TOP 40 BCB FILMS

Backslapping time. Well done us. We are fantastic.
User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 30 Nov 2004, 20:38

Matt Wilson wrote:If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.


You should host film appreciation salons, Matt.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
king feeb
He's the consultant of swing
Posts: 26243
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 00:42
Location: Soon Over Babaluma
Contact:

Postby king feeb » 30 Nov 2004, 20:39

Matt Wilson wrote:We'd stay up late with a few good bowls of weed, a twelve pack of some fancy imported beer and a few lines for when we get sleepy. Every time somebody does something outstanding in the acting department (about every two minutes--and every time Brando is on screen) I'd tell you to take a shot (of whatever is in front of you).

If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.


*Signs off to purchase plane ticket to California*
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

marios

Postby marios » 30 Nov 2004, 20:42

snarfyguy wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.


You should host film appreciation salons, Matt.


Sounds expensive.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 30 Nov 2004, 20:48

Marios In Black wrote:
snarfyguy wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.


You should host film appreciation salons, Matt.


Sounds expensive.


He can afford it.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14755
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Postby The Write Profile » 01 Dec 2004, 04:13

The wierd thing is that I went out of my way to not vote for the Godfather, LOTR and Goodfellas (though I like all three just fine) because I figured that they would be highly represented anyway, it turns out this was the case though more than I figured--Cedric did you vote for La Jetee and City Lights, or was it just me?


Anyway, where were we?

The Godfather. As much as I love the first two Godfathers, I'd have to argue that the Conversation is actually the best Coppola film-. Not the most ambitious and certainly not the most far-reaching (well, maybe the second bit isn't so true, hell, it talks about the surveilance conspiracy that's all around us), but because its control was perfect. One thing Coppola could "do" well was endings, at least at his height (c.f.the first two Godfathers and even Apocalypse Now), the last moment where Hackman is looking for that bug he knows is somewhere in his room and tears out his entire floor is shattering, very painful cinema.

Re: Al Pacino. At times he is prone to hysterics, but at the same time there's a lot of command in his best work that goes beyond show-off pantomime, even in something like The Insider, when he's not at full pelt he's just there in the corner, wondering how the hell he compromised himself so badly. ("I'm running out of heroes, jeff").

I like the comment about the Godfather Pt. II that Kim Newman made where he said that Michaewl Corleone is dead inside even before its first frame, I guess that's what makes his performance so scary.


Final point, regarding nathan's not too arbitray criticism about those who love gangster movies but criticise rap for the same reasons. Well, I have the same reservations about both, but I enjoy watching/ listening to either and just view it as entertainment/commentary depending on the circumstances, despite not condoning the subject matter


7/ This Is Spinal Tap (Reiner 1983) 47/11

12/ Vertigo (Hitchcock 1958) 40/8

14/ Taxi Driver (Scorsese 1976) 38/8
15/ The Third Man (Reed 1949) 38/7
18/ Rear Window (Hitchcock 1954) 35/9

23/ Blue Velvet (Lynch 1984) 32/6
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (Forman 1975) 32/6

28/ M (Lang 1931) 28/6
Some Like It Hot (Wilder 1959) 28/6

32/ Duck Soup (McCarey 1933) 26/6
35/ The Conversation (Coppola 1974) 24/6

37/ The Sweet Smell Of Success (MacKendrick 1957) 24/4
38/
Sunset Boulevard (Wilder 1950) 23/5


There were quite a few choices in there I would have picked anyway, but those were the ones from my list. As it stands, it was nigh-on identical to the one featured during Time Out's centenerary of film, except with more of a "music" bent.
Last edited by The Write Profile on 25 Jan 2006, 23:29, edited 1 time in total.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Dec 2004, 15:48

Anyway, talking about Godfather 1, surely it's the fact it's the first film that really addressed the issue of the network of Cosa Nostra that makes it seminal? All the others never had to break that taboo - at the time it just wasn't widely accepted, certainly not in film anyhow?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 03 Jan 2005, 17:11

Right - I watched "Once Upon A time In America" over the weekend (the proper version) and, I have to say, it's better than I remembered. Magnificent. But the two rape scenes (particularly the second one, in the back of the car) are really vile and (unnecessarily) gratuitous, aren't they? They really did make me feel terribly uncomfortable - they almost seem to relish in the violence - which is shameful, really. Without those scenes, I think this film could have been right up there with the best - but they do detract from the films brilliance, don't you think?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

Guest

Postby Guest » 03 Jan 2005, 17:16

Diamond Dog wrote:Right - I watched "Once Upon A time In America" over the weekend (the proper version) and, I have to say, it's better than I remembered. Magnificent. But the two rape scenes (particularly the second one, in the back of the car) are really vile and (unnecessarily) gratuitous, aren't they? They really did make me feel terribly uncomfortable - they almost seem to relish in the violence - which is shameful, really. Without those scenes, I think this film could have been right up there with the best - but they do detract from the films brilliance, don't you think?

Yes. Irresponsible and sloppy filmmaking in my eyes. Watch Otto Preminger's Anatomy Of A Murder to see how a non-lazy filmmaker can get the same dramatic effect of rape without showing it. To me it's the same as child abuse in a movie. There is absolutely no reason to show it.

User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 03 Jan 2005, 17:17

Diamond Dog wrote:Right - I watched "Once Upon A time In America" over the weekend (the proper version) and, I have to say, it's better than I remembered. Magnificent. But the two rape scenes (particularly the second one, in the back of the car) are really vile and (unnecessarily) gratuitous, aren't they? They really did make me feel terribly uncomfortable - they almost seem to relish in the violence - which is shameful, really. Without those scenes, I think this film could have been right up there with the best - but they do detract from the films brilliance, don't you think?


You know, these rape scenes weren't supposed to be "pleasant". The second one you're talking about is, of course, brutal and difficult to watch, but it's the whole point of that scene which is where a whole world is falling down for these two characters. Noodles is surely vile in this scene, but that's what makes his character even more human and convincing.

That said, congratulations for having found that thread again !
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 03 Jan 2005, 17:20

Ced, I know it's not meant to be nice. But I think it could have been made just as despicable without seeming to revel in the graphic brutality quite as much. Just a thought. Great, great film though.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 03 Jan 2005, 22:01

Diamond Dog wrote:Ced, I know it's not meant to be nice. But I think it could have been made just as despicable without seeming to revel in the graphic brutality quite as much. Just a thought. Great, great film though.


I don't think it's too brutal or anything. As a matter of fact, I think it's perfect like it is. You know, it's all a question of contrast. The amazing aspect of that scene is always in the silence that you can hear outside the car, in the early morning. The chauffeur opens the door, de Niro gets down, put his pants on again... and there's the silence all around. Inside the car, the woman is crying. This scene is the story of a fall, and this is the deep end of that fall. And you wouldn't find that silence as frightening if what came just before wasn't very brutal and rough (it's a rape, remember). Anyway...

The other aspect that you need to remember is that, before that scene in the car, these two characters were litterally in heaven. They had loved each other since their childhood and, for the first and (that's the tragic part) last time, they were having the night they had always dreamed of. It was all just perfect. For her, for him : it was just what they had been expecting all their lives to live together. BUT the tragic part of that scene is that, beyond the fact that they both know that they love each other like they will never love anyone else, they also know that they will never see each other again, that there's nothing they can do to change that and to make them, finally, live together.

De Niro doesn't rape that woman because he's always wanted to fuck her and he finally gets the occasion. It would be too easy... He rapes that woman because he's angry against this destiny that made them for each other is also going to separate them for ever. He rapes her because he's frustrated to see that he will always be the man she loved the most and that, at the same time, she couldn't ever be able to stay with him. He's not only raping that woman in that scene, he's raping his own destiny. He's raping her to be dirty, to feel dirty and to feel the dirt : a rape to give himself a good reason to be rejected. And that's also why it needed to be so brutal. He's falling from the highest point of his life, where all his dreams had just come true (their evening in the restaurant and on the beach), to the lowest bottom of despair, where he realises that he'll always be just a punk and that there's nothing he can do to change that (the silence of the chauffeur, the silence of the early morning, the tears of the woman). That's one of the saddest and most powerful scenes I've ever seen on a screen.
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 04 Jan 2005, 08:26

Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema? :wink:
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 04 Jan 2005, 08:45

Diamond Dog wrote:Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema? :wink:


Did you read what I wrote ? I didn't say that it wasn't brutal. I said that it was and that there was a reason for that. The question here is not to understand cinema in general, but to understand the story you're watching. So stop reacting like a pc priest and watch that story for what it is rather than for what you'd like it to be. :wink:
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 04 Jan 2005, 09:38

I did read what you wrote. And I responded accordingly. I ain't the PC priest - but I do think it's morally reprehensible to have two rape sequences in one film. If the reasons you gave for the second scene were okay for the reasons stated, does that mean the same reasons apply to the first rape scene? If so, is the repetition necessary? If not, what [/i]other reasons were the justification for the other rape scene?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14755
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Postby The Write Profile » 04 Jan 2005, 09:50

Cédric wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema? :wink:


Did you read what I wrote ? I didn't say that it wasn't brutal. I said that it was and that there was a reason for that. The question here is not to understand cinema in general, but to understand the story you're watching. So stop reacting like a pc priest and watch that story for what it is rather than for what you'd like it to be. :wink:


Not that I really want to talk about rape scenes on film, but have you seen Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs?

The equivalent scene in that is just as horrible and, also contentious because the woman first starts enjoying it (she's obviously climaxing off her own accord)...and then it spiralls into the hate filled segment where the hick friend comes in the door and finishes her off. Up until that part of the film, it's been entirely about closed tension. You know Dustin Hoffman's character is falling away from his wife, and you know he's become overly protective (and it's safe to say, patronising). And yet the moment he goes out of the house for reinforcements we get that scene. Peckinpah is a prick, no doubt, but it's utterly necessary in terms of how the film is weighted.

There's a strong argument that Nikki G once posited that Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down was based entirely on the last 10 minutes of Straw Dogs--before then he had been an uptight, submissive, nerd, which was just as ugly.

I really appreciate nathan's point of view and agree with 90% of it. Gratuitous violence for the sake of it, is of course, unnecessary, but then those filmmakers aren't worth watching anyway.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 04 Jan 2005, 09:50

Diamond Dog wrote:I did read what you wrote. And I responded accordingly. I ain't the PC priest - but I do think it's morally reprehensible to have two rape sequences in one film. If the reasons you gave for the second scene were okay for the reasons stated, does that mean the same reasons apply to the first rape scene?


Is it a real question or are you joking here ? :shock: Basically, it doesn't work the same because it's not the same woman, it's not the same situation, etc...

I don't remember if the rape of the blonde during the hold up comes before or after the one in the car. Anyway, if it comes before, it's there to show that Noodles is an impulsive punk who is able to rape, like that. If it comes after, it shows that Noodles has accepted his condition of sad punk who's occasionally a raper. Of course, the rape of the blonde woman is also intersting because that woman ends up having a releationship with Max, Noodles' best friend and associate. And that's why the woman doesn't like him and kind of uses her influence to separate them. Of course, the scene in the car is more important for the drama.

If so, is the repetition necessary?


Who cares about this "repetition problem" ? Seriously, there's a story to tell and Leone tells it magnificently. It's a film about life and life isn't always pleasant to watch, you know...

morally reprehensible


Hats off for that one, it really made me laugh ! :lol:
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 04 Jan 2005, 10:02

Ced - there are other ways of depicting emotions without resorting to defiling women, you know. Sorry that it appears to have slipped both yours and Leone's mind, but it's true. :roll:
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 04 Jan 2005, 10:08

The Right Summery Profile wrote:
Cédric wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema? :wink:


Did you read what I wrote ? I didn't say that it wasn't brutal. I said that it was and that there was a reason for that. The question here is not to understand cinema in general, but to understand the story you're watching. So stop reacting like a pc priest and watch that story for what it is rather than for what you'd like it to be. :wink:


Not that I really want to talk about rape scenes on film, but have you seen Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs?

The equivalent scene in that is just as horrible and, also contentious because the woman first starts enjoying it (she's obviously climaxing off her own accord)...and then it spiralls into the hate filled segment where the hick friend comes in the door and finishes her off. Up until that part of the film, it's been entirely about closed tension. You know Dustin Hoffman's character is falling away from his wife, and you know he's become overly protective (and it's safe to say, patronising). And yet the moment he goes out of the house for reinforcements we get that scene. Peckinpah is a prick, no doubt, but it's utterly necessary in terms of how the film is weighted.

There's a strong argument that Nikki G once posited that Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down was based entirely on the last 10 minutes of Straw Dogs--before then he had been an uptight, submissive, nerd, which was just as ugly.

I really appreciate nathan's point of view and agree with 90% of it. Gratuitous violence for the sake of it, is of course, unnecessary, but then those filmmakers aren't worth watching anyway.


I don't think that the rape scenes in Straw Dogs and Once Upon A Time In America have anything in common. I'm also impressed by the one in Straw Dogs, because I find it fascinating to see how the situation and the characters become out of control, at some point. I think it's a really interesting approach to push these characters to act and react beyond logic. It's really going mad...

Once Upon A Time In America is a masterpiece : from start to finish. Now, if the only reason to criticisize these rape scenes in the film is that it's not 'correct' or 'pleasant', I think that we'd better close the discussion here... In films, the things you show are less important than the way you show them (the look you put on them). A rape is never pleasant to watch (how could it be ?), but in these films it makes sense to show these scenes. If you (and I don't mean, you, Matthew... it's a general "you") don't understand that : watch it again.
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 04 Jan 2005, 10:14

Diamond Dog wrote:Ced - there are other ways of depicting emotions without resorting to defiling women, you know. Sorry that it appears to have slipped both yours and Leone's mind, but it's true. :roll:


What are you talking about ? Did you understood that films were not reality, etc... ? Are you aware of the fact that the people in Leone's movie are the characters of a story, which works under a certain logic, etc... ?

Are you also against the killing of the Indians in Hollywood's classical westerns ? Because, when you think about it, it's not fair either ! :roll:
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 04 Jan 2005, 10:36

Cédric wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:Ced - there are other ways of depicting emotions without resorting to defiling women, you know. Sorry that it appears to have slipped both yours and Leone's mind, but it's true. :roll:


What are you talking about ? Did you understood that films were not reality, etc... ? Are you aware of the fact that the people in Leone's movie are the characters of a story, which works under a certain logic, etc... ?

Are you also against the killing of the Indians in Hollywood's classical westerns ? Because, when you think about it, it's not fair either ! :roll:


Now who's being silly?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine


Return to “Classic Threads & Treasury of Mirth”