criterionforum.org

Occasionally when viewing a great masterpiece--or heck! just a fav flick--there's that ever so slight flaw that detracts from that greatness and seems to snowball with each subsequent viewing. Due to familiarity we know it's coming and then when we see it it kind of pulls us out of the awe we've felt towards the work. The feeling is a little like when you have that ever so tiny pop or skip in your favorite vinyl album that you can't separate from the music any more. A slight tenseness takes over in those beats before the flaw.

It's nitpicking really. But here's my initial example.

Antonioni's Blowup. Great film. Most agree. Antonioni is a great filmmaker (with the possible exception of that heinous abhorration Beyond the Clouds). But there's that shot in Blowup where David Hemmings is rolling the coin over his nuckles--a cool little character affectation--but then the camera pulls in on it! Drives me nuts, totally pulls me out of the subtle magic and pace of the film. Why can't it just be a little cool thing that perhaps you may only have noticed on the second viewing? Instead it's the director shouting "Oh look! my lead can do parlor tricks!"

Again, it's nitpicking--and that's the topic...

I never noticed the plasticky weapons used in Braveheart until Gibson mentioned them in the commentary. Now I can't help but see them each and every time. Perhaps you're talking about aesthetic choices that take you out of the film, but those flapping weapons, man...

exte wrote:I never noticed the plasticky weapons used in Braveheart until Gibson mentioned them in the commentary. Now I can't help but see them each and every time. Perhaps you're talking about aesthetic choices that take you out of the film, but those flapping weapons, man...

Same thing happened to me when I listened to the Ghostbusters commentary and found out for the first time that all the marshmallowy gloop raining down on everyone at the end was in fact... shaving cream! I guess it would've been asking too much for the crew to melt down a ton of marshmallow for added realism.

A similar instance was in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, with a Chocolate River that was clearly NOT chocolate.

Citizen Kane -- In Bernstein's flashback, when Kane comes back from Europe and announces he's engaged, someone at the newspaper office yells, "Look over here," or something like that, and, completely superfluously, Jed Leland says, "Let's go to the window!" This might be a radio technique that Welles inserted, but it just bugs the hell out of me every time I watch it.

The model trucks in Brazil during one of the chase sequences are just bad.

Actually, I'd like to nominate Jennifer Jones as queen of this category. She has nearly ruined many an otherwise great or interesting film for me: De Sica's Terminal Station, Powell and Pressburger's Gone To Earth, John Huston's Beat the Devil, Dieterle's Portrait of Jennie, Lubitsch's Cluny Brown, and Vidor's Duel in the Sun (I'm sure there are others... feel free to chime in). Whatta ham!

I apologize in advance if there are Jen Jones fanatics that I've upset with this post. Consider me blind to her talents.

exte wrote:I never noticed the plasticky weapons used in Braveheart

That reminds me of the shot during the battle of Sterling when the old badass gets his hand cut, and everything below his wrist goes all bendy-wendy...

this would probably fit better in a "significant flaws in would-be masterpieces" thread.. but...

i find the climactic scenes in both Wings of Desire and Paris, Texas quite overwrought, dialogue-wise. the emotional build-up to the confrontations of the male and female leads in each film (in addition to the gorgeous imagery) is plenty enough and the dialogue ends up just being overkill. i don't want the characters to verbally explain themselves or for Marion to wax poetic about her "labyrinth." in Paris, Travis' monologue in the sex booth is dynamite, but.. then the scene keeps going and we hear Jane overexplain the dynamics of their failed relationship.. and i just go "argh!" ..also, as good as ry cooder's score for Paris is, i think music distracts from the beautiful, quiet tension in that scene.

i want to unconditionally love a Wenders film. maybe Kings of the Road will be the one, whenever it gets a DVD release.

One of the real spoilers for me is something I never noticed in one of my favourite films until the director pointed it out. The problem is that, just as you can't unhear the splice a minute into Strawberry Fields Forever once you've noticed it, you can't see this film in quite the same way once you've heard the gripe. Read on at your peril.

The film is Andrey Rublyov. Tarkovsky (either in an interview somewhere or in his diaries) puts his dissatisfaction with the finished film down to (cue spoiler tags)

Spoiler

the fact that so many of the actors in the film are acting in different registers: some are stagy, some are stylised, some are far more naturalistic. When the performances are filtered through subtitles it's not hard to overlook this, but once you're aware of it there is indeed a real clash between, for example, Kirill's theatricality and Andrey's minimalism. As I recall, Tarkovsky was happiest with Burlayev, even though he found him extremely difficult to work with.

i find the climactic scenes in both Wings of Desire and Paris, Texas quite overwrought, dialogue-wise. the emotional build-up to the confrontations of the male and female leads in each film (in addition to the gorgeous imagery) is plenty enough and the dialogue ends up just being overkill. i don't want the characters to verbally explain themselves or for Marion to wax poetic about her "labyrinth."

Really? That's actually my favorite part of my #2 favorite film of all time. I often fantasize about someone coming from out of blue into my picture and expressing those words to me. The long close up shot of Marion in that room of red and gold is utterly luminous and unforgettable. I think she hardly explains herself.. what she expresses is a very beautiful poem about her existence, her loneliness.. a poem that I had to digested numerous times to fully get it.

Really? That's actually my favorite part of my #2 favorite film of all time. I often fantasize about someone coming from out of blue into my picture and expressing those words to me. The long close up shot of Marion in that room of red and gold is utterly luminous and unforgettable. I think she hardly explains herself.. what she expresses is a very beautiful poem about her existence, her loneliness.. a poem that I had to digested numerous times to fully get it.

on my first viewing of the film, its sheer artistry and enigmatic wonder overwhelmed me.. and i immediately deemed it one of my favorite films.

however, on my two subsequent viewings.. the jump to the romantic storyline no longer worked for me (in addition to the more specific criticisms i mentioned before.)

i respect your take on it, and considering the film's reputation, i think most people are on your side!

With my first viewing of Reservoir Dogs, the movie bothered the hell out of me.

I live in the neighborhood they shot the movie in, and in all the scenes when they are driving, everytime it cuts away ,it doesn't sync up. Every driving scene loses my attention as the background changes, it just bothers me (I don't like the movie too much anyways).

I've always had trouble with the two gangsters in Belle de Jour. Not to question a master like Bunuel, but I've no idea why we have the scene in the bar (where they have a meeting with two other men) other than to say, yes, these are two petty gangsters involved in criminal activity. Where the film involves Belle de Jour's world, both real and imaginary, completely, suddenly we are out . Please advise if I'm missing something here.

Steven H wrote:Actually, I'd like to nominate Jennifer Jones as queen of this category. She has nearly ruined many an otherwise great or interesting film for me: De Sica's Terminal Station, Powell and Pressburger's Gone To Earth, John Huston's Beat the Devil, Dieterle's Portrait of Jennie, Lubitsch's Cluny Brown, and Vidor's Duel in the Sun (I'm sure there are others... feel free to chime in). Whatta ham!

No argument there. She's miserable, especially in the otherwise interesting Duel In The Sun. She makes Joan Crawford look like a Cassavetes disciple.

In Raging Bull, there is a poster in the scene when the local small time mob guys who Jake so detests show up at the gym, that, outside of a really interesting explaination, is from sometime in the '70's (going by the boxer's hair) and it's pretty jarring, especially for a film so deeply rooted in it's time and place.

essrog wrote:Citizen Kane -- In Bernstein's flashback, when Kane comes back from Europe and announces he's engaged, someone at the newspaper office yells, "Look over here," or something like that, and, completely superfluously, Jed Leland says, "Let's go to the window!" This might be a radio technique that Welles inserted, but it just bugs the hell out of me every time I watch it.

Another Citizen Kane bit: Joseph Cotten's crummy make-up and "kooky old man" charicature voice when he's being interviewed in the hospital.

Speaking of Welles, his appearance in Long Hot Summer is painful against the rest of the cast consisting of method actors.

In Bride of Frankenstein, when the Monster is trying to stop the shepard girl from screaming. A couple times it cuts from a long or medium shot of the Monster covering her mouth to a closeup of her screaming, sans hand. I mean you'd think the editor would be able to match the shots properly. It always irked me about what is otherwise a wonderful movie. There are a few other gaffs, but those I don't mind; just this specific one.

Well, there are all the technical problems in Blade Runner (visible wires, replicant counting errors, etc.), but in a way they sort of add to the film.

Love it: In the Mt. Rushmore diner scene in North by Northwest, the kid plugging his ears in the background right before

Spoiler

Eva Marie Saint shoots Cary Grant.

Hate it:

Spoiler

The blood

in the final shot of The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. It's so unconvincing it's almost Brechtian.

The visible shadow of the camera on William Holden while approaching towards Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard.

Not that it bothers me that much.


Axel.

Tarkovsky's Mirror: in the first scene with the hypnotist you can see the shadow of the microphone on the wall above.

I remember seeing numerous light comedies where you would occasionally see the microphone dip into the scene, but I think these may have been when shown on TV and they messed with the aspect ratio (of course).

how about the sequence near the end of Pyscho that has the pyschologist explaining Anthony Perkin's illness. I don't know why Hitchcock had a tendency to tack on some of these scenes to the end of his films that by spelling everything out, seemingly comprimise try much of the complexity devloped throughout .

There's also of course, Chaplin's closing speech in Great Dictator, which I haven't seen, but is generally regarded as really didactic and overly sentimental.

I suppose that in both cases you could argue that these "uncinematic" and wordy sequences ultimately reaffirm the power of the visual medium at connecting to us in an emotional and intellectual way that is not always applicable through words. But I think that general concept is not really taken much further in these films, and since such a basis is generally already well acknowledged, such scenes come off more as grating lapses in judgement.

Of course, I may be missing somthing entirely. And by the way, that window scene in Kane bugs the hell out of me as well.

alexismyname wrote:There's also of course, Chaplin's closing speech in Great Dictator, which I haven't seen, but is generally regarded as really didactic and overly sentimental.

I suppose that in both cases you could make a case on how these "uncinematic" and wordy sequences ultimately reaffirm the power of the visual medium at connecting to us in an emotional and intellectual way that is not always applicable through words. But I think the general concept is not really taken much further in these films, and since the basis is generally already well acknowledged, such scenes come off more as grating lapses in judegement.

Of course, I may be missing somthing entirely. And by the way, that window scene in Kane bugs the hell out of me as well.

Good call on the Great Dictator. Same thing occurs at the end of Monsieur Verdoux. When I watch these two films I usually turn it off when the speech starts, which is--I know--cinematic sacrilege...but there's just too many great films to watch. Chaplin's at his best when there's no dialogue--but of course, he's first and foremost a silent film director.

What window scene are you talking about? Not that beauty where the camera seems to move out the window and through a roof top neon sign? Cause that's pretty amazing given what went into putting it together and I think it comes off pretty well...though it doesn't look convincing by today's standards.

What window scene are you talking about? Not that beauty where the camera seems to move out the window and through a roof top neon sign? Cause that's pretty amazing given what went into putting it together and I think it comes off pretty well...though it doesn't look convincing by today's standards.[/quote]
As was mentioned here earlier, the part where Leland says, hey everyone let's go over to the window... I suppose it's not so much a scene, but rather a brief moment

Good call on the Great Dictator. Same thing occurs at the end of Monsieur Verdoux. When I watch these two films I usually turn it off when the speech starts, which is--I know--cinematic sacrilege...but there's just too many great films to watch. Chaplin's at his best when there's no dialogue--but of course, he's first and foremost a silent film director.[/quote]


The end of Verdoux doesn't bother me as much as perhaps it should - I think the dialogue at least fits into much of the tone of the rest of the film, where as apparently (I think) in Great Dictator, dialogue isn't such a key element.
I do think however Chaplin deserves credit for his directorial approach in his sound films - even if we just take into consideration his very effective use of sound in City Lights and Modern Times.

Tarkovsky's Mirror: in the first scene with the hypnotist you can see the shadow of the microphone on the wall above.

I thought that was deliberate? Isn't the hypnotism supposed to be being filmed as some sort of Experiment?

In Herzog's Nosferatu, when Klaus is moving into Lucy's room, it shapes up to be a chilling and very clever piece of cinema.
He opens and moves through a door and you can see his shadow in a mirror, but not his reflection. Then in the next shot you can see a side profile of him in the same mirror. Builds up and falls down in about 25 seconds.

N. Wilson wrote:

Tarkovsky's Mirror: in the first scene with the hypnotist you can see the shadow of the microphone on the wall above.

I thought that was deliberate? Isn't the hypnotism supposed to be being filmed as some sort of Experiment?

In Herzog's Nosferatu, when Klaus is moving into Lucy's room, it shapes up to be a chilling and very clever piece of cinema.
He opens and moves through a door and you can see his shadow in a mirror, but not his reflection. Then in the next shot you can see a side profile of him in the same mirror. Builds up and falls down in about 25 seconds.

Another one - in Aguirre, you can clearly see a hand (Herzog's) push the sedan chair when it is about to topple over early in the film. Then again, Herzog says that he considers his films almost as children, and when they are complete, they are complete, defects and all.