criterionforum.org

Where is The Playlist?

http://theplaylistnation.blogspot.com/

They're having some problems with Google at the moment.

An A Minus for the Human Centipede? I mean, really now

They're having some other problems too.

Oh yeah, we sorted out our Google woes and The Playlist is back at its regular base. Thanks.

Couldn't find a better place for this, hence why I'm posting it here.

Has anyone had a chance to take a look at Silver, Ward, Ursini and Porfirio's new 4th edition of the (now titled) Fim Noir Encyclopedia? Any truth to the rumors that their list of the "canon" has now been sub-divided into Classic Noir and Neo-Noir and that films that had previously made it into the original list as recently as the 3d edition have now been dropped altogether?

I don't have it but on this forum there are some interesting additions mentioned.

Ovader wrote:I don't have it but on this forum there are some interesting additions mentioned.

The Day the Earth Stood Still?!?! WTF!?!?

Finally received my copy of Film Noir: The Encyclopedia, which purports to be the 4th Ed. of Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style...and I don't think anyone who buys the so-called 4th Ed. will be getting rid of their copy of the 3d Ed. any time soon. In a nut shell, the totality of the new edition is comprised of synopses of the films from the Classic Period and synopses of Neo-Noir movies....and that is pretty much it. Gone are the Appendices from the 3d Ed. which covered in nice detail things like the evidence of noir in Hollywood genres, the many lists (which I suppose isn't an entirely bad thing if the rest of the 4th Ed. brought anything new to the mix), and the summaries of trends in noir studies.

What is particularly problematic is the editors, with no explanation, have decided to drop several titles from their canonical synopses such as Ministry of Fear and The Manchurian Candidate, for example. There is no ready explanation for this. There have been many additions to the listings: several of Anthony Mann's westerns (which the genre discussions in the 3d Ed. pretty much made a case for inclusion previously), some sci-fi movies such as Them!, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invaders From Mars. Some other inclusions include Lang's Rancho Notorious and Ray's Johnny Guitar.

A most disappointing 4th Ed.

Tribe wrote: There have been many additions to the listings: several of Anthony Mann's westerns (which the genre discussions in the 3d Ed. pretty much made a case for inclusion previously), some sci-fi movies such as Them!, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invaders From Mars. Some other inclusions include Lang's Rancho Notorious and Ray's Johnny Guitar.

I believe the working definition of 'film noir' that they're using to justify the inclusion of all these is "any American film from the forties or fifties that we like."

zedz wrote: I believe the working definition of 'film noir' that they're using to justify the inclusion of all these is "any American film from the forties or fifties that we like."

Their reasons for including The Day the Earth Stood Still, for example: (1) in 1951 20th Century-Fox had a distinct studio noir style, (2) Bernard Herrmann composed the music for the film, (3) Robert Wise directed. There is little other explanation for including this movie in the canon aside from these three main reasons.

Tribe wrote:

zedz wrote: I believe the working definition of 'film noir' that they're using to justify the inclusion of all these is "any American film from the forties or fifties that we like."

Their reasons for including The Day the Earth Stood Still, for example: (1) in 1951 20th Century-Fox had a distinct studio noir style, (2) Bernard Herrmann composed the music for the film, (3) Robert Wise directed. There is little other explanation for including this movie in the canon aside from these three main reasons.

Absolutely none of those makes it noir at all, maybe the first but it seems like anything with a shadow in it during the studio era is now considered noir.

The first Film Noir Reader always has been the only book on noir I've found the most insightful, and the only one I've ever needed.

In his fall movie preview, A.O. Scott asks whether any of the fall movies will provoke the kind of conversation that recent television series frequently do:

Look back over the past decade. How many films have approached the moral complexity and sociological density of “The Sopranos” or “The Wire”? Engaged recent American history with the verve and insight of “Mad Men”? Turned indeterminacy and ambiguity into high entertainment with the conviction of “Lost”? Addressed modern families with the sharp humor and sly warmth of “Modern Family”? Look at “Glee,” and then try to think of any big-screen teen comedy or musical — or, for that matter, movie set in Ohio — that manages to be so madly satirical with so little mean-spiritedness.

I swear, I’m not trying to horn in on my colleagues’ territory. But the traditional relationship between film and television has reversed, as American movies have become conservative and cautious, while scripted series, on both broadcast networks and cable, are often more daring, topical and willing to risk giving offense.

He lost me with Modern Family.

I think you'd have a hard time finding much of anything outside a series of novels that could hit the density some of the really great series like the Sopranos and the Wire did, but that's not really a fair comparison, since it's based more on the amount of time a TV show has to move around in than anything else. Lost is a good example of that- the unique qualities Lost had are almost all based on what happens when you take a twisty suspense movie and stretch it out for dozens of hours. It's interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything about the relationship between the media.

I wish more TV measured up to the quality of a good movie, but the medium doesn't reward risk-taking, since it's rarely auteurist and always has to respond to market pressures as it's being made, instead of throwing itself out there fully formed. I don't think Scott's argument really holds, largely because there are so few series that really fit what he's talking about. Of the TV that's on right now, the only stuff that I'd say hits the heights are Mad Men and Breaking Bad- I don't know what the fuck he's talking about with Glee, and Modern Family strikes me as being TV funny but not really showing any qualities usually associated with movies- and if you want conservative dull-ass entertainment, look at the dozens and dozens of shitty reality shows networks fart out when they want something safe and cheap.

With the exception of Boardwalk Empire, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single upcoming show that seems to hold the possibilities that an interesting looking movie can promise.

Where the white dudes at?

dx23 wrote:Roger Ebert presents At The Movies

Kim Morgan!

I'm really going to miss Tony Scott and Michael Phillips, who are absolutely two of my favorite critics, and who brought so much intelligence and wit to the show. I like the clips from the pilot of the new show though, and it feels like the At the Movies I grew up with. PBS really is the best home for a show like this. Sans commercials, the show will be eight minutes longer, which will hopefully make room for discussion of classics. Roger's new voice obviously wasn't ready for prime time when they shot the pilot, but I think it is now. Even though I rarely agree with him anymore, he still feels like the Grand Poohbah of film criticism, and is one of the most generous and intelligent human beings I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. His authoritative presence seals the deal on the new program for me.

I still think they need to put the show on Reelz channel too.

The little website I help edit, 'oomska', has just published a very interesting interview with David Thomson, author of 'The New Biographical Dictionary of Film':

The criminally underrated Duncan Shepherd hangs it up.

EDIT: ... and now I see that Gene Shalit is retiring. Which balances things out, I guess.

In this 1988 Siskel & Ebert episode, Gene and Roger lament the sorry state of the home video industry when it comes to widescreen and subtitled films. They also talk about the dearth of choices for the adventurous home viewer and how one can get more esoteric films via mail-order catalog. The under-25 crowd has to watch just so you know how good you've got it now!

Someone doesn't like Pauline Kael. :-k

That... doesn't seem to say much, other than to observe that Kael was interested in movies above all else, and didn't mention her politics much. Of course, starting from the position "Pauline Kael is boring as fuck" is difficult to come back from- I've read some goddamn boring critics, and Kael isn't one of them.