Academy Award Nominations

..and why not?
Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 23 Jan 2007, 23:53

Billybob Dylan wrote:
Sneelock wrote:I saw Kevin Spacey impersonating Peter O'Toole on t.v. last night and he was spot on! I don't think I've ever seen anybody impersonate O'Toole before.

His Carson wasn't too bad either. He's a pretty good mimic. Have you ever seen that clip where Spacey "auditions" for Star Wars as a variety of famous actors?


Hilarious! now that you mention it, his Jack Lemmon and Christopher Walken stand out in my mind. I'm surprised more "real" actors don't do impersonations. the only other one with the gift I can think of is Anthony Hopkins doing Ralph Richardson and all those guys to perfection.

marios

Postby marios » 23 Jan 2007, 23:54

geoffcowgill wrote:I'll say this: Martin Scorsese is the best filmmaker there has ever been.


You should be handling his press releases.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 32515
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 23 Jan 2007, 23:54

geoffcowgill wrote: We can argue about what his best period was, and what his best film was, but who EVER has amassed a record of as many great films?


Hitchcock.

Next question.

User avatar
geoffcowgill
exceptionally nondescript
Posts: 3380
Joined: 23 Oct 2003, 23:43

Postby geoffcowgill » 23 Jan 2007, 23:58

Matt Wilson wrote:
geoffcowgill wrote: We can argue about what his best period was, and what his best film was, but who EVER has amassed a record of as many great films?


Hitchcock.

Next question.



Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced, and I've seen probably 90% of Hitchock's films. Name the ones that you claim are great.

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 23 Jan 2007, 23:58

geoffcowgill wrote: William Wyler and Howard Hawks knew how to tell a story and coax charismatic and empathetic performances from actors, but had little elan with the visual dynamics of cinema.


great post! I clipped the above bit because I don't agree and I doubt MS would. I think 'Ben Hur' and 'the criminal code' could both be discussed in terms of visual dynamics but.. that's the way you see it and you put it very well!
Last edited by Sneelock on 23 Jan 2007, 23:59, edited 2 times in total.

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 23 Jan 2007, 23:59

Sneelock wrote:"Boogie Nights" is, I think, a good example.
Abel Ferrara a bad example.


true..
City Of God -good influence
Blow - bad influence.

User avatar
Jimbly
Posts: 21957
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Postby Jimbly » 23 Jan 2007, 23:59

geoffcowgill wrote:I'll say this: Martin Scorsese is the best filmmaker there has ever been. Numerous directors have had more impact, influence, and importance for landmark works, but no one, absolutely no one, has more consistently proven with such awesome force that they know how to make a movie better than this man. Is he a visionary? Maybe not so much, relative to a Fellini, Welles, Godard, Hitchcock, even Altman. But he is the cinema craftsman par excellance. How and why should The Departed, a cop/mob cat-and-mouse movie with a couple of pretty nifty contrivances central to its plot, be one of the best, if not the best, movies of the year? 'Cause Scorsese can hardly make a bad movie. And he's a master of all of it. Kubrick and Hitchcock were visual stylists of amazing instinct, but they let countless crappy performances slip into their films. William Wyler and Howard Hawks knew how to tell a story and coax charismatic and empathetic performances from actors, but had little elan with the visual dynamics of cinema. There are precious few bad shots or bad performances in a Scorsese movie. We can argue about what his best period was, and what his best film was, but who EVER has amassed a record of as many great films? And he didn't even have the rapidity of the studio system to pump up his numbers, and his meticulous editing process ensures that he can't crank 'em out even by the diminished standards of prolificacy today. I fully expect a deserved standing ovation come Oscar night.


This is all well and good if you like his films. I dont. Hitchcock has made great films and a few poor ones. I dont think I have seen a bad performance in a Hitchcock film to rival Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York, and that including Tippi Headren in Marnie. But Hey Ho
So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 32515
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 24 Jan 2007, 00:04

geoffcowgill wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
geoffcowgill wrote: We can argue about what his best period was, and what his best film was, but who EVER has amassed a record of as many great films?


Hitchcock.

Next question.



Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced, and I've seen probably 90% of Hitchock's films. Name the ones that you claim are great.


You've seen 90% of his films? Do you know how many films he made? Dozens and dozens--going all the way back to the '20s. I doubt you've seen even two thirds of them.

But here are some of just the obvious ones:

Vertigo
North by Northwest
Rear Window
Psycho
(these top four films are as good as any four pictures Scorcese has made)
Strangers on a Train
The Birds
Rebecca
Notorious
Shadow of a Doubt
Lifeboat
The Lady Vanishes
The 39 Steps
Sabateur
Foreign Correspondent

The Man Who Knew Too Much (either version)
Rope

And that's just off the top of my head

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 24 Jan 2007, 00:05

Jeemo wrote:. I dont think I have seen a bad performance in a Hitchcock film to rival Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York, and that including Tippi Headren in Marnie. But Hey Ho


How about John Gavin in Psycho? Even Ma Bates' wardrobe in the bedroom gave a performance of greater range and animation than him.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 32515
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 24 Jan 2007, 00:06

Corporal Moddie! wrote:
Jeemo wrote:. I dont think I have seen a bad performance in a Hitchcock film to rival Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York, and that including Tippi Headren in Marnie. But Hey Ho


How about John Gavin in Psycho? Even Ma Bates' wardrobe in the bedroom gave a performance of greater range and animation than him.


:roll:
Oh G, not you too...

User avatar
Jimbly
Posts: 21957
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Postby Jimbly » 24 Jan 2007, 00:12

Matt Wilson wrote:
geoffcowgill wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
geoffcowgill wrote: We can argue about what his best period was, and what his best film was, but who EVER has amassed a record of as many great films?


Hitchcock.

Next question.



Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced, and I've seen probably 90% of Hitchock's films. Name the ones that you claim are great.


You've seen 90% of his films? Do you know how many films he made? Dozens and dozens--going all the way back to the '20s. I doubt you've seen even two thirds of them.

But here are some of just the obvious ones:

Vertigo
North by Northwest
Rear Window
Psycho
(these top four films are as good as any four pictures Scorcese has made)
Strangers on a Train
The Birds
Rebecca
Notorious
Shadow of a Doubt
Lifeboat
The Lady Vanishes
The 39 Steps
Sabateur
Foreign Correspondent

The Man Who Knew Too Much (either version)
Rope

And that's just off the top of my head


Matt

You would be quicker naming Hitch's stinkers.

I give you Topaz
So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 32515
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 24 Jan 2007, 00:14

Jeemo wrote:Matt

You would be quicker naming Hitch's stinkers.

I give you Topaz


Yeah, but if you made as many films as he did you're bound to have a few stinkers. And how old was he when he made Topaz? A senior citizen or something.
I forgive him. Besides, in the '40s/'50s even an average Hitch picture (something like Stage Fright, say) is interesting.

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 24 Jan 2007, 00:17

Matt Wilson wrote:
Corporal Moddie! wrote:
Jeemo wrote:. I dont think I have seen a bad performance in a Hitchcock film to rival Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York, and that including Tippi Headren in Marnie. But Hey Ho


How about John Gavin in Psycho? Even Ma Bates' wardrobe in the bedroom gave a performance of greater range and animation than him.


:roll:
Oh G, not you too...


You misunderstand me Matt. You won't hear a stauncher defender of Hitchcock's genius than me, but to say there weren't bad performances in his films is simply untrue. Gavin was terrible in Psycho.

Billy Bodega
Posts: 1027
Joined: 24 Jul 2006, 19:57

Postby Billy Bodega » 24 Jan 2007, 00:19

Fuck me, this was a Scorcese discussion a minute ago.

BCB film threads unchanged, shocker. :D

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 24 Jan 2007, 00:22

Topaz I won't defend but I'll defend "Stage Fright" and even John Gavin. I think he's supposed to be a side of beef and I think he manages it.

I think we need a Film Thread that doesn't trod on the toes of other film threads.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 32515
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 24 Jan 2007, 00:24

Corporal Moddie! wrote: You misunderstand me Matt. You won't hear a stauncher defender of Hitchcock's genius than me, but to say there weren't bad performances in his films is simply untrue. Gavin was terrible in Psycho.


Yeah, but you're aiding a guy's argument who says he's seen "90%" of Hitchcock's films and then challenges me to come up with any "great" ones.

Besides, Gavin is hardly even in the film and I've never thought he ruined it or anything.

Look, you guys don't like the Hitchcock argument then how about John Ford? Certainly he made more films of high quality than Scorcese. One could easily name ten or so classics with Ford's name on them. I'm not sure you could do that with Marty.

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 24 Jan 2007, 00:27

Sneelock wrote:
geoffcowgill wrote: William Wyler and Howard Hawks knew how to tell a story and coax charismatic and empathetic performances from actors, but had little elan with the visual dynamics of cinema.


great post! I clipped the above bit because I don't agree and I doubt MS would. I think 'Ben Hur' and 'the criminal code' could both be discussed in terms of visual dynamics but.. that's the way you see it and you put it very well!


I was watching the beginning of Scarface the other day and the panning and tracking from exterior to interior location in the opening shots was just masterful. And this was 1930! So I really can't agree on Hawks either. Wyler's one of those "gaps" in my knowledge (actually there are quite a few!) so i can't comment on him.

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 24 Jan 2007, 00:28

you've seen "The Best Years of Our Lives"
if you see only one... that's the one!

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 24 Jan 2007, 00:29

Sneelock wrote:you've seen "The Best Years of Our Lives"
if you see only one... that's the one!


I'll add it to my "you really should have seen this by now" list!

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 24 Jan 2007, 00:30

you've seen "The Best Years of Our Lives"
if you see only one... that's the one!

maybe not in terms of visual dynamics but that wasn't usually his thing.

oh, it's SO great!! I hope you like it a fraction as much as I do.
I once had a guy challenge me to name a better film and I really couldn't.
Last edited by Sneelock on 24 Jan 2007, 00:33, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Screenadelica”