Cinematic Heritage / True Works of Art

Tools    





Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
The gist of it is: It's OK to love Avengers. I personally hate it for more than one reason. But even if you love it, you cannot possibly say it's a great work of art. It lacks everything a great work of art should have. For one, just like @crumbsroom noticed, it doesn't have that unique auteurial style. It doesn't even not have a style. It lacks style. There's a difference between classicism and lack of style.

Every great film auteur has a style. Some auteurs' style is that they do not have a style. An auteur tackling a genre film or even making a blockbuster often retains their style. This makes those works worthwhile. But an auteurless blockbuster made by a company is soulless, artless, and eventually worthless. Pasolini said that conventional culture always corrupts. And it's true to some extent. Get it, even Nolan, Tarantino, or Jing Wong are closer to being auteurs than whoever directed Avengers. I don't even know who that was. That should be enough.

Straub has divided artists into three categories. The first is those "who try to see the world and become a mirror that is as clean as possible (Cocteau said, 'The mirrors would do well to reflect better')." The second category are those "who presume—sometimes with inspiration, sometimes with arrogance—to reshape the world." The third group, the biggest one, is "the paratroopers." "Those are people who simply fall from the sky somewhere and boom, the camera is running already. They film something they have never even seen. They've never taken time to look at it. And to show something, one must have seen something. And to see something, one must have looked at it for years at a time." That's why Pedro Costa spends months or years with his subjects when making a movie. A commercial director looks. An auteur sees.

And we didn't even get to the point where we talk about cinema as a separate medium and works that attempt to destroy (and rebuild) cinema so that it becomes its own art, free from theatre, photography, painting, and music.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



I wouldn’t rule out studio-driven blockbusters from this pantheon of greatness, but I realized the immediate examples I would think of are films with distinct authorial stamps (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars).



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Legend of the Mountain
Funny you mention Legend of the Mountain because I just prepared it for a rewatch. The first time I watched it I loved the mystical first two hours and was disappointed with the last hour that reverted to your usual fantasy fights shtick (though it was new back then). It's sort of like a reverse of Touch of Zen where after two hours of a normal movie (awesome but still quite normal) you get an hour of metaphysics. I think I prefer the order of Touch of Zen.

Also, there's something to say about Hou Hsiao-Hsien's The Assassin and how it apparently (or at least according to some critics) mirrors King Hu. Too bad it doesn't have the metaphysics of Hu, which is exactly what makes his films masterpieces. Also, it's shot digitally, which makes it look perfectible. There's more to say about Hou Hsiao-Hsien, and how the latest restoration Flowers of Shanghai is so botched it utterly ruins the visuals of the film - not unlike Ashes of Time Redux ruined the original look of Ashes of Time. Yellow overload is really puke-worthy.

There's more to say about your picks and more to say about cinema and about auteurs, and about everything else. But let's stop here or the moment.



Regarding paintings, it's undoubtedly true that looking at photos of paintings has virtually nothing to do with seeing them in person. This would go for pretty much any painting, but some much more so than others. The notion that we can even remotely appreciate a Rothko or a Pollock without standing in front of one, is preposterous. Their size,the texture of the paint, how they operate in the room they are hung in, are all significant factors in understanding what they do. They can't be understood from a classroom (which, essentially, should be the motto of all art forms....but I suppose we'll keep teaching them anyways)



Funny you mention Legend of the Mountain because I just prepared it for a rewatch. The first time I watched it I loved the mystical first two hours and was disappointed with the last hour that reverted to your usual fantasy fights shtick (though it was new back then). It's sort of like a reverse of Touch of Zen where after two hours of a normal movie (awesome but still quite normal) you get an hour of metaphysics. I think I prefer the order of Touch of Zen.

Also, there's something to say about Hou Hsiao-Hsien's The Assassin and how it apparently (or at least according to some critics) mirrors King Hu. Too bad it doesn't have the metaphysics of Hu, which is exactly what makes his films masterpieces. Also, it's shot digitally, which makes it look perfectible. There's more to say about Hou Hsiao-Hsien, and how the latest restoration Flowers of Shanghai is so botched it utterly ruins the visuals of the film - not unlike Ashes of Time Redux ruined the original look of Ashes of Time. Yellow overload is really puke-worthy.
There’s something about King Hu’s sense of movement that registers as purely cinematic to me, more so than the more tactile choreography offered by his contemporaries. While the climax of Legend of the Mountain settles into narrative conventions, the feel of that scene is ethereal, atmospheric. I haven’t revisited A Touch of Zen since I saw it on a crappy print like ten years ago so I can’t say how they compare. Perhaps we both have some King Hu to rewatch. Now if only I can squeeze it in between all the quality films I’ve been watching.

As for The Assassin, that’s the only Hou I’ve seen, so I don’t know how representative it is of his work. I do know that I don’t like how much of modern arthouse cinema defaults to austere and downplayed, but that this annoyed me less on that front as it at least seemed to understand the basics of the genre it was supposedly elevating (Hou knows how to film fights). Not a movie I loved, but not one I hated either.



It's unbearable. Total hogwash. But maybe people who don't speak Polish experience the pretentious monologues differently.

Anyway, as far as the thread goes, I wouldn't consider any Żuławski film to be good enough. Sometimes I wonder what I would deem worthy enough.

I often wonder how differently I'd respond to movies if I understood the language that they're in.


Anyhow, I'm a fan of On the Silver Glove as well, but given the premise of the question and the fact you seem to pose these type of threads to tear down people's suggestions, I felt the incompleteness of the film would probably disqualify it. Plus it's been years since I've gotten to watch the high quality transfer. My SD DVD doesn't look that too great.


Also, are you asking "watched this past year" - are you asking for first time viewings or are rewatches fair game?


Because I'm pretty sure I rewatched Mulholland Drive and 8 1/2 this past year.


People's opinions of them may vary, but I'd hold them up there.


For first time viewings, I finally got to The Red & The White. Generally held up in very high regard. Also satisfies Rock's criteria of, "if you removed dialogue, would you understand what's going on?"
Or at least, as well as if dialogue was present.



Regarding paintings, it's undoubtedly true that looking at photos of paintings has virtually nothing to do with seeing them in person. This would go for pretty much any painting, but some much more so than others. The notion that we can even remotely appreciate a Rothko or a Pollock without standing in front of one, is preposterous. Their size,the texture of the paint, how they operate in the room they are hung in, are all significant factors in understanding what they do. They can't be understood from a classroom (which, essentially, should be the motto of all art forms....but I suppose we'll keep teaching them anyways)

Look at David Lynch over here yelling at us for watching movies on our phones.



And fwiw, persona non-grata, Joss Whedon directed the first Avengers movie.


Cabin in the Woods came out the same year I think.


He co-wrote that, but it was directed by Goddard.


The general take at the time was that The Avengers felt more like a studio film with a Whedon shine to it, but Cabin in the Woods actually felt a lot more like it was a Joss Whedon movie.


That may very well be supporting evidence of the lack of soul and autership of The Avengers.
I think the quippy parts of it that was associated with Whedon has been sublimated into the MCU in general (for better and worse), which probably makes it feel even less distinct. Take that observation with a grain of salt because I've seen what, a total of five MCU movies over the span of the entire thing (and only 3 of those were post Avengers).



Look at David Lynch over here yelling at us for watching movies on our phones.

Lynch is right as rain. And even his super annoying tendency to not offer chapters on his dvds, is pretty understandable. Artists have ideas of how they want their work viewed, and it must get infuriating to see people constantly alter it for the sake of convenience.



The trick is not minding
Funny you mention Legend of the Mountain because I just prepared it for a rewatch. The first time I watched it I loved the mystical first two hours and was disappointed with the last hour that reverted to your usual fantasy fights shtick (though it was new back then). It's sort of like a reverse of Touch of Zen where after two hours of a normal movie (awesome but still quite normal) you get an hour of metaphysics. I think I prefer the order of Touch of Zen.

Also, there's something to say about Hou Hsiao-Hsien's The Assassin and how it apparently (or at least according to some critics) mirrors King Hu. Too bad it doesn't have the metaphysics of Hu, which is exactly what makes his films masterpieces. Also, it's shot digitally, which makes it look perfectible. There's more to say about Hou Hsiao-Hsien, and how the latest restoration Flowers of Shanghai is so botched it utterly ruins the visuals of the film - not unlike Ashes of Time Redux ruined the original look of Ashes of Time. Yellow overload is really puke-worthy.

There's more to say about your picks and more to say about cinema and about auteurs, and about everything else. But let's stop here or the moment.
You were able to watch The Original version of Ashes of Time? Because my understanding is that the original print is lost and all that remains is the redux version.



The trick is not minding
It's unbearable. Total hogwash. But maybe people who don't speak Polish experience the pretentious monologues differently.

Anyway, as far as the thread goes, I wouldn't consider any Żuławski film to be good enough. Sometimes I wonder what I would deem worthy enough.
Wait. I thought you were a Zulawski fan?



The trick is not minding
There’s something about King Hu’s sense of movement that registers as purely cinematic to me, more so than the more tactile choreography offered by his contemporaries. While the climax of Legend of the Mountain settles into narrative conventions, the feel of that scene is ethereal, atmospheric. I haven’t revisited A Touch of Zen since I saw it on a crappy print like ten years ago so I can’t say how they compare. Perhaps we both have some King Hu to rewatch. Now if only I can squeeze it in between all the quality films I’ve been watching.

As for The Assassin, that’s the only Hou I’ve seen, so I don’t know how representative it is of his work. I do know that I don’t like how much of modern arthouse cinema defaults to austere and downplayed, but that this annoyed me less on that front as it at least seemed to understand the basics of the genre it was supposedly elevating (Hou knows how to film fights). Not a movie I loved, but not one I hated either.
Hou is amazing. I’d definitely recommend his 80’s output first, such as Dust in the Wind, A Time to Live a Time to Die, and Daughter of the Nile. I’ll be watching Flowers of Shanghai soon. The Assassin is all but guaranteed a spot on my upcoming ballot.

His films are very deliberately paced. Some have complained it as being too slow, even. This is nonsense!*
*slams fist down*



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
You were able to watch The Original version of Ashes of Time? Because my understanding is that the original print is lost and all that remains is the redux version.
Dunno about the original print but the DVD release of the theatrical version was the one I watched. The image quality wasn't perfect but the movie looked amazing. Here are some screencaps from that version:








Wait. I thought you were a Zulawski fan?
Never. He's always been one of those hit-or-miss directors for me.
He's very good but Edward Yang is better. :P



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
The Red & The White
Seen it twice. Jancso's influence on Tarr and Angelopoulos is undeniable. But my favorite Jancso is Meg ker a nep. I returned to Jancso and watched 2 or 3 of his films this year. He's still helluva impressive. His choreography and camera movements are insane. The other day I watched his film Allegro Barbaro and it has a scene of the camera panning sideways, and there's that white house and the door frame lets you see through it and see what's behind, and there are some people jumping on the trampoline. And then we are inside some building and the camera movements are precise and wonderful and there's the door frame and we see what's outside. We see the landscape and people dancing and the sky and then there's a freaking plane flying really low and soaring just a second before hitting the house. Of course, it's higher than the house so it wouldn't hit it but it feels as if it was the same height as the roof. The bloody plane does it twice. Not once, but twice! In the same long take. Jancso was a genius.



The trick is not minding
Never. He's always been one of those hit-or-miss directors for me.

I know you were a fan of his The Third Part of the Night, with it being in your recent top 300. I may have just assumed that list represented your favorite directors overall, and their top film in your eyes.



Seen it twice. Jancso's influence on Tarr and Angelopoulos is undeniable. But my favorite Jancso is Meg ker a nep. I returned to Jancso and watched 2 or 3 of his films this year. He's still helluva impressive. His choreography and camera movements are insane. The other day I watched his film Allegro Barbaro and it has a scene of the camera panning sideways, and there's that white house and the door frame lets you see through it and see what's behind, and there are some people jumping on the trampoline. And then we are inside some building and the camera movements are precise and wonderful and there's the door frame and we see what's outside. We see the landscape and people dancing and the sky and then there's a freaking plane flying really low and soaring just a second before hitting the house. Of course, it's higher than the house so it wouldn't hit it but it feels as if it was the same height as the roof. The bloody plane does it twice. Not once, but twice! In the same long take. Jancso was a genius.

I've only seen The Red & The White and The Round-Up. I think there was a similarity of the two that left me not needing to seek out more in the immediate future, because I think the latter's viewing experience was compromised by watching it too close to the former.


Then I'm listening to a podcast and they're talking, the erotic films of the 70s and they start talking about Jancso and his Private Vices, Public Virtues, and I quickly realize, there's some difference of tone of subject matter that I need to check out.


Just wondering, since you love Last Year in Marienbad, what's your favorite Robbe-Grillet? I strongly suspect you have one.