Nitpicking the Masters: Tiny Flaws in Great Masterpieces

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I have always been annoyed as hell at Winona Ryder's line reading in a certain scene in The Age of Innocence. In the garden where she and Newland are talking she says the line "I don't know you might" instead of "I don't know. You might." She runs the two together and I always wonder what on earth Scorsese was thinking. Of all the movies I've seen, that is one of my biggest peeves. Otherwise, the film is perfect.

[Michael]

The Brazilian taxi driver in Now, Voyager looks like he drove straight out of a cartoon somewhere. I love the movie despite that driver.

[Kirkinson]

Any time a film includes a shot which plays normally for a second, then the action is reversed, then switched back to normal again. It's difficult to describe effectively, but it's an old technique for extending the length of a shot that I still see from time to time in contemporary films, and every single time I notice it I go crazy. I don't know how any editor could have ever thought that was a good idea.

Brazil is better to watch alone I have noticed

I've gotten mixed results. I showed it to one group of people that really enjoyed it, so I gained a bit of confidence. Then I showed it to a second group of people and it was nearly disastrous. We were about an hour and a half into the movie before everyone seemed to realize that parts of it were supposed to be funny. So they loosened up just in time for the much darker and less funny third act.

The worst experience I've had in that regard is Schizopolis. I think that movie is hysterically funny, but when I tried to watch it with friends there was dead silence the entire time.

[patrick]

Not that The Departed was a masterpiece (although I did enjoy it for what it was), but what really killed me was the CGI rat running across the railing at the end. Not only was it possibly the most obvious piece of symbolism I've ever seen, but it looked terrible.

[Via_Chicago]

Any time a film includes a shot which plays normally for a second, then the action is reversed, then switched back to normal again. It's difficult to describe effectively, but it's an old technique for extending the length of a shot that I still see from time to time in contemporary films, and every single time I notice it I go crazy. I don't know how any editor could have ever thought that was a good idea.

Such as the statis which ends Mouchette, for example?

[lord_clyde]

Not that The Departed was a masterpiece (although I did enjoy it for what it was), but what really killed me was the CGI rat running across the railing at the end. Not only was it possibly the most obvious piece of symbolism I've ever seen, but it looked terrible.

That rat was terrible, I agree. The packed theatre I saw the movie in - would not agree. It got huge laughs. I hate people.

[Schkura]

Sounds like that god damn robin at the end of Blue Velvet.


Stick to puppeteering cow fetuses, Lynch. #-o

[miless]

Sounds like that god damn robin at the end of Blue Velvet.


Stick to puppeteering cow fetuses, Lynch. #-o

I love that, seeming as the whole movie seemed to be extremes of some sort (extreme camp/cheese, violence, abuse, etc.) It just makes the whole thing seem... I don't know, a bit funky.

[Cold Bishop]

I always looked at the obviously fake and fabricated robin as a stab at the image of suburban life as this perfect "Leave It To Beaver" utopia (as well as the extreme cheese at other times that ring false)

[portnoy]

Not that The Departed was a masterpiece (although I did enjoy it for what it was), but what really killed me was the CGI rat running across the railing at the end. Not only was it possibly the most obvious piece of symbolism I've ever seen, but it looked terrible.

Another recent film with one bafflingly wrong-headed moment: I'm a huge, huge fan of Jones' THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA, but there's one line of dialogue in the film that threatens to wreck the entire ship, the moment when January Jones offers up her take on the film's redemption theme in the bluntest terms possible:

"The son-of-a-bitch is irredeemable."

Said in the brattiest, least convincing delivery imaginable. Wince-inducing.

[putney]

speaking of vertigo, i swear this has bothered me forever. just at the end there is a shot that cuts from: novak screaming, the nun coming out of the shadows, stewart turning to the window to see the body fall.

the cut to the nun coming out of the shadows to say "who's there" ( not verbatim) has always struck me as so incredibly out of sync with the rhythm, and hitchcock's rhythm that for the longest time it scarred my memory of the film. all i could remember was that damn awkward edit. (and not awkward in a good or free-flowing counterproductive way.)

and what's with that wierd process shot of marlene dietrich reapplying her makeup against johhny's apartment in the first few minutes of "stage fright?" . even for hitchcock, it's a really wierd process shot.

(all that said, i still love the movies, obviously...)

[pauling]

If I remember correctly, there's an easter egg on the Blue Velvet disc that has Lynch talking about how fake the robin looks where he says that he wanted it to look more real (they couldn't train a real robin to sit still without drugging it) but that was the best they could do and it ended up being better than they had intended.
I, personally, like the phoniness of the bird and don't feel that it takes me out of the movie at all since I consider it just one of Lynch's signature touches and works well as a comment on the shallow nature of suburban Americana which Lynch does so well.

[miless]

If I remember correctly, there's an easter egg on the Blue Velvet disc that has Lynch talking about how fake the robin looks where he says that he wanted it to look more real (they couldn't train a real robin to sit still without drugging it) but that was the best they could do and it ended up being better than they had intended.
I, personally, like the phoniness of the bird and don't feel that it takes me out of the movie at all since I consider it just one of Lynch's signature touches and works well as a comment on the shallow nature of suburban Americana which Lynch does so well.

well, they got a trained robin, but it was molting... and apparently Robins are protected in North Carolina so not a lot of people had them. Then one got hit by a bus and the preserved specimen found its way to the production before ending up in an elementary school. When crew members told Lynch "it looks fake" he responded with "I know, it's great."

I know this whole doc. sequence verbatum because I show it to everyone I show the film to.

[Quot]

The helicopter's shadow on the mountainside during the opening of The Shining used to bother me..now I'm rather endeared of that half-second slipup. But I always wondered why a perfectionist like Kubrick left it in.

[Highway 61]

That's just another entry in the unending Kubrick aspect ratio debate. The blades aren't visible in the theatrical aspect ratio.

[Sloper]

It's been a while since I saw Blue Velvet, but the robin always annoyed me because there was something smug about the way it seemed to provide closure for the story - you start by seeing the bugs crawling around beneath the surface, but at the end the bug has been caught and neutralised. I may have missed the point, but that's how it seemed to me. A bit like Karl Malden and Eva Marie Saint's self-satisfied smiles at the end of On the Waterfront (otherwise a perfect film, dammit!). And I didn't like the Departed's rat for the same reason - there was a definite smug smirk behind it.

In the same vein, what's with the stag in All that Heaven Allows? Again, a great film, a good ending...and suddenly there's the bloody stag at the window! I vomited repeatedly. All these moments are a bit like when comedians laugh at their own jokes, or wink at the end of the punchline. It's just deadly.

[mattkc]

In the same vein, what's with the stag in All that Heaven Allows? Again, a great film, a good ending...and suddenly there's the bloody stag at the window! I vomited repeatedly. All these moments are a bit like when comedians laugh at their own jokes, or wink at the end of the punchline. It's just deadly.

WHAT!? Have you seen any other Sirk? The end of All That Heaven Allows is one of the greatest moments of the film, and is so obviously Sirkian. It's related to the ending of A Scandal in Paris with the monkey, and the toys in There's Always Tomorrow, just to name two examples. That stag at the end of All That Heaven Allows is one of those things that so perfectly sums up part of what his work is all about - and does it infinitely better than anyone could do in words. See more Sirk, and figure it out for yourself!

[Michael]

I'm with you mattkc. I simply can't imagine All That Heaven Allows without that stag in the snow.

[Sloper]

WHAT!? Have you seen any other Sirk? The end of All That Heaven Allows is one of the greatest moments of the film, and is so obviously Sirkian. It's related to the ending of A Scandal in Paris with the monkey, and the toys in There's Always Tomorrow, just to name two examples. That stag at the end of All That Heaven Allows is one of those things that so perfectly sums up part of what his work is all about - and does it infinitely better than anyone could do in words. See more Sirk, and figure it out for yourself!

I guess a lot of the seeming 'flaws' in Hitchcock's films are best understood in the context of his work as a whole - some of those awkward expository scenes are less irksome when you know they're a feature of his work as a whole, and in a way are integral to what made him great. A lot of people dislike the melodramatic huffing and puffing in Kurosawa - personally I love it.

No I've never seen any other Sirk films. And no I would never tell anyone that the reason they don't like Vertigo or Throne of Blood is that they haven't seen enough of those directors' films. No one watches all of a directors' films in one go - each film has to stand on its own merits. And I'm only expressing my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think All That Heaven Allows is a gobsmackingly beautiful film all the way through (including the shot of the stag), and right until the end I was spellbound - but I felt the stag was one symbol too many, and way too cute. Maybe it's because I only saw it after watching the wonderful Far From Heaven, and was expecting a more downbeat ending. I'm really glad other people feel differently about it, though; it just proves how subjective these things are.

Also, isn't it true that Sirk's films were looked down on by critics for many years, and that he only became fashionable later? So it may be that he's kind of an acquired taste, which those of us with more conventional minds find harder to acquire... Anyway, the defence rests.

[zedz]

It's been a while since I saw Blue Velvet, but the robin always annoyed me because there was something smug about the way it seemed to provide closure for the story - you start by seeing the bugs crawling around beneath the surface, but at the end the bug has been caught and neutralised. I may have missed the point, but that's how it seemed to me. A bit like Karl Malden and Eva Marie Saint's self-satisfied smiles at the end of On the Waterfront (otherwise a perfect film, dammit!). And I didn't like the Departed's rat for the same reason - there was a definite smug smirk behind it.

I think your reading of the robin in Blue Velvet is bang on, with the exception that there's an added dimension of sarcastic irony which makes all the difference (and is absent from the other examples). Lynch knows just how hackneyed and kneejerk this closure is and his exploitation of it helps express the film's themes. The fakeness of the robin is crucial, and the blatant contrivance of the happy closure is plainly inadequate to neutralise the extreme darkness of the heart of the film. Another key moment in the "when worlds collide" structure of the film is when Isabella Rossellini and Laura Dern (the respective epitomes of the exaggeratedly dark side of the film and its exaggeratedly sunny side) finally appear in the same frame: its a clash of tone so extreme that it's hilarious and disturbing at the same time. Dern's performance seems to me so deliberately bad / inadequate here and elsewhere in the film (including the syrupy finale under discussion) that it gets straight to Lynch's point in a way that approaches genius.

[mattkc]

All That Heaven Allows was the first Sirk I ever saw as well (only a couple years ago), and I remember not really "getting" the stag in the snow at the end either. But on repeated viewings, and after seeing other Sirks, it quickly became one of the most breathtaking moments in the film for me, on par (or close) to things like the reflection in the television set, etc. I think my point is that one can't really judge things like that until you understand better the director's work as a whole. Because the thing is, it's not awkward or cute in anyway when you realize what he's doing. I could be more specific with all this, but I detest explanations in art, and would rather encourage someone to search for the "answers" themselves rather than write it in blunt, ugly words that destroy the magic. But to me the stag is not a "symbol," it's related to his whole aesthetic, it's deeply connected to every frame of the film, and to his work in general.

Sirk was most definitely treated as a joke for a long time (as was Hitchcock though). Now, I certainly would not be the one to know about this kind of stuff, as I'm probably younger than most posters here, but I don't think Sirk has ever become "fashionable" - I think that simply a wider majority have begun to see his films, which is a good thing most certainly, but sadly it's probably at least a little because of Far From Heaven (which, sorry, I did not think was good at all). That would at least explain why All That Heaven Allows is his most widely-known and commonly referred to.

But, of course, in general these now recognized auteurs were not taken seriously at all back in the day when what was considered "film art" was mainly the likes of Bergman, Fellini, etc. Didn't have much to do with "acquired taste" I don't think.

[colinr0380]

I don't know if this is considered by many others to be a 'great masterpiece', but I've been irked by the final shot of Breaking The Waves. The literalisation of the bells of heaven ringing after all of the handheld, gritty realism that came before. It is less that contrast though but the way I feel that I'm being pushed too hard into one interpretation of the film, especially after the amazing balance the film strikes earlier on in not literalising God in the scene where Bess conducts a dialogue between herself and God in the church, alternating playing each part in the exchange.

That ambiguity of whether Bess is really communing with God or whether it is just an expression of her abuse by her community, her husband and her lovers, and her awareness of her abuse causing her to treat herself harshly in her 'God responses' during the scene in the church is beautifully played (and I've often wished that an extra bit was added on to that scene where a priest saw her conducting this conversation and attacks Bess for 'acting insanely' - treating her dialogue as madness as it isn't taking an accepted form of communion through the formal rituals of prayer!)

It also made me identify more strongly with the character when I felt that she believed so strongly, yet was not going to receive a response - it reinforced the tragedy and made me care more for the character. With the bells ending I'm left wondering whether I'm supposed to be celebrating the character, which was something I was doing before that shot, or whether the bells are meant to celebrate Bess's degradation and was a call for others to do the same!

The ringing bells at the end definitively prove the existence of God in this world, and therefore validate the actions Bess takes during the course of the film while rubbing the noses of the people in the community who treated her badly in the fact that she was a fundamentally decent person. Sadly we have been so pushed into seeing the world as realistically drawn, full of real pain and suffering that is not recognised, that the bells of Heaven pealing seems like the ultimate cop out - one that we may desperately wish for, but also one that damages the film if we realise that the day to day world we live in often contains misdeeds and cruelties that go unseen and features decency which can go unrecognised or be misinterpreted.

Without the final bells the audience is allowed to become the witness to Bess's tragic tale, and to celebrate and recognise her naive kindness and decency. With the bells the audience is forced to bear witness to an outside entity celebrating Bess, whether that outside entity is meant to symbolise God or whether it is the filmmaker himself not having faith in our liking Bess on our own and telling us what we have to feel.

It is one of the only films I've seen that I've loved only to have my reaction to it be totally reversed with just that one final shot. I'm still fascinated by the film because it inspired that reaction in me though!

[Sloper]

I totally agree about Breaking the Waves, it's a perfect example of a moment which somehow ruins the whole effect of the film. Up to that point it made a real emotional impact on me, but aside from destroying the film's ambiguity, subtlety, balance etc as you point out, it also just seemed like a really cheesy effect in an otherwise grimly realistic film.

The stag was kind of a similar moment for me, but from what mattkc says that is at least 'Sirkian'. Those bells seem to contradict the rest of Breaking the Waves...though having said that, I have a feeling they might look less out of place now that I've seen Dogville (and from what I hear Dancer in the Dark is anything but consistent in its approach to realism/fantasy). Like mattkc was saying about Sirk, it may be that von Trier's other films shed light on what seems like a wrong step in Waves.

[colinr0380]

That is one of the reasons I prefer Dancer In The Dark, as the final transcendence is beautifully done in that film and perhaps because there are constant slips into musical sequences the 'real' stuff is not treated as cavalierly as in the final shot of Breaking The Waves. One of the best scenes in Dancer In The Dark is where Selma is in the prison cell and is waiting to find out whether she has been pardoned. She tries to drift into musical reverie but can't because there aren't any rhythmic noises such as the machines in the factory, the train rumbling down the tracks, the scratch of a pen or of a needle at the end of a record or the tapping of a rope on a flagpole to trigger it off. She is trapped in the real world of the silent cell until she faintly hears the sound of a carol service through a ventilation shaft. With some difficulty she triggers off the starkest musical sequence and the film moves from handheld to the 100 non-moving cameras. However instead of the world expanding and others joining her in her reverie as they have in earlier sequences (including the amazing sequence in the courtroom where everyone, including the murdered man's wife, is dancing along with her!) the cell remains the same size and the 100 cameras are placed so close together that we cut between small parts of Selma's body as she presses against the grill and slaps on the wall to create her accompaniment.

At the end the film does a similar literalisation to Breaking The Waves but this time in the most perfect and heartbreaking way as the camera moves up from the ground floor to the guard standing on the floor above and then up through the roof in a literalisation of Selma's earlier description of the way the camera moves in the final musical number of a film. There are no bells of Heaven chiming this time, only a final triumphant performance of Bjork singing New World over the end credits that complements the orchestral version over the opening prelude.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Alright here's one that's bothered me since the first time I saw it. In Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, someone is getting their hair cut early in the movie, and the barber just keeps cutting with his scissors rapidly, but the hair is obviously about a good 4 inches away. Has anyone caught this one?