criterionforum.org

"Wings of Desire".

Not sure if anyone agrees with me, but does anyone else judge ALL films on their 'mental residue'? It's the films which i find myself endlessly thinking about which become my favorites because then the film doesn't finish, you keep reanalyzing characters and things which happen. I don't see how anyone could call a film great if it didn't leave you thinking for the next few months?

Tommaso wrote:"Wings of Desire".

Not exactly _hate_ -- but this withered lots during the course of retrospection. Then I saw Tokyo Ga -- and that didn't help Wenders out one bit.

Yojimbo wrote:The thing for me with Naruse, and you might recall our conversation on 'Repast', is that I'm not always in the right frame of mind to watch him: in fact thats still the only film of his I've seen.

All I can say is that it took seeing 5 Naruse films for me to get fully in sync with the way he worked. I found the first films seen worthwhile (albeit in a rather abstract fashion), but it was not until I realy grasped the slyly humorous side of Naruse that I began to grow enamored of his work.

Peacock wrote:Not sure if anyone agrees with me, but does anyone else judge ALL films on their 'mental residue'? It's the films which i find myself endlessly thinking about which become my favorites because then the film doesn't finish, you keep reanalyzing characters and things which happen. I don't see how anyone could call a film great if it didn't leave you thinking for the next few months?

Something like that, but not exactly the same. Whenever I've seen a movie, I kinda know right away if I love it of not. If I love the movie, it will keep bouncing back in me head, and I'll be able to remember almost everything about the movie. If I hate the movie, I won't think about it anymore, and whenever I try to remember anything about it, I usually can't remember more than the general plot.

Also with that logic isn't it hard to love simple movies?
Take for example My Darling Clementine, a terrific movie, but very simple and not much reanalyze.

Usually what makes a film boring to me (not bad), is when I can guess what will happen next. Although some times when it gets too cliche it can turn funny (thought Shooter was hilarious).

Michael Kerpan wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:The thing for me with Naruse, and you might recall our conversation on 'Repast', is that I'm not always in the right frame of mind to watch him: in fact thats still the only film of his I've seen.

All I can say is that it took seeing 5 Naruse films for me to get fully in sync with the way he worked. I found the first films seen worthwhile (albeit in a rather abstract fashion), but it was not until I realy grasped the slyly humorous side of Naruse that I began to grow enamored of his work.

Hopefully I'll get to another one of that MoC box-set soon: I was very impressed by 'Repast' so I'll at least want to see whether that impression is matched by any of the other films in that set.

Tommaso wrote:"Wings of Desire".

I avoided 'Million Dollar Hotel' like the plague: the fact that it was based on a script by Bono was damning enough indictment.
I was disappointed by WoD also, maybe even bored: I think fans were seduced by the visuals.
In contrast I was riveted by 'The Wrong Move', which I'm sure many people find boring

I also liked "Wrong Move"; not boring at all. And Nastassja Kinski, despite being only 15 at the time, already leaves quite an impression.

I actually used to like "Wings of Desire" quite a lot, not just for the visuals, but I now find the Handke script, especially the voice-overs, utterly pompous and heavy-handed. It's not as bad as "Palermo Shooting", of course, but still "Wings" has gone down in my estimation quite a bit, really. 'Hate', though, is indeed the wrong word, but it seldom happens with me that a film I really admired after the first viewings now only seems average and occasionally annoying to me.

I have nothing against "Tokyo Ga", btw, but it pales compared to something like Marker's "Sans soleil" or even compared to Wenders' own "Notebook on Cities and Clothes."

Mr_sausage wrote:

swo17 wrote:I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Far more often than I care to mention. I am unfortunately prone to severe gullibility the first time I watch something, and always have to be careful not to share my opinion for a few days at least, lest I live to regret it. I remember having near orgasmic experiences watching, um, Arlington Road, The Gift, and The Mothman Prophecies, of all things. Not quite sure what I was thinking there. But surely the most shameful such instance in recent memory would have to be a recent Best Picture winner whose name I dare not even mention. Ugh, I've said too much already...

Mr_sausage wrote:

swo17 wrote:I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Juno.

tenia wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:

swo17 wrote:I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Juno.

Agreed. Same with Little Miss Sunshine - but I think at the time I was a more naive viewer and the hype machine for both those films made me try to force myself to like them.

Mr_sausage wrote:

swo17 wrote:I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Yes, I always enjoy watching Sunset Boulevard, but when I think about it afterwards I hate it and Billy Wilder.

Yojimbo wrote:In contrast I was riveted by 'The Wrong Move', which I'm sure many people find boring

Where were you during the 70s List project when I called it the best film of the 70s and no one else even voted for it

puxzkkx wrote:

tenia wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote: Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Juno.

Agreed. Same with Little Miss Sunshine - but I think at the time I was a more naive viewer and the hype machine for both those films made me try to force myself to like them.

Exact opposite for me for Little Miss. Juno and Little Miss went total opposite way : I first liked Juno and disliked Little Miss, but then, they switched.

domino harvey wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:In contrast I was riveted by 'The Wrong Move', which I'm sure many people find boring

Where were you during the 70s List project when I called it the best film of the 70s and no one else even voted for it

I probably wasn't registered: I think the 80's project was my first

tojoed wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:

swo17 wrote:I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Yes, I always enjoy watching Sunset Boulevard, but when I think about it afterwards I hate it and Billy Wilder.

I'm intrigued - how come? I always feel it's made out to be a lot more cynical and misanthropic than it really is.

I used to love all of Kubrick except Barry Lyndon; now I hate all of Kubrick except Barry Lyndon. It's amazing (and kind of traumatic) how familiarity can breed contempt with these things. Flaubert once said something like, 'Never touch your idols - the gilding will come off on your hands.' Things (artworks, people, buildings) that don't become boring when you know them inside out are very rare.

swo17 wrote:Far more often than I care to mention. I am unfortunately prone to severe gullibility the first time I watch something, and always have to be careful not to share my opinion for a few days at least, lest I live to regret it. I remember having near orgasmic experiences watching, um, Arlington Road, The Gift, and The Mothman Prophecies, of all things. Not quite sure what I was thinking there. But surely the most shameful such instance in recent memory would have to be a recent Best Picture winner whose name I dare not even mention. Ugh, I've said too much already...

You think that's bad? Try turning round a review in 24 hours, when you're one of the first people to see the film and you have absolutely no idea what the critical consensus will be.

Of course, this isn't a problem per se, aside from the fact that the review often only appears after the film has opened thanks to long magazine lead times. So if I inadvertently chime with said consensus (as recently happened with Looking for Eric), it looks as though I'm jumping on a bandwagon and playing the safety-in-numbers game - but that particular review was filed ten days in advance of the Cannes premiere.

I'm another one of those "Wings of Desire" folks. It's as if Wenders had an artistic "stroke" halfway through the film and never completely recovered his abilities as an artist. The black-and-white portion is visually ravishing, and I love its creative use of sound. But once the film switches to color, it dies on the screen. The first time I saw it, the drop in quality bothered me a little, but now I go numb when I hear that greeting-card dialogue between the angel and the trapeze artist. Unfortunately "Faraway, So Close" is 100% of all the annoying aspects of "Wings of Desire," only worse.

MichaelB wrote:Try turning round a review in 24 hours, when you're one of the first people to see the film and you have absolutely no idea what the critical consensus will be.

Oh I've had to deal with that as well. Though as I alluded yesterday, I had a pretty good idea going in what the consensus would be on something like Death to Smoochy.

Sloper wrote:

tojoed wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote: Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Yes, I always enjoy watching Sunset Boulevard, but when I think about it afterwards I hate it and Billy Wilder.

I'm intrigued - how come? I always feel it's made out to be a lot more cynical and misanthropic than it really is.

I used to love all of Kubrick except Barry Lyndon; now I hate all of Kubrick except Barry Lyndon. It's amazing (and kind of traumatic) how familiarity can breed contempt with these things. Flaubert once said something like, 'Never touch your idols - the gilding will come off on your hands.' Things (artworks, people, buildings) that don't become boring when you know them inside out are very rare.

Parts of 'Barry Lyndon' were filmed near my hometown, and his reputation for taking longer than one would have thought necessary was frequently commented upon, by a local rag,- I suspect the crew extended their stay in local hostelries much longer than originally intended, - but although I've wanted to love it, for that very reason, I've never really warmed to it.
It looks gorgeous, of course,.....but.

'The Shining' and '2001' are Kubrick's two best for me

Sloper wrote:Things like Ordet, Broken Blossoms, Nosferatu, The Passenger, I keep watching over and over again despite secretly finding them quite boring, less because I expect to like them more as time goes on, and more because I admire the people who made them, and want to understand their other films better. It's that insatiable desire to 'know more' about these things, which I feel is the main identifying mark of the nerd/scholar/sociopath; it's what keeps me watching even when I'm clawing my eyes out with boredom.

Yes, I'm the same way, but there's also another aspect in that there are certain canonical films and filmmakers that I think many people feel simply obligated to watch and engage with as best they can, regardless of the actual entertainment derived from them, because to do otherwise would entail a significant "gap" in their film education. Not to watch Citizen Kane or put forth the effort to at least understand why it's considered so important means that you are ill equipped to carry on a dialogue regarding a central film in cinema history. Watching certain movies like this may feel like homework, but I imagine for many of us critical discourse is a major strand of the pleasure we get from movies, and so it's worth the effort simply to be able to contextualize the films/filmmakers and follow said critical discourse, whether it be in print or conversation, when on those subjects (and Kane was just an example that I know many can relate to in this context -- I personally worship the film).

And you have an ally with me regarding Miller's Crossing. I think I could watch that film on a nightly basis and it would still never get old.

Titus - you're right, and although some directors will always be homework for me (I just can't imagine ever being a John Ford fan) one of the great joys of being a film buff (as I think Sausage and others have already said) is putting in the extra work with a director you don't 'get' at first, and learning to love them. This was very much what happened to me with Griffith and Renoir, neither of whom I warmed to at first, but who turned out to be real 'growers'. Oh and Dreyer is the ultimate example of this. I watched Day of Wrath and Joan of Arc at least three times each before they sparked anything in me. My secret shame.

Sloper wrote:

tojoed wrote: Yes, I always enjoy watching Sunset Boulevard, but when I think about it afterwards I hate it and Billy Wilder.

I'm intrigued - how come? I always feel it's made out to be a lot more cynical and misanthropic than it really is.

I think it's that after watching it I realise that Wilder is holding up a man like de Mille as a great director at the expense of Stroheim.The Hollywood system is lauded and the dreamer laughed at.

At least, that's how it appears to me.

Titus wrote:Yes, I'm the same way, but there's also another aspect in that there are certain canonical films and filmmakers that I think many people feel simply obligated to watch and engage with as best they can, regardless of the actual entertainment derived from them, because to do otherwise would entail a significant "gap" in their film education. Not to watch Citizen Kane or put forth the effort to at least understand why it's considered so important means that you are ill equipped to carry on a dialogue regarding a central film in cinema history.

I've long given up arguing with people over Citizen Kane - I don't have a problem with people not personally liking it (I'm hardly about to dictate subjective reactions), but if they don't understand why it's so pivotal to film history that says more about their own lack of knowledge than any defects in the film itself. The arrogance behind a claim that the film is "crap" and "boring" is mildly amusing at first (so you're right and virtually every serious critic and film scholar going back nearly 70 years is wrong?), but outstays its welcome very quickly. It's a bit like people trying to argue that the earth is really 6,000 years old against all the evidence proffered by literally every relevant branch of science (certainly not just geology), and therefore not worth taking seriously on any level.

tojoed wrote:I think it's that after watching it I realise that Wilder is holding up a man like de Mille as a great director at the expense of Stroheim.The Hollywood system is lauded and the dreamer laughed at.

At least, that's how it appears to me.

To me it appears to be complete opposite. The final scene, when Stroheim comes to 'direct' again, for me is the most scathing critique about how Hollywood crushes its real artists that I could imagine. Admittedly, de Mille is shown as doing only the unavoidable within the rules of the system and thus is not depicted as a 'monster'. But the hollowness of Hollywood is also shown in the character of the girl who wanted to be an actress and now is only allowed to work as a script-writer, too. The dreamers are shown as what they are: dreamers, but Wilder's sympathies are with them, I think; and a sense of tragedy.

MichaelB wrote:

Titus wrote:Yes, I'm the same way, but there's also another aspect in that there are certain canonical films and filmmakers that I think many people feel simply obligated to watch and engage with as best they can, regardless of the actual entertainment derived from them, because to do otherwise would entail a significant "gap" in their film education. Not to watch Citizen Kane or put forth the effort to at least understand why it's considered so important means that you are ill equipped to carry on a dialogue regarding a central film in cinema history.

I've long given up arguing with people over Citizen Kane - I don't have a problem with people not personally liking it (I'm hardly about to dictate subjective reactions), but if they don't understand why it's so pivotal to film history that says more about their own lack of knowledge than any defects in the film itself. The arrogance behind a claim that the film is "crap" and "boring" is mildly amusing at first (so you're right and virtually every serious critic and film scholar going back nearly 70 years is wrong?), but outstays its welcome very quickly. It's a bit like people trying to argue that the earth is really 6,000 years old against all the evidence proffered by literally every relevant branch of science (certainly not just geology), and therefore not worth taking seriously on any level.

If you haven't read it yet I'd highly recommend to you Simon Callow's two volume biography of Welles: the section on the making of 'Kane' largely confirmed my opinion about his primary motivations in the making of it.
While watching the three versions of 'Touch of Evil' recently and listening to all three commentaries its re-established its pre-eminent slot in my ranking of Welles' films
I'm a huge Welles fan but 'Kane' has always left me cold and convinced me that it was primarily the work of a 'show-off': a genius 'show-off', certainly, but a 'show-off', nonetheless