| Author |
Message |
|
| Marilyn |
 Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:32 am |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| Clearly there is a lot to like about The Lodger if you're into Hitchcock. I find it interesting that I liked neither it or Shadow of a Doubt as much as I thought I would. If Hitch had been able to be more direct about the true identity of the lodger and been less direct about that of Uncle Charley, both films would have been masterpieced. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:34 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| Incidentally, I find that as I have aged and learned more about film, I liked Hitchcock and Chaplin much, much more than I ever had before. Both of them left me cold in my earlier years. Now I not only recognize them as geniuses, but also I enjoy their films immensely! |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
You know, Hitchcock spent some time in Babelsberg with Pabst, Murnau, Lang, etc (before The Lodger was made). It's been a bit since I've seen The Lodger, but I would say that Blackmail is more polished and much more in keeping with what he would've learned at UfA.
got a lot |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:52 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
| I gotta admit, though, right now I'm liking Anthony Asquith's silents (well, Underground, althugh it's not perfect, and in the late '20s A Cottage on Dartmoor most definitely out-Hitched Hitch) better than Hitchcock. But just with the silents. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| Not similarly enlightened, Lady W. BTW, the Siskel Center is showing a number of Ozu silents that didn't make it into their 25-film retro of his a few months ago. Several from the I Was____, But series. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ghulam |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:37 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
| I could take no more than 8 minutes of The Lodger. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| censored-03 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:42 pm |
|
|
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 3058
Location: Gotham, Big Apple, The Naked City
|
Quote: My bit of sacrilege: I don't think Chinatown is all that great for the same reason - I saw it relatively recently, and so many movies have done the same thing since that it's not "original" anymore.
No sacrilege Lady W. This is a running theme with me and film. There is an aspect within the Arts, particularly intrinsic to film, and that is what you touched on I think. I have always had a problem with certain films and how well they age, sometimes even an entire genre ages poorly. I can name any number of movies that for one reason or another have not aged well. There can be a lot of reasons for this; it could be the viewer has been influenced by changing fashions or sensibilities or something less obvious like persons own changing tastes for…what have you. It is usually within the single viewers own lexicon of film-viewing and own taste however, as in the saying "each to his own".
I find that with applied art (paintings, sculpture etc.), music and literature this syndrome is present but it is not as important to our continuing interest or liking of a work as it is in film. In film it seems extremely important to me how a film is received by my synapses as I watch it for the first time, for it this initial impact that almost always informs me (or any viewer) as to the interest, fascination or love I will have for the film and its overall effect on me. (or said “any viewer”).
A good example is when at NY Times FF I mentioned how I so enjoyed The List of Adrian Messenger. The film's atmosphere and overall creepiness had really been a harrowing, exhilarating and even influencing experience for me as a child, therefore I loved it! Years later as I was told of the ridiculousness of the (now famous to me) superstar actors and that over-the-top make-up removing ending, I must admit I found it all a bit silly too. There went the love affair with that movie...sadly. I can think of many instances just like this in my cinema filled life. We live in a society that is for all intents and purposes run on the basis of the shock-of-the-new. As a result our allegiances are constantly tested, particularly (for cineastes) to our old "favorite" movies. |
_________________
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-- Horace Walpole |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:25 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
censored-03 wrote: No sacrilege Lady W. This is a running theme with me and film. There is an aspect within the Arts, particularly intrinsic to film, and that is what you touched on I think. I have always had a problem with certain films and how well they age, sometimes even an entire genre ages poorly. I can name any number of movies that for one reason or another have not aged well. There can be a lot of reasons for this; it could be the viewer has been influenced by changing fashions or sensibilities or something less obvious like persons own changing tastes for…what have you. It is usually within the single viewers own lexicon of film-viewing and own taste however, as in the saying "each to his own".
I find that with applied art (paintings, sculpture etc.), music and literature this syndrome is present but it is not as important to our continuing interest or liking of a work as it is in film. In film it seems extremely important to me how a film is received by my synapses as I watch it for the first time, for it this initial impact that almost always informs me (or any viewer) as to the interest, fascination or love I will have for the film and its overall effect on me. (or said “any viewer”).
A good example is when at NY Times FF I mentioned how I so enjoyed The List of Adrian Messenger. The film's atmosphere and overall creepiness had really been a harrowing, exhilarating and even influencing experience for me as a child, therefore I loved it! Years later as I was told of the ridiculousness of the (now famous to me) superstar actors and that over-the-top make-up removing ending, I must admit I found it all a bit silly too. There went the love affair with that movie...sadly. I can think of many instances just like this in my cinema filled life. We live in a society that is for all intents and purposes run on the basis of the shock-of-the-new. As a result our allegiances are constantly tested, particularly (for cineastes) to our old "favorite" movies.
Although - you can still have originals that work. I think A Hard Day's Night is still great in the whole obligatory rock star movie genre (not thinking so much of The Wall as Spice World); what they did in that movie was just so different that it proved pretty impossible to imitate.
Actually, I think that's one thing about silents - a lot of people write them off because they get stuck on the surface bits: bad projection speed, the acting style, even the dress / hairstyles. But it's like learning another language: once you get past the initial stuff, you start watching the movie and you start seeing whether the movie itself is good or bad. Sometimes the old stuff is still the yardstick, and sometimes it's just been done more recently and better. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bocce |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:42 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 2428
|
over the years, i've seen many silents and generally have had a mixed opinion. i liked the comedies and found the the dramas to be a bit too effusive...
that was until i saw THE WIND about ten years ago and my approach to silent film acting changed considerably. my previous criticism had been of a reliance upon overt (occasionally overwrought) gesture which is fine in a comedic application but becomes maudlin dramatically.
oddly enough this was spurred by my distaste for welles directed welles performances which to this day, i still rank amongst high stinkers. one day i compared welles acting in CITIZEN KANE to a silent performance and got roundly critized and sent on to be educated about what was REAL silent film acting (not that anyone there thought i was wrong about the welles premise).
i think my malaise was (is) pretty much shared by MY generation (much more so those following) whether they've been exposed to a lot of film history and, even, have a feel for live theatre (in which gesture is by nature of a larger scope).
the point here being: i am very much looking forward to the discussion both in the sense of being futher educated and sensitised about the wellspring of modern cinema. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
My personal favorite is German Expressionism. There are great things about different genres, but I really love the darkness, the sinister side. (I'm big into vampires, too.) I love the fact that there's only one intertitle in The Last Laugh and the rest is visual (and very much Emil Jannings).
And when you get both the style and a story, you've got something special.
A lot of the "mood" around Expressionism apparently came out of the post-WWI experience (and involved the horrors of what many of the filmmakers had seen in the war). The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a prime example of that, as is Nosferatu, but the style itself evolved through to the later 1920s.
Silent acting style: the acting in Metropolis is part of that Expressionistic tradition so it's really stylized - it's not typical silent acting. But I don't think a lot of people, and especially not casual watchers, realize that.
And now that I have a few movies under my belt, I can catch some of the technical stuff as well. Murnau has some amazing opening / early shots in several of his movies, almost to the point of being a signature. The first crane shot (or at least the first German crane shot) is great, but it's almost an exact duplication of the lobby shot at the beginning of The Last Laugh.
I should really bring all this up later (plus I need to get some work done). At some point I'll try to write some more about acting style and scenes of the silent-talkie transition, especially in some of the last silents and first talkies. There's some interesting stuff there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| I did think The Last Laugh was marred by its ending. Up to that moment, it was one of the most hauntingly beautiful, heartbreaking films I have ever seen. The details about Emil Jannings' character were so well drawn and used to such great effect in watching the effects of his misfortunes on him. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
| Yeah, the ending is... well, different, but I think the rest of the movie more than outweighs it. Don't want to go much into it yet because I don't want to spoil anything. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ehle64 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:39 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
| I should have a copy of Landmarks of Early Silent Film tomorry. Woohoo! |
_________________
It truly disappoints me when people do something for you via no prompt of your own and then use it as some kind of weapon against you at a later time and place. It is what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:40 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
