Author Topic: Antares' Short Summations  (Read 141379 times)

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #105 on: July 07, 2011, 12:20:23 PM »
I remember seeing that in some movie: I guess the fact that the Americans cracked the code of the enigma thingy also helped move things along more quickly.

 :laugh:

Yeah, nice try Mr "all I learned about the war was from Matthew McConaughey in that super accurate U571"! :redcard: I ain't biting. You hear? No. Not doing it. :-X

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #106 on: July 07, 2011, 02:44:20 PM »
:laugh:

Yeah, nice try Mr "all I learned about the war was from Matthew McConaughey in that super accurate U571"! :redcard: I ain't biting. You hear? No. Not doing it. :-X
:thumbup:

...and I tried so hard :P (hence the lack of smileys).

BTW, I actually have never seen the film in question, I just remember that the topic came up once or twice, so I couldn't resist the attempt.

Halo2

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #107 on: July 07, 2011, 06:09:02 PM »
I saw Achim's post on the last page and ran to get some beers to sit back and watch the fireworks!

Achim, nice attempt at sparking an outburst.
Jon, nice move rising above the comment.

Guess I'll just have to watch a DVD now that I'm settled in on the couch with a couple of beers.

 :couch:

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #108 on: July 08, 2011, 03:58:34 AM »
Yes, I have to commend Achim's efforts, but U571 has come up more than once! It's my favourite go to example whenever the subject of accuracy vs. entertainment in film pops up. The first time it was discussed properly (mainly me, having a rant :-[ ) was almost four years ago. Wow, this place has done really well to maintain the same mood over so long...

http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,490.0.html

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4100
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #109 on: July 08, 2011, 05:54:54 PM »
Well Jon, you have something in common with Chuck Yeager. He was upset by David Lean's The Sound Barrier back in the fifties when it depicted the breaking of the sound barrier by a Brit. He also commented on how wrong the film was in how it showed the pilot finally achieving success by going into a steep dive. He stated that if a pilot were to do that, he'd be killed.

samuelrichardscott

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #110 on: July 08, 2011, 06:32:45 PM »
I thought you both might get a kick out of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012552/War-veteran-takes-airline-Flybe-excess-luggage-charge-military-flag.html

As for historical inaccuracies in film, look no further than Mr Gibson. :yellowcard:

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #111 on: July 09, 2011, 03:41:37 AM »
I thought you both might get a kick out of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012552/War-veteran-takes-airline-Flybe-excess-luggage-charge-military-flag.html

Good for him!

Well Jon, you have something in common with Chuck Yeager. He was upset by David Lean's The Sound Barrier back in the fifties when it depicted the breaking of the sound barrier by a Brit. He also commented on how wrong the film was in how it showed the pilot finally achieving success by going into a steep dive. He stated that if a pilot were to do that, he'd be killed.

You see, that's what I mean. Why do it and undermine the real people? To be honest I hadn't seen the film or knew the history, but if Wikipedia can be trusted, it seems the UK were working on trying to break the barrier in 1942 and the US used that info to develop the Bell aircraft Chuck successfully used. The Sound Barrier seems to be a film made from sour grapes!

Sam's right of course, Mel Gibson is a professional fibber. I love Braveheart, but it could have been a more important film for the sake of playing along. My main problem is with the arrogance, or maybe fear, that producers display when trying to make their mark on a story, when in fact the really great films gained their reputation through innovation, not porky pies.

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4100
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #112 on: July 15, 2011, 05:04:46 AM »
The Wages of Fear (Le salaire de la peur) (1953) 4/5 - This is a film that I should have made the effort to see many years ago, but unfortunately just never got around to. Once again, this List of Shame has been a revelation for me, as this was one hell of a good suspense film. After what seemed like a very long amount of time setting up the premise, it steamrolls when they finally get on the road. Yves Montand and Charles Vanel are both exemplary in their roles and Clouzot throws in enough surprises just at the right time to make this a masterpiece. The scenes at the boulder and the oil pool are first rate examples of nail biting suspense, which had me wondering how I would have fared in the two situations which arise at those moments. If I had a bone to pick with this film, it would have to be with the first hour. I think Clouzot could have shorn a few scenes here and there and gotten to the trip a little sooner. And finally, the end scene seemed pretty predictable when Montand started "dancing" with the truck. But even these two slight problems don't detract from a wonderful viewing experience.

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #113 on: July 15, 2011, 06:34:36 AM »
I saw this recently as well and agreed with the first act being too long (an hour where 30min should have been enough). Personally I feel the film could have been slightly more effective if the main character had been a more charismatic or likable, offering more of a identification to the audience.

Beyond my complains I can only agree that it is an incredibly suspenseful film, and all that without music!

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #114 on: July 15, 2011, 07:46:23 AM »
The first hour is slow, but consider there was no such thing as a pure action film then.I'd argue he was building a metaphor to have a point for what would come. This is actually a very political and ironic film, so in effect, your supposed to be bored during the first hour because that's putting you in the mindset of the frustrated characters. They have to do something crazy to break the monotony.

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4100
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #115 on: July 16, 2011, 12:07:00 AM »
It's not that I was bored, I just felt that Clouzot could have set the stage just as well in about 45 minutes as opposed to one hour. There really was no need for this film to be 2 1/2 hours long.

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #116 on: July 16, 2011, 12:34:13 AM »
Ok, not bored, but in a film over two and a half hours long, what were you thinking after 45 minutes? "where is this going?"; "when will something happen?"; maybe a frustrated "get on with it!". Which you could say is how the characters felt. I know I did.

I'm saying that Clouzot was making it like this on purpose. Yes, he could have been more efficient, but he chose to frustrate you instead.

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #117 on: July 16, 2011, 02:39:41 AM »
I'm saying that Clouzot was making it like this on purpose. Yes, he could have been more efficient, but he chose to frustrate you instead.
Well, then I guess Antares and me are saying we feel it was a bad choice ;) On purpose or not, if a film makes me fel bored or frustrated that can't be a good thing. What made it worse for me was, that the lead character was not likable. So it became even more frustrating that I had to watch him doing his thing for an hour...

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4100
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #118 on: July 16, 2011, 02:43:38 AM »
I'm saying that Clouzot was making it like this on purpose. Yes, he could have been more efficient, but he chose to frustrate you instead.

Yes, and I'm saying that he was wrong to do it for an hour when 45 minutes would have sufficed. Now if he would have spent a little of those extra 15 minutes showing me more shots of Vera Clouzot, then I wouldn't have minded as much. She's amazingly beautiful.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 02:45:47 AM by Antares »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #119 on: July 16, 2011, 03:57:11 AM »
I still think you're missing my point. So you'd have been... comfortable... with 45 minutes? This isn't Hollywood. :shrug:

European cinema has a history of impressionism, expressionism, neo-realism, etc, where every shot, angle and edit is designed to evoke an emotional reaction that subscribes to one of those theories and means something to the director (as I said before, this is an aggressively political film; some called it anti-American, I think). A negative reaction is probably exactly what he wanted you to have and you can choose to accept it, or question it, as you would a painting hanging in a gallery. "Like" and "dislike" don't come into it, that's for Hollywood romance. I think, Achim, you see what I mean, but it's not a case of a "bad choice" because he's getting what he wanted. This is a purely artistic approach where the artist is embodying an idea. It's more a case of agreeing or disagreeing with the idea than choosing to like it, because it isn't purely done for entertainment, despite being eventually entertaining.

It's hard to explain, but Antares, you have a strong interest in Film Noir, which was born of these techniques. Everyone knows the well worn Femma Fatale trick like in Double Indemnity with Barbara Stanwyck dressed in innocent white, but... oh, wait... she's half in shadow... therefore she's untrustworthy. The Third Man is similar in how Carol Reed set the camera at odd, wonky angles. If you had watched typical Hollywood fare for years and got used to a typical setup, you might feel uneasy. Did the camera operator break a leg of his tripod? No, Reed wants you to feel discomfort so you grow suspicious of the scene and the intentions of the characters in it.

Typical Hollywood was too Romantic to risk alienating the viewer, but Film Noir was the exception, and so Horror would come to be, but take the style back to its roots, you find European directors working with the techniques on another level. I mean, you're not supposed to 'enjoy' Bicycle Thieves, but that was a narrative theme. Wages Of Fear is doing the same thing visually as well.

I keep meaning to post my reviews of three 1960s Italian films that demonstrate in various ways why neo-realism is so fundamentally different to the closed off world of Hollywood Romance. In one of them, Mamma Roma, there's a scene with Mamma dancing alone with her son in a cluttered room. The actor playing the boy trips slightly and sheepishly looks dead straight into the camera, possibly expecting the director Pasolini to yell "cut" and demand a reset. He doesn't and the scene continues. Would you consider that a mistake? Because while it was an accident, it most certainly was not a mistake to leave it in, even though in a Hollywood film, it would have broken the viewers connection to the character.

Pasolini left it in because he was developing a style of Realism so pure, he didn't even hide the process from the audience. The natural end-point of this might be Fellini's 8½ (a fictional story so steeped in realism, you're essentially watching the film being made while you watch it! :stars:), or even Sergio Leone's Westerns that weren't afraid to exaggerate the techniques.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with an artists viewpoint, which is a good job, because Clouzot's politics are beyond me. I just recognise that he's trying to say something, therefore it isn't 'wrong' and certainly the second half of this film can be enjoyed exclusively as a pure thrill ride. Just like that I know Robocop is an attack on capitalism and, I've heard, also a criticism of the Vietnam war. I don't know how. I just love the dark sci-fi and robots kicking shit out of one another.  :-[