Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[twietee]

Are you telling me right now that his performance in The Last Tango in Paris wasn't a good one, Shrink?
I found it quite good to say the least. But except that you may be fine with your line.
But I can't be mad at true artists who gave the world some incredible genuine moments. Only they have the right to lay back and live along in self indulgent silliness - only when they want of course.

 

[Shrink]

Are you telling me right now that his performance in The Last Tango in Paris wasn't a good one, Shrink?
I found it quite good to say the least. But except that you may be fine with your line.
But I can't be mad at true artists who gave the world some incredible genuine moments. Only they have the right to lay back and live along in self indulgent silliness - only when they want of course.

I would agree "Last Tango..." was an excellent performance. I need to be clearer on the line I am drawing between his "early" career and his "later" work.

I need to give your assertion that "...true artists..." have the right to "self indulgent silliness". I need to give your position more thought, the thought that an interesting argument deserves. However, my initial reaction is that any artist can do whatever they want...the issue for me is whether they are to be "forgiven" their self indulgent excesses, .i.e they have earned the right to produce crap because they have, at one time, produced genius work. Or, rather, each work is judged on it's own merit, and crap is crap irrespective of the fact that the producer of that crap has, in the past, produced brilliant work. That is, Brando has produced brilliant and revolutionary work, but he has also produced self indulgent garbage. I do not forgive the garbage (as if anybody gave a damn about what I think!) just because he was brilliant in the past. Crap is crap.

But give me time to consider your argument...it certainly deserves better than a quick response, twietee.

 

[twietee]

I would agree "Last Tango..." was an excellent performance. I need to be clearer on the line I am drawing between his "early" career and his "later" work.

I need to give your assertion that "...true artists..." have the right to "self indulgent silliness". I need to give your position more thought, the thought that an interesting argument deserves. However, my initial reaction is that any artist can do whatever they want...the issue for me is whether they are to be "forgiven" their self indulgent excesses, .i.e they have earned the right to produce crap because they have, at one time, produced genius work. Or, rather, each work is judged on it's own merit, and crap is crap irrespective of the fact that the producer of that crap has, in the past, produced brilliant work. That is, Brando has produced brilliant and revolutionary work, but he has also produced self indulgent garbage. I do not forgive the garbage (as if anybody gave a damn about what I think!) just because he was brilliant in the past. Crap is crap.

But give me time to consider your argument...it certainly deserves better than a quick response, twietee.

Don't give it too much thought, it's just a poor man's philosophy!

You are right with your 'crap is crap' assertion, I can't dispute that and actually agree completely. One has to call a spade a spade (that's a parole, or?). I just tend personally to ignore the mediocre works and try to focus on the masterpieces - and that's how I remember the artists mainly.

A good contemporary example would be Woody Allen in my opinion. The last works of him were just dull and plain, or let's say tediously p(r)etty. Still I will mainly connect him with Zelig, Hannah and all the other gems.

 

[Shrink]

Don't give it too much thought, it's just a poor man's philosophy!

You are right with your 'crap is crap' assertion, I can't dispute that and actually agree completely. One has to call a spade a spade (that's a parole, or?). I just tend personally to ignore the mediocre works and try to focus on the masterpieces - and that's how I remember the artists mainly.

A good contemporary example would be Woody Allen in my opinion. The last works of him were just dull and plain, or let's say tediously p(r)etty. Still I will mainly connect him with Zelig, Hannah and all the other gems.

I would agree that choosing to ignore the crap and remember a performer (or any artist) for their successes is best, and I try to do the same. Your example of Woody Allen in spot on.

I'll give you an example of the inverse...remembering a performer of one great performance in a career almost entirely of poor work. In "Sweet Smell Of Success", an absolutely brilliant late film noir...acting, script, direction, ans especially cinematography... Tony Curtis, generally an actor of no import or, IMO, talent, was unbelievable good in this film. Smarmy, heartless, cruel, self absorbed...and all done incredibly well. So I remember that movie, and not all the awful performances in other films.

Before you mention "Some Like It Hot", I must admit that it is the only Billy Wilder film I really didn't care for...I'm not generally impacted in any serious way by comedies. And in the "The Defiant Ones", while interesting because of it's theme in that time period, his performance was not, for me, impressive. So I try to remember Curtis' one brilliant performance, and forget the rest ("Yonduh lois da castle of my foddah" )

 

[twietee]

("Yonduh lois da castle of my foddah" )

hehe, what ? Think I should see "Sweet Smell Of Success" as don't know it.
And about Billy Wilder comedies, I find Avanti! very nice. Not a masterpiece probably but well, it plays in Italy so it can't be bad I guess. What do you think about Stalag17, the disc floats around here for quite some time, but it looks dead serious so I mostly avoid watching it o).

But maybe we should hold our breath for the moment as it seems we take over the whole thread.

 

[Shrink]

hehe, what ? Think I should see "Sweet Smell Of Success" as don't know it.
And about Billy Wilder comedies, I find Avanti! very nice. Not a masterpiece probably but well, it plays in Italy so it can't be bad I guess. What do you think about Stalag17, the disc floats around here for quite some time, but it looks dead serious so I mostly avoid watching it o).

But maybe we should hold our breath for the moment as it seems we take over the whole thread.

You're right...it does look like we've pirated the threat. (Of course by posting this I'm continuing the piracy!!)

OK, last comment (for at least 15 minutes!).

I strongly suggest (urge) that you see both "Sweet Smell..." and "Stalag 17". Very different films, very different subjects, very different styles..and, IMO, both essentials. See them if you can.

It's been just a delight and a pleasure "talking" with you.

More another time...

 

[Scepticalscribe]

No, actually, it is a very interesting 'hijacking' (or 'pirating') to read informed and thoughtful posts on certain older films/movies, and opinions on the roles of actors, and directors, and a welcome change from posts which simply recommend recent viewings of recent movies. I like context, and debate and discussion. Above all, I like to see fresh perspectives in such discussions.

Indeed, I have followed the discussion - and exchange of views - on whether 'crap is crap', or whether someone who was superlative early in an acting (or directing) career should be forgiven rubbish (and sometimes self-indulgent) performances later in life, or whether such 'crap' performances should be overlooked and forgiven and not seen as part of a life's oeuvre to have been fascinating, have found your exchange of opinions on the matter especially interesting.

 

[twietee]

(Of course by posting this I'm continuing the piracy!!)

Haha, smart move on my side how I posed a question to you and suggested not posting anymore at the same time? ;) Gotcha!

Anyway, I was wondering where scepticalscribe was...and there she is, bringing in some desperately needed colour onto this page. Strangely my (fairly new) avatar can't decide if it (?) should stay colourful or not. Must be the algorithm.

 

[flopticalcube]

Watched two movies yesterday.

Amazing Grace - 2006 Period bio-drama about the abolitionist William Wilberforce. Some excellent acting. The ladies will like the romantic bits.

The Count of Monte Cristo - 2002 A fairly good stab at the novel if not 100% to the letter. Guy Pearce is wonderful as Fernand Mondego. The transformation of Edmund Dantes is also very good although James Caviezel appears a bit wooden at the start (perhaps on purpose to emphasize Dantes' naiveté). Again, plenty of goodness for the ladies and action for the men.

 

[Huntn]

Watched two movies yesterday.

Amazing Grace - 2006 Period bio-drama about the abolitionist William Wilberforce. Some excellent acting. The ladies will like the romantic bits.

The Count of Monte Cristo - 2002 A fairly good stab at the novel if not 100% to the letter. Guy Pearce is wonderful as Fernand Mondego. The transformation of Edmund Dantes is also very good although James Caviezel appears a bit wooden at the start (perhaps on purpose to emphasize Dantes' naiveté). Again, plenty of goodness for the ladies and action for the men.

Count of Monte Cristo, Three Muskateers, and Man in the Iron Mask, are among my favorite books. As I recall, I liked the 2002 movie.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Count of Monte Cristo, Three Muskateers, and Man in the Iron Mask, are among my favorite books. As I recall, I liked the 2002 movie.

Terrific books, I agree. Great stories, timeless classics. To them, I'd add 'Kidnapped' by Robert Louis Stevenson, which I, personally, preferred to 'Treasure Island'.

Re movies, and TV adaptations, the late 1970s TV adaptation of 'Kidnapped' (starring David McCullum as Alan Breck, with a haunting, unforgettable theme score by Vladimir Cosma) is the best I've seen by far. Superb (filmed on location), and extraordinarily atmospheric.

 

[Mr. McMac]

A friend of mine lent me Team America, World Police on DVD. Anyone see it? The sex scene almost made me pee my pants. Hysterical!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Watched two movies yesterday.

Amazing Grace - 2006 Period bio-drama about the abolitionist William Wilberforce. Some excellent acting. The ladies will like the romantic bits.

The Count of Monte Cristo - 2002 A fairly good stab at the novel if not 100% to the letter. Guy Pearce is wonderful as Fernand Mondego. The transformation of Edmund Dantes is also very good although James Caviezel appears a bit wooden at the start (perhaps on purpose to emphasize Dantes' naiveté). Again, plenty of goodness for the ladies and action for the men.

I've always wondered at this sort of 'gender' determinism; seriously, unless it was intelligent, I was allergic to 'the romantic bits'.

Even as a child, I hated it the limited lives and passive roles played by women. I could never understand why women were invariably so incredibly stupid, so vapid in movies when I knew they weren't in real life Likewise, I couldn't understand either why they did nothing in movies (but - needless to say - had stuff - done to them which they were helpless to prevent).

I have to say that I preferred 'action' for both women and men - not just 'goodness' (how boring and how utterly suffocating) for women and 'action' for men. Actually, personally, for me, one of my heroines was Emma Peel when I was a kid - a woman who kicked ass, did things, ran her own life, and yes, looked great. That's who I wanted to be.

 

[twietee]

Actually, personally, for me, one of my heroines was Emma Peel when I was a kid - a woman who kicked ass, did things, ran her own life, and yes, looked great. That's who I wanted to be.

+1

She also had that mesmerizing black leather suit and a very sharp 'tongue'. I absolutely adored the Avengers. unfortunately it isn't common to wear a hat like that nowadays.

 

[Shrink]

I've always wondered at this sort of 'gender' determinism; seriously, unless it was intelligent, I was allergic to 'the romantic bits'.

Even as a child, I hated it the limited lives and passive roles played by women. I could never understand why women were invariably so incredibly stupid, so vapid in movies when I knew they weren't in real life Likewise, I couldn't understand either why they did nothing in movies (but - needless to say - had stuff - done to them which they were helpless to prevent).

I have to say that I preferred 'action' for both women and men - not just 'goodness' (how boring and how utterly suffocating) for women and 'action' for men. Actually, personally, for me, one of my heroines was Emma Peel when I was a kid - a woman who kicked ass, did things, ran her own life, and yes, looked great. That's who I wanted to be.

I guess being the old guy in this discussion I can clearly remember that women in the bad old days when women were not considered capable of assertive action, independence, and even ratiocination. They "belonged in the home" caring for children and their husbands.

I also clearly remember the modern beginnings of the Womens movement...Betty Friedan's book, "The Feminine Mystique", and the protests on the part of women for such rights as equal pay for equal work, control of their own bodies. and the like. I'm not trying to turn this into a PRSI post, just pointing out that movies (and often books) reflected the generally (if appallingly) accepted stereotypes of women.

You younger folks D) never lived in the time of those horrible societal conceptions of women.

 

[twietee]

You younger folks D) never lived in the time of those horrible societal conceptions of women.

I'm young.



But my mother got abandoned by her/our family when she got pregnant without being married, so that is that.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

+1

She also had that mesmerizing black leather suit and a very sharp 'tongue'. I absolutely adored the Avengers. unfortunately it isn't common to wear a hat like that nowadays.

Ah, Emma Peel's 'sharp tongue' goes without saying (and was another reason she was my heroine), and yes, the fabulous black suit (no idiotic high heels here to totter about in stupidly before being caught easily and effortlessly by whoever was chasing you), and a really neat sports car which she drove (and clearly owned) herself......

She was brilliant. And a wonderful role model (for me, anyway).

I guess being the old guy in this discussion I can clearly remember that women in the bad old days were not considered capable of assertive action, independence, and even ratiocination. They "belonged in the home" caring for children and their husbands.

I also clearly remember the modern beginnings of the Womens movement...Betty Friedan's book, "The Feminine Mystique", and the protests on the part of women for such rights as equal pay for equal work, control of their own bodies. and the like. I'm not trying to turn this into a PRSI post, just pointing out that movies (and often books) reflected the generally (if appallingly) accepted stereotypes of women.

You younger folks D) never lived in the time of those horrible societal conceptions of women.

Too true, alas - (and bless you, Shrink, for posting it); which is why gender stereo typing in the media (be in newspapers, online, movies, books etc) drives me nuts to this day.......

Oh yes. Amen to all that. Believe me, I have lived through much (though not all) of this stuff, too......and have seen the changes first hand.

----------

I'm young.



But my mother got abandoned by her/our family when she got pregnant without being married, so that is that.

You are a credit to your mother (and family), but it seems that they may not have been a credit - or any sort of support - to her. She sounds very impressive from what you have written about her.

Such attitudes are - and were - an appalling reflection of distorted and mistaken values.

 

[Shrink]

I'm young.



But my mother got abandoned by her/our family when she got pregnant without being married, so that is that.

Sorry, twietee, for bringing up such painful memories.

It's a little better now, but women are still the victims of moral and societal judgements that have a long way to go to reach rationality.

 

[flopticalcube]

I've always wondered at this sort of 'gender' determinism; seriously, unless it was intelligent, I was allergic to 'the romantic bits'.

Even as a child, I hated it the limited lives and passive roles played by women. I could never understand why women were invariably so incredibly stupid, so vapid in movies when I knew they weren't in real life Likewise, I couldn't understand either why they did nothing in movies (but - needless to say - had stuff - done to them which they were helpless to prevent).

I have to say that I preferred 'action' for both women and men - not just 'goodness' (how boring and how utterly suffocating) for women and 'action' for men. Actually, personally, for me, one of my heroines was Emma Peel when I was a kid - a woman who kicked ass, did things, ran her own life, and yes, looked great. That's who I wanted to be.

I was relating more to the fact that men, in general, prefer action films and women prefer romance. Whether the characters portraying these roles are male or female is neither here nor there, at least to me. In both these cases, its a bit difficult for the directors to remove the historical context and be a bit more gender indeterminist not that the female leads where badly cast in these films, they were quite good really but definitely products of the time. I also enjoyed the romantic elements, by the way, and the 1995 BBC adaptation of Austen's Pride & Prejudice is one of my all-time favourite films. Not much "action" in there although at 5 hours its a bit much to take in one sitting.

 

[twietee]

You are a credit to your mother (and family), but it seems that they may not have been a credit - or any sort of support - to her. She sounds very impressive from what you have written about her.

Such attitudes are - and were - an appalling reflection of distorted and mistaken values.

All that was settled at some point again - modern times even reach some catholic smallville fortunately - it just takes much longer than it should. I will never really understand how she worked that out actually - being a single mother, studying medicine at the same time and moving away to (then) West-Berlin all that without money....but it worked out quite well I'd say.

But this thread is clearly not dedicated to my beloved mother so I just state: UP (there is a Disney sale going on here)


Edit: no painful memories at all, I had the perfect childhood. Just wanted to say that even us younger people (although I'm not a twen anymore) should and could know about this stuff. Cheers!

Edit no2: oh yes, scepticalscribe, the automobile of Emma Peel!

 

[Shrink]

And even us "guys" can enjoy the "romantic" stuff. There is a wonderful 1949 film called "The Heiress", the first film version of the book "Washington Square" with Olivia de Havilland and Montgomery Clift (also Ralph Richardson and Miriam Hopkins). It is a wonderfully made period romantic drama, with no "action" but a terrifically acted and directed film.

See...even us real men (with BLACK iPhones...none of the sissy white phone stuff for us real men! ), us manly men, us macho men (uh...I'm making myself sick) like romantic stuff, too.

 

[GrandPhrase]

Just watched 'Pitch Perfect' in theaters..

For those who watched it, do you happen to know the brand and/or model of the silver keyboard that Beca used in her dorm room?

 

[Huntn]

Terrific books, I agree. Great stories, timeless classics. To them, I'd add 'Kidnapped' by Robert Louis Stevenson, which I, personally, preferred to 'Treasure Island'.

Re movies, and TV adaptations, the late 1970s TV adaptation of 'Kidnapped' (starring David McCullum as Alan Breck, with a haunting, unforgettable theme score by Vladimir Cosma) is the best I've seen by far. Superb (filmed on location), and extraordinarily atmospheric.

One of my favorite movies is the (made for tv) 1990 version of Treasure Island with Charlton Heston and Christian Bale. Unfortunately this movie never made it to DVD in other than converted from VHS. At one point Turner Classic movies had thousands of requests on their site for this in DVD. I stopped holding my breath a long time ago.

 

[jahoys]

saw Looper a few hours ago. very good film IMO. always loved sci-fi movies. this one did not dissapoint. three thumbs up!

 

[LizKat]

Is this the French movie "Indochine" which featured Catherine Deneuve (and Vincent Perez)? If so, I well remember it - an epic, stunning, beautifully-told and wonderfully gripping story.

Shrink, and twietee, if you haven't seen this, I strongly urge you to take a look at it. For, it is a tale in which to lose yourself for several hours - simply wonderful. Exquisitely told, beautifully filmed, and great acting.

Yep, Catherine DeNeuve and Vincent Perez. The film Indochine got the Best Foreign Film for '92 or '93 at the Oscars, i think. Cinematography is stunning, the time frame sets out in 1930 and proceeds through the mid-1950s, so it's at the ebb of Vietnam's French colonial times and during the rise of the communist revolutionaries. I'd say the major plot line requires more than a little suspension of disbelief here and there, but I found the film so worth watching that I didn't mind. The DVD is in French and offers English subtitles.