|
Post by london777 on Mar 14, 2017 3:38:39 GMT
Spiderwort, may I ask you two questions? 1) Are you trying to galvanize this board into life single-handedly by starting threads on a zillion different topics? 2) Are there any films you do not like? You seem to like nearly every movie of every category suggested by others. Can I dare you to (in another thread) list critically highly-rated films which you do not like? Trying not to take this as a chastisement, London. Answer to question 1: I suppose I am, yes, and I'm getting a little tired of it, so I'm probably going to slow down or stop. Answer to question 2: yes, there are many, many, many films that I do not like. I think perhaps you're interpreting my "liking" a post as meaning I like all the films mentioned; sometimes I do, but more often, I like only some, and in some cases there are some I haven't seen. Often it's my way of saying thanks. Often it's because I value the sentiments/critiques in the post. And if I compliment someone's choices in writing, I mean it. If you will make a list of critically highly-rated films I will tell you which ones i do not like. I think you would be surprised, particularly as you come further into the contemporary world. Also, just for the record, I'm generally a person who wants to see the best in films when I can - whether it's in terms of entertainment or artistic accomplishment. Some things can be quite entertaining and not particularly good, and some things can be quite extraordinary, but not very entertaining. I am a professional, and I do know the difference. I can tell you, for example, that I admire the brilliance of Kubrick, but that I like few of his films. Same with Scorsese, and some others. I really do know the difference. That said, the older I get, the more I prefer to like something than I do just to admire it. I hope this clarifies things for you a bit. It was actually a back-handed compliment. I am in awe at your energy here. You deserve a breather when you want one, but please continue posting and starting threads at your own pace. This fledgling board badly needs you, along with a few other eminent contributors like manfromplanetx. The distinction between "liking"and "admiring" will never be resolved on this board. If we admire a film because it is "good", but we do not really like it, then the question arises as to what it is actually good for. Film-makers, and especially novice ones, may need to practice and display their mastery of techniques, and sometimes these are brilliant. But why should we spend our time and money watching such virtuosity? If I buy a car, I don't need to appreciate the extraordinary knowledge and technical skills needed to design and manufacture such things. I take them for granted. What I am interested in is how it performs for me. I am playing devil's advocate here because I do in practice rate innovation and virtuosity above simple entertainment. But am I right to do so? M-slovak rates films purely on their entertainment value. Is he/she right to do so? It is at least a logical and consistent system. But would I be entertained by the same films? Most "feel-good" movies bore me stiff, and some of them make me annoyed if I feel there are attempts to manipulate my feelings. You have dodged my challenge to name some highly-rated movies you do not particularly like, though you have given strong hints with your remarks about Kubrick and Scorsese and I am on the same wavelength. For me, the very greatest films marry seamlessly mastery of techniques, a sound moral basis, and are compassionate and life-affirming at heart. Examples are the films of Ingmar Bergman, Powell and Pressburger, Satyajit Ray, and Kurosawa.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 14, 2017 4:52:56 GMT
The distinction between "liking"and "admiring" will never be resolved on this board. If we admire a film because it is "good", but we do not really like it, then the question arises as to what it is actually good for. Film-makers, and especially novice ones, may need to practice and display their mastery of techniques, and sometimes these are brilliant. But why should we spend our time and money watching such virtuosity? If I buy a car, I don't need to appreciate the extraordinary knowledge and technical skills needed to design and manufacture such things. I take them for granted. What I am interested in is how it performs for me. I am playing devil's advocate here because I do in practice rate innovation and virtuosity above simple entertainment. But am I right to do so? M-slovak rates films purely on their entertainment value. Is he/she right to do so? It is at least a logical and consistent system. But would I be entertained by the same films? Most "feel-good" movies bore me stiff, and some of them make me annoyed if I feel there are attempts to manipulate my feelings. For me, the very greatest films marry seamlessly mastery of techniques, a sound moral basis, and are compassionate and life-affirming at heart. Examples are the films of Ingmar Bergman, Powell and Pressburger, Satyajit Ray, and Kurosawa. I'm reminded of an exchange from Inherit the Wind:
BRADY: "I do not think about things I do not think about."
DRUMMOND: "Do you ever think about things you do think about?"
I'm not teasing, as there's incalculable value in thinking about the things we think about. Even if we don't come up with conclusive answers to questions such as yours, the real value is in the examination that questioning brings about. When I observe that quality in others, it's very encouraging. Your car analogy was apt: in 1934, Chrysler introduced the Airflow, which featured many innovations and advancements that enhanced both performance and safety. And it flopped. Although admired, few liked it enough to buy it. But most of those advancements eventually found their way into virtually all automotive design, benefiting the industry as a whole as well as consumers. So I'd submit that, at the very least, the mastery and virtuosity to which you referred have their place insofar as advancing and expanding the cinematic art both technically and aesthetically, allowing and inspiring those coming after to enhance their own creative efforts, resulting in the sorts of films you or I can both admire and like. Cheers, to you as well as to thinking and questioning.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 14, 2017 6:29:55 GMT
Bad Day at Black Rock (John Sturges, 1955), a great and underrated film starring Spencer Tracy, opens and closes with memorable and foreboding shots of a speeding black train snaking across the forbidding Southwestern desert. Enhancing those shots is the film's aspect ratio of 2.55:1.00, amounting to "extreme wide screen" and thus showcasing the length of the train as it moves across the frame.
That film constitutes a modern Western, set just after World War II.
***SPOILERS for Joe Kidd***
Another John Sturges-directed Western, Joe Kidd (1972), (nearly) ends with Clint Eastwood's eponymous and ambiguous character literally taking control of a locomotive and driving it off the main tracks and into a saloon, where he surprises and kills a congregation of villains. That movie is good in virtually every area, but unlike Bad Day at Black Rock, it is not especially memorable. Its most memorable aspect is probably its climactic use of the train.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Mar 14, 2017 7:45:20 GMT
I have to recommend a film from a couple years ago named SNOWPIERCER. It's set in the future. Some ecological disaster has turned the world into an ice age and the only survivors are on a train that never stops running. I know that the premise sounds ludicrous (and it is) but the movie is pretty good. It's a class warfare tale that resonates.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 14, 2017 10:12:17 GMT
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Sergio Leone, 1966) features an amazing train sequence.
***SPOILERS for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly***
After having been taken prisoner by the Union army and sent to a military prison camp, along with his tenuous partner Blondie (Clint Eastwood), Tuco Ramirez (Eli Wallach) is brutally beaten by the sadistic bounty hunter Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), who is posing as a Union sergeant, and his henchman, Wallace (Mario Brega), who is posing as a Union corporal.
A little later, we find Tuco chained to Wallace on a freight train, presumably to be executed in some distant locale. Tuco tells Wallace that he needs to urinate, and the rotund Wallace says something like, "You smell like a pig already, try not to make it any worse." So they get up from where they were sitting, open the boxcar door, and stand on the edge to allow Tuco to relieve himself onto the onrushing desert. In one of this mythic film's sublimely realistic moments and lines, Tuco tells Wallace, "I can't while you're watching me," so the obese faux corporal turns his head. At that point, Tuco manages to use his free arm to shove Wallace out of the boxcar, as the two chained men go tumbling off the train together. Tuco leverages his surprise maneuver to kill Wallace by yanking and pummeling the burly man's head against the stony earth repeatedly. Then he tries to break the chain that cuffs them together, using the butt of Wallace's pistol and then a nearby rock, yet to no avail. His eyes search around, seeking a solution.
In the next shot, director Sergio Leone shows us the solution. His camera slowly pans across the arid desert, with gray mountains resting in background, until it finds Tuco's head, in a closeup, tucked just outside of the tracks, with Wallace on the tracks and the chain tightly draped across the rail. Soon, we hear the sound of the next oncoming train. Tuco peaks up, checks to make sure that the chain is as tight against the rail as possible, and then again compresses his head against the desert earth. Soon, the distant train is upon us, barreling over Wallace's dead body and snapping the chain, thus freeing Tuco, who eventually bounds up and hitches a ride on the caboose as Ennio Morricone's famously haunting "coyote howl" score plays in its eeriest and most darkly comic iteration.
The irony, dark humor and gritty violence, dialogue, editing, compositions, sound mixing, and score of that whole sequence are memorable and make brilliantly dramatic use of trains and train tracks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 10:15:52 GMT
Not at all what I expected, Stammaman, but it looks terrific. Great cast, and a wonderful director, J. Lee Thompson - a must-watch if I ever have the chance. Thanks for the introduction. It's a terrifically stirring stiff-upper-lip adventure and much affection is shown towards the train engine along the way. Kenneth More later appeared in another adventure film featuring a train journey (Dark of the Sun) but that was more brutal and he was relegated to being a supporting actor.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 9,318
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 14, 2017 15:54:04 GMT
It was actually a back-handed compliment. I am in awe at your energy here. You deserve a breather when you want one, but please continue posting and starting threads at your own pace. This fledgling board badly needs you, along with a few other eminent contributors like manfromplanetx. Thanks for this, london. Much appreciated.The distinction between "liking"and "admiring" will never be resolved on this board. If we admire a film because it is "good", but we do not really like it, then the question arises as to what it is actually good for. Film-makers, and especially novice ones, may need to practice and display their mastery of techniques, and sometimes these are brilliant. But why should we spend our time and money watching such virtuosity? If I buy a car, I don't need to appreciate the extraordinary knowledge and technical skills needed to design and manufacture such things. I take them for granted. What I am interested in is how it performs for me. I think what one thinks is good but doesn't like is irrelevant, given that when subjectivity is taken into account, there will undoubtedly be others who do like it. I suppose that's what it's good for, though I do take your point. Just can't really defend it, even though I myself am sometimes infuriated by the praise heaped upon something that I believe at its core is worthless. At that point, I generally say, "To each his own." I am playing devil's advocate here because I do in practice rate innovation and virtuosity above simple entertainment. But am I right to do so? M-slovak rates films purely on their entertainment value. Is he/she right to do so? It is at least a logical and consistent system. But would I be entertained by the same films? Most "feel-good" movies bore me stiff, and some of them make me annoyed if I feel there are attempts to manipulate my feelings. Again, subjectivity plays a role here. It's not a question of right or wrong, but personal preference (though as I said that can be frustrating to me, and doubtless you). I would say that a professional's analysis, however, is in a different category from that of a casual viewer. If I put on my professional's hat, I'd give you one answer; if I put on my viewer's only hat, I might give you another. That said, and perhaps in a bit of a digression, not sure, I feel the need to add that I categorically disapprove of style over substance, which I think too many directors are fond of today, and who use the chicanery of style to pretend to have substance.
You have dodged my challenge to name some highly-rated movies you do not particularly like, though you have given strong hints with your remarks about Kubrick and Scorsese and I am on the same wavelength. I'm glad we agree here, to whatever degree. The reason I'm reluctant to name names is because it usually results in dissent and arguments, and I have to spend a lot of time writing in order to defend myself. For me, the very greatest films marry seamlessly mastery of techniques, a sound moral basis, and are compassionate and life-affirming at heart. Examples are the films of Ingmar Bergman, Powell and Pressburger, Satyajit Ray, and Kurosawa. What you've written here, at the end, perfectly sums up my own view, and for that I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I've spent the better part of my life trying to make art out of moving images, and without those elements all is meaningless.
I'll just add that even when I watch "entertainments," they must have those qualities to some degree, however silly, or I won't watch them.
Again, I thank you for your thoughtful, meaningful comments. I do appreciate them.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Mar 14, 2017 18:23:20 GMT
Von Ryan's Express 1965 The Railway Children 1970 Breakheart Pass 1976 Oh Mr Porter 1937 Robbery 1967 Go West 1940 Marx Brothers climax, nearly reused in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution 1976 Brief Encounter 1945 3:10 to Yuma 1957 Anna Karenina 1936 with climax scene ending. The Band Wagon 1953 Murder She Said 1961 helped by Ron Goodwins theme. Denver and Rio Grande 1952 climatic end crash. Joe Kidd 1972 climatic train crash
and a few of swedes Stinsen på Lyckås 1942, Soldat Bom 1948 and Tåg 56 1943 thrown in for the fun of it....
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Mar 14, 2017 19:24:05 GMT
There was a German film that I also wanted to include, but I couldn't remember it's name, until now nearly an hour later Ich denke oft an Piroschka/I Often Think of Piroschka 1955.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 15, 2017 4:58:04 GMT
Shots of trains may not be especially memorable in High Noon (Fred Zinnemann, 1952), but the fact that so much of the film functions relative to the anticipated arrival of three villains by train causes me to forever connect that Western to trains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 14:21:52 GMT
Either those in which films are a major part of the story, or those with interesting scenes/sequences. I appreciate these:
Murder on the Orient Express Emperor of the North The Train The Grey Fox The Lady Vanishes
and some with interesting scenes/sequences: Casablanca - Rick standing on the train steps, reading Ilsa's letter in the rain Dr. Zhivago - Zhivago, family & the huddled masses being transported during the revolution East of Eden - Dean sitting atop the rolling train after trying to see his mother Meet John Doe - Brennan playing the harmonica & dancing while Cooper watches I don't care if "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" isn't an older or classic film (2007) ... The opening Train Robbery sequence is one of my favorite train moments in film history.
|
|
bondfan90
Sophomore
@bondfan90
Posts: 208
Likes: 101
|
Post by bondfan90 on Mar 15, 2017 16:42:09 GMT
What about The Great Escape? Ashley Pitt and Richard Attenbourough's character (i forget his name) ride on a train, passing themselves off as civillians and Ashley Pitt meets his end as he is shot by a nazi and dies on the tracks.
|
|
wanton87
Sophomore
@wanton87
Posts: 224
Likes: 198
|
Post by wanton87 on Mar 15, 2017 17:23:22 GMT
Wild boys of the road 1933. The title not to be confused with a movie about a pack of feral children, this was a movie made to reflect the struggles of the great depression that was actually made during the great depression. The kids ride the rails, and also have a run in with a Bull (Railroad Police). One kid even loses his leg in an accident involving a train. Also the bonus feature of vintage über-cutie Dorothy Coonan Wellman, who was actually 20 years old when this film was made.
|
|
wanton87
Sophomore
@wanton87
Posts: 224
Likes: 198
|
Post by wanton87 on Mar 15, 2017 19:24:23 GMT
Sure thing spiderwort. I must confess that I have not seen the entire movie, but will probably sit down and do so very soon. You can usually find these old films for free online, since they only generate interest among a unique niche, but not this film. I'll probably buy it. It's easy to see how Wellman could fall for Miss Coonan's charms. William Wellman and Dorothy Coonan on the set of 'Wild Boys of the Road
|
|
gadolinium
Sophomore
@gadolinium
Posts: 282
Likes: 137
|
Post by gadolinium on Mar 15, 2017 20:28:06 GMT
Some of the first uses of a tracking shot in cinema were shots featuring trains. There's one good-looking shot in Reds that pays a great homage to all those shots. My favorite use of a train in a movie is the ending of North by Northwest. I also believe David Lean was a little bit obsessed with trains. And how can one forget this one? A true masterpiece.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 16, 2017 9:29:35 GMT
Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944) features the haunting use of a train.
***SPOILERS*** for Double Indemnity
Walter Neff (Fred McMurray), after conspiring with Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck), pushes Mrs. Dietrichson's hobbled husband off the back of a train, killing him so that he and Mrs. Dietrichson, Walter's illicit lover, can receive the life insurance money and supposedly start a life together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 16:30:40 GMT
Spiderwort, may I ask you two questions? 1) Are you trying to galvanize this board into life single-handedly by starting threads on a zillion different topics? 2) Are there any films you do not like? You seem to like nearly every movie of every category suggested by others. Can I dare you to (in another thread) list critically highly-rated films which you do not like? (I want to enmesh you in bitter controversies). What's your problem? Need coffee?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 16:31:18 GMT
North by Northwest
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 16, 2017 16:43:24 GMT
Films and trains have gone together from the very birth of cinema. Though not the first moving picture publicly shown, probably the first to be acclaimed by a sizable audience was the Lumiere Brothers' L'Arrivée d'un Train en Gare de la Ciotat (1896). ... this is the one where they ran from the theatre out of fear that the train was going to hit them. We've come a long way from those days. Yes. Today we would only run out of the theater out of fear that Adam Sandler might alight from the train.
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 16, 2017 16:46:23 GMT
And they just keep coming. Spiderwort, you have enough to compile a coffee table book on the topic. The guys (and gals?) have done you proud in this thread.
|
|