. (Since I came across this article and find it difficult to find it I put the link: High school students in the cinema (clermont-filmfest.com))) The exacerbation of style is part of mannerism. Therefore, Tim Burton and his artistic team will not hesitate to exaggerate the features of their sets, lighting and costumes in order to almost caricature the style of movements from which they are inspired.
SUBJECT VS SENSE (200 WORDS)
By directing Batman Returns, Tim Burton takes the opportunity to make his film a critique of the contemporary world. Thus, he will mainly criticize the power of multinationals, the media and powerful businessmen. First, it's important to note that the film was released in the United States on June 19, 1992, but the action in Diegesis takes place during the holiday season. The connection between the holiday season and capitalism is therefore more than obvious. Then, the abundant presence of media sources such as television and newspapers invade the daily lives of the citizens of Gotham. So much so that at times, it feels like being in the middle of reality TV, like when the journalists harass the penguin, when the latter is in front of the grave of these deceased parents or when Oswald presents himself for town hall. In addition, Tim Burton takes the opportunity to deal with the class struggle, because as treated above, it is Selena Kyle, the only one not part of the high society, who gets rid of the rich businessman Schreck and not Batman. On this subject, Marc DiPaolo, the author of The Politics of Batman, Part 5, will say: “Ironically, when Shreck is definitely beaten at the end of the film, it is not thanks to Batman, but because of from Shreck's personal secretary, Selina Kyle, who is from the lower middle class. Thus, she is better placed than Wayne to know how bad men like Schreck are ”. (Marc DiPaolo. October 8, 2014: The Politics of Batman, Part 5:Batman Returns, Enron, and the Buying of American Democracy) Finally, the director will take the opportunity to assert that multinationals and bourgeois are becoming so powerful that the law itself no longer concerns them. Marc DiPaolo clarifies, “However, he (Batman) cannot find a way to decisively defeat Shreck, or to strip him of his wealth and power. Therefore, the film suggests that Shreck is above the law and beyond the reach of Bruce Wayne and Batman ”. That’s why the only way I could have beaten Schreck was by killing him.

4.5/5
Im on a good streak. I watched 3 very little known masterpiece in a row (violent cop, joint security area and drug wars)

I think we’re talking about two slightly different things (which is great, that’s what I love about talking to you). I fully agree that it’s near-impossible to show people falling in love, because it’s a hormonal/neurological process that cannot be ‘observed’ empirically even outside film.

What I mean was in terms of storytelling, films rarely ground the relationship in the sense that you don’t see why this person loves that person. I remember you and I talking about Twilight (I might have been a bit belligerent), and you mentioned a conversation with a student who said that Bella had no characteristics apart from liking Edward. And that’s exactly what grounds human interactions and it’s usually lacking - even if the characters are well-developed. I honestly think if there was a film that could ground the chemistry between two people, that would be Oscar-worthy on its own. Nothing that I can think of comes anywhere near addressing this mystery (I won’t even bother listing things like Titanic, that would be sacrilege).

What I think makes Only Lovers Left Alive so brilliant is how profoundly the relationship is explored and grounded as much as can be. This is open to interpretation, but I remember discussing this a lot when I first saw it, and there’s a view that Adam is meant to be much older than Eve in terms of ‘lived years’, though he got turned when he was younger as a human. And that distinction is very well explored - we can see that she likes him for being world-weary whilst she is herself energetic. It might exasperate her at times, but that’s the ‘sexy’ part for her. Then we see that he’s actually much weaker (probably because he is older) and he is the one who suffers more from the lack of blood nutrition. We also see that they exist in a kind of symbiosis where they indulge him for a bit and then her for a bit, which, incidentally, blows a fat big hole in the idea of ‘compatibility’.

Even these things don’t come close to explaining why each of these characters likes the other. But I think it would be much more about grounding and justifying the emotion in terms of storytelling than ‘seeing’ the moment they fell in love. This is very crude, but I think the only way to handle a romantic plot in an ideal world is to explore why person A evokes such strong reactions from person B, what it is that they have that person B wants, and why.

Sorry, this is a massive tangent.

P.S. I do agree that randomly shoehorned-in romantic subplots are absurd. I had no idea about Hobbit, but I remember someone fairly well-versed in film complaining about Walter White of all people (!!!) having no ‘proper’ romantic interest/storyline, and how terrible that was... some people...

I don't think we're talking about entirely different things.

I think that a lot of times when it comes to love, there are some internal processes/intangibles that you just can't put on screen (and that probably sound silly if you try to externalize them as a character expressing their thoughts).

I feel as though there are quite a few films that do a good job of economically showing us how and why two people are compatible. (There's maybe a different conversation to be had about action/horror/thriller-type movies where characters seem to bond under extreme pressure and duress). I don't know that it's necessary that we understand the deep mechanics of a relationship, so much as it's necessary that the relationship have an internal logic that makes sense.

An example would be the relationship in Fargo between Marge and her husband. They are both kind and compassionate people. She sees horrible things in her work sometimes, and he's this solid homebody that provides solace for her. In a book/movie like Pride and Prejudice, it's easy to see why Darcy and Lizzie make sense together. They are both smart and clever; he is impressed (and annoyed, but eventually impressed) by her forceful character; she admired him for his honorable behavior. I talked about this recently in a different thread (the Horror challenge, maybe?), but I think that Mandy does a particularly fantastic job of constructing (through writing and performances) a relationship that feels real and lived-in with just a handful of scenes.

Now, it is definitely true that a lot of films (including ones actually centered on the relationship/romance!) don't develop the characters beyond a superficial degree and it makes it hard to be invested in the relationship or even believe it any further than the usual suspension of disbelief.

‘course not, I said ‘slightly’!

Agreed, but I think you could do a very tentative inner monologue only for the crucial thoughts. There’s a rather odd series called ‘You’ which I don’t know that anyone has watched it but me. It has its drawbacks, but its craziness is that it centres on the concept of love - and I mean it when I say I have never seen ‘love’ approached like that. That does, upon reflection, give it its all to explore why people like each other. But then, it’s a very strange product which is technically a thriller.

Yes, that’s true. I think I partly remembered You because it manages to avoid the ‘duress’ context entirely, yet it is a thriller.

Don’t remember Fargo too well, unfortunately. P&P is definitely the case where it’s done brilliantly, but I feel that’s a whole other level - and books are allowed to indulge in far more ‘explaining’. On the topic of P&P, I have always felt ‘Wuthering Heights’ was simply perfect as a portrait of two people obsessed with each other - the ‘why’ and how sick it all is. May not be a perfect novel, but the ‘grounding’ is faultless.

A thousand times ‘yes’. That relationship was brutally well done and economical too. Pretty perfect.

I don’t know. You’re probably right. I maybe feel on an intuitive level that it’s not just about character development - it might be something to do with how the director understands love/this relationship. But that’s a bit vague. I’d be really interested what your thoughts are about You, if you ever check it out - even just one season.

I guess I'm more comfortable with just believing if a film tells me that two people complete each other, unless I am distracted by details in the film that seem to indicate otherwise.

I think that even the film depictions of the story do a pretty good job. A great example is just the look that Darcy gives Lizzie when he realizes she hiked a huge distance by foot in a storm to come and see her sick sister--it's this mix of admiration, curiosity, and a pinch of "is this chick crazy?" and it makes complete sense as a moment that would start feelings of love.

I'll admit that the "stalker as protagonist" thing has kept me away.

I agree. Harper was a very enjoyable P.I. film, and a perfect vehicle for Newman. I re-watch it now and then. Lauren Bacall and Janet Leigh were very effective as well.

I also enjoy the '75 reprisal of the Harper character: The Drowning Pool, with Joanne Woodward. It doesn't have quite the punch of the first one, but Newman still shines.

Fear in the Night, 1972

A young bride named Peggy (Judy Geeson), recovered from a semi-recent nervous breakdown, joins her husband Robert (Ralph Bates) at his rural countryside school. On the eve of moving into her new house, Peggy is attacked by an unseen assailant who she realizes has a prosthetic arm. Arriving at the school, Peggy discovers that the school's headmaster (Peter Cushing) has a prosthetic arm. Is he the one who attacked her? Was the attack real or imagined?

This is a film that is moderately successful--one of those movies where the things that work also are the flip sides of things that don't work.

Peggy is an incredibly meek character--constantly cowering and seemingly afraid to even speak in a loud voice. This meek, simpering performance comes across as believable from what we know of her character, but it does make it hard to connect with Peggy. The entire film at times seems to consist of every single character intimidating, patronizing, or criticizing her. Peggy just feels a bit bland. It's maybe a more "real" portrayal, but it's also kind of boring.

Another aspect of the film is the way that it holds its cards so close to the chest. There are really four possibilities in a film like this: (1) it's in Peggy's head, (2) the headmaster is the person who attacked her, (3) she is being gaslit by her husband or the headmaster's wife (a delightfully snobby Joan Collins), or (4) the real assailant is some other character we haven't met yet. The movie holds onto this ambiguity until almost the last 10 minutes. And while it does build some interesting suspense, it means that we don't get to know any of the characters beyond the superficial.

I will say that there are some delights in the last 10 or 15 minutes. Some memorable images, some borderline scary/funny sequences, and an over-the-top final sequence. Yes, in retrospect quite a few things don't actually make much sense, but by the final act I was sort of past caring about logic if the film would just step up the entertainment. Recommended, if only for the payoff (and for an astoundingly awkward scene where Cushing's character offers to retie Peggy's hairband and makes working a prosthetic arm look like the most uncomfortable, laborious undertaking).

Solaris (1972)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989):
The greatest Christmas movie ever made, everyone has a cousin like Cousin Eddie, aged very well.
9.5/10

__________________
“I really have to feel that I could make a difference in the movie, or I shouldn't be doing it.“
Joe Dante

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

Love that movie.