|
Post by geode on Jul 19, 2018 15:08:13 GMT
My Top Spiritual Films (And One TV Mini-Series) In Chronological OrderLa Passion de Jeanne d’Arc (The Passion of Joan of Arc) / Carl Theodor Dreyer (1928) Silent. Based on the actual trial transcripts. One of the greatest movie performances. Maria Falconetti (her only movie appearance). 82 minutes. The Song Of Bernadette / Henry King (1943). Oscar winner: Best Actress. 156 minutes. The Razor’s Edge / Edmund Goulding (1946). From the Somerset Maugham novel about a young man’s search for meaning after World War I. Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, Clifton Webb. 145 minutes. Ikiru / Akira Kurosawa (1952). In Japanese. One of the greatest humanist/Buddhist films. My #1 best film of the decade of the 1950s. 143 minutes. Akibiyori (Late Autumn) / Yasujiro Ozu (1960). In Japanese. A mother and daughter contemplate their futures in this great film from the legendary director. 128 minutes. Nattvardsgästerma (Winter Light) / Ingmar Bergman (1962). In Swedish. The second (also the shortest and most accessible) of the famous director’s “Faith” trilogy. 81 minutes. Léon Morin, Prêtre (Leon Morin, Priest) / Jean-Pierre Melville (1962). In French. The story of a young priest in a French village occupied by Germans during WWII. 117 minutes. Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew) / Pier Paolo Pasolini (1964). In Italian. Pasolini, a Communist and an atheist, made a film completely faithful in dialog and incident to his source – making both his friends and the state church mad at him. My #3 best film of the decade of the 1960s. 137 minutes. Au Hasard Balthazar / Robert Bresson (1966). In French. The life story of a donkey. 95 minutes. The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy / Douglas Adams (1981). The BBC miniseries is the only way to watch this comic exploration of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Six 30-minute episodes. Babettes Gaestbud (Babette’s Feast) / Gabriel Axel (1987). In Danish. My Best Film of the decade of the 1980s. 102 minutes. Kundun / Martin Scorsese (1997). Scorsese directs against type for this meditative story of the early years of the current Dalai Lama. Great score by Philip Glass. 134 minutes. The Straight Story / David Lynch (1999). David Lynch, a maker of weird movies, directed this gentle film of penance and reconciliation. My #2 film of the decade of the 1990s. 112 minutes. And a few more from the New Century which have great promise to become a spiritual classicLe Fils (The Son) / Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne (2002). My Best Film of the Noughties. Die Große Stille (Into Great Silence) / Philip Gröning (2005). Docu of silent monks in France Solntse (The Sun) / Aleksandr Sokurov (2005) . Almost anything by Sokurov might fall into this category. Aleksandra / Aleksandr Sokurov (2007). The Messenger / Oren Moverman (2009) Marwencol / Jeff Malmberg (2010) Prize winning documentary Another Earth / Mike Cahill (2011) Mlyn I Krzyz (The Mill And The Cross) / Lech Majewski (2011) Ida / Pawel Pawlikowski (2013) Phoenix / Christian Petzold (2014) In a Bible study class long ago I was asked my choice for the most Christian movie I had ever seen. I thought for a second or two and said "Ikiru" even though it never mentioned Christ or Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 19, 2018 15:03:56 GMT
Life of Brian Last temptation of Christ (although when I mentioned that Ada said it was not a Christian movie ) I don't think either of these qualify as "religious films" using a typical definition. They do concern religion but basically mock Christianity. I would probably have agreed with Ada about this.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 19, 2018 6:57:48 GMT
This is a movie that would probably never ber released today as it would be deemed too "politically incorrect"...even the end credits needed to be censored due to a character's name when this first ran network TV.
About 20 years ago I bought a laserdisc of this and my jaw dropped when I got to the end....it went off the rails in terms of bad taste. It was not the original ending in the theatrical release. I did some research and discovered that this had been the original ending, but preview audiences reacted against it just as I had done, and a new one was added. Why somebody thought to revert to the original ending, with no warning on the video cover, is beyond me. Being offered as an alternative ending would have been OK but this was not what was done. I felt cheated and have never watched it since.
I have seen multiple reviews online that claim the "happy" ending was added for the re-issue in 1975 titled "Going Ape" but they are wrong. They are probably too young to have witnessed the original theatrical release. I count the first theatrical release as the "original" not an "alternative" as some claim it is.
It is a funny film, but if you are easily offended I would avoid it. However, nobody complained in the theater I worked in where it ran in 1970.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 19, 2018 5:39:24 GMT
Didn't care much for Harold and Maude Liked Where's Poppa? much more I liked "Where's Poppa?" as well. It altered my life forever. For almost 50 years now I have been unable to say the name of Cornel Wilde without adding...."the movie acta"... However, "Harold and Maude" is the better film.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 18, 2018 12:16:34 GMT
Bump to be ahead of the ridiculous, off-topic, inane "So" thread.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 18, 2018 1:50:59 GMT
In honor of the All Star Game.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 17, 2018 16:13:14 GMT
I wish I had seen this a few times.
|
|
|
So...
Jul 17, 2018 12:13:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by geode on Jul 17, 2018 12:13:44 GMT
Once again, what is your favorite cult movie?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 20:41:45 GMT
Used to be a late night tv favourite. I think it's best watched late at night like most post-apocalyptic movies. You can really soak up the atmosphere. You may have a point here.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 18:04:41 GMT
I have read many times that he was the creative force behind "I Love Lucy". Lucy even said that on the occasion of his death if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 17:37:53 GMT
I thought "A Boy and His Dog" was an OK film until the end, which I hated. That sounds like Harlon Ellison's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 17:25:27 GMT
I loved the show and was especially taken by the cool music by Jerry Goldsmith. The show's success spawned a slew of books. I had several, including The Doomsday Affair. I have one of the books, "The Copenhagen Affair". I bought several books when first published including that one. I think only one of them impressed me. I still have them somewhere or other. The covers were nice.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 17:13:10 GMT
IMO, this was the very best sitcom of the '60's. Hilarious concept, funny scripts, and some of the best comic acting on TV. My favorite characters were Uncle Fester, Lurch, Cousin Itt, and Thing. This show was far better than THE MUNSTERS, which was really nothing but a typical '60's family sitcom, just played by literary horror creatures. I only wish TAF could have lasted longer than two seasons, maybe even have been filmed in color eventually. I basically agee with everything you say except the color part. I think that B&W was part of the charm. It made it more like the Charles Adams cartoons. I think if pressed I would say Morticia was my favorite character. Carolyn Jones played her to perfection. This was my favorite show when it was first broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 15:28:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 15:05:59 GMT
It says a lot when the faithful have to fall back on one alleged miracle of this sort, from hundreds of years back, which has no surviving primary documents. This was my response to a friend claiming that the Shroud of Turin had been irrefutably proven authentic by science. At first I pointed out that some scientific studies showed it was not from 1st Century Jerusalem. He kept accepting only the studies that confirmed his bias. Finally I asked why as a Christian that this was so important to him. Are we to need physical proof to believe, as did Thomas?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 11:20:17 GMT
Yes, Geode the tone (or tones, as the case may be) of the different UNCLE seasons are quite different. The first two seasons were more sophisticated, featured a dry sense of humor, seldom went over the top. I found the first season to be the best in this regard. Another show, Mission: Impossible, also changed, as it felt more serious and "international" (back lot style, but no matter)early on, while becoming somewhat more American in flavor, with the IM folks going after mobsters and counterfeiter types. In these cases, I don't think that the change to color was that big a deal; more like changing times. The move to all-color evening programming was in this sense emblematic of the way prime time television was changing rather than the cause of it. More OT, but very true about the UNCLE change in tone--going from a relatively adult spy spoof to near-comic book in the latter seasons. One show that did fall apart precisely because of the move to color was Dangerman (a/k/a Secret Agent); the star, Patrick McGoohan, had resisted the switchover from black and white, eventually had to give way, but felt that the actual content and tone of the scripts were being 'dumbed down' as part of this (he may have been right, if the last two episodes, filmed in color and later strung together into a feature-length film, are any reliable indication). He ended up leaving the series in preference to continuing in the new format. Of course, he also had his pet opus The Prisoner waiting in the wings: ironically, Patrick utilized an imaginative and evocative use of color design throughout that most unique series. I haven't watched "The Prisoner" since it was first telecast, and at that time I didn't associate it with this earlier show so I was surprised to find two or three years ago that some people think "Number 6" was John Drake.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 10:26:08 GMT
Since you mentioned this one I decided to watch it. I remembered nothing about it so this was probably my first encounter. The default about setting is to assume a contemporary time frame unless given evidence to the contrary. For fashion I quickly assumed it was set between 1910-1920 and from dialogue that the world is not at war so the earlier part of that range was likely. Most period piece shows set up a reason for being set I the past but this one seemed to go out of its way not to do so. It could almost have been set in 2018 except for costuming. This caused me to come to a conclusion about the ending. I was correct. I found this a passable episode because of its cast. You thought some would find it confusing, but I guess I found it too straight-foward That's interesting, Geode. The presentation of the characters and events in The Foghorn struck me as so vague and dreamy as to raise the issue of whether the main character was simply making the whole thing up or if the narrative actually occurred. That the framing setting seemed like it was institutional, anything from a madhouse to a nunnery, raised questions in my mind. Also, the camera kept the Bel Geddes character at somewhat of a distance till near the end, and I was aware of this, and I couldn't help but wonder why. It's not like it was set up to be a story about an eighty year old woman. In the final moments this became clear. On the other hand, upon repeat viewing certain things did become clear, such as the early mention of a telephone call, which meant it had to be after 1900,--but how long after?--and this was a virtual red herring aspect of the story given the literal fifty years that had elapsed from the time of the story itself and what we learn from the doctor about how long Bel Geddes had been ill. I found this somewhat of a stretch thinking back on it but it works for the viewer who's simply watching the episode rather than trying to determine its time frames. I can only wonder how this all played when the show was first broadcast in 1958. Overall, I thought it was outstanding. I guess it is my interest in history that causes me to wonder where and when I am when a show starts. Sometimes period pieces that are adapted are just being true to the setting in the original, which may have been published a long time before. In this case the original short story also seems to cover two time frames, with the central character a young woman, and then a much older woman. All in all it is a fairly accurate adaptation except for updating it to a contemporary time, presumably of 1958 versus that in the short story that is presumably of the early 30s when it was published. We can't see the costuming in the short story but other clues box in the time element, in particular Alcatraz. It is referred to as a prison, but with a military aspect. That most likely puts the earliest date at 1912 when the army prison opened there. So the filmed story probably adheres closely to original in the early time frame. The big "reveal" for me is not about being institutionalized, but her age. The short story makes less logical sense than the filmed episode. This depends on the character's relative ages. If the presumption of both has having her in her mid-20s in the main scenes, she would only be about in her mid-40s in the short story in other scenes. In the AH show she would be in her mid 70s. In IMDb user reviews some people are rather clueless in regards to setting. One thought it was set during the height of the Gold Rush in the 19th Century which is impossible with the telephone reference and rhe costuming, or even regarding the freighter and probably some foghorn references. Another said the couple should have visited Coit Tower which would not exist until about 20 years later. Costuming and hair styles should be accurate in period pieces in my opinion. Sometimes no attempt is made. One of the worst was "The Dirty Dozen" ...I don't remember the women's costumes and hair styles bothering me when I saw it in first release. But now the mid-60s fashion and hair looks very "dated" and its use in this film is glaring. By most series standards this is a pretty good show, but I think by the standards of AHP it is rather mediocre.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 9:06:50 GMT
But "Damnation Alley" had "Sound 360"!!! Hey, can't argue against that. Actually you might. I was the projectionist at the Hyatt Theatre in Burlingame, Ca. when the sound engineer from 20th Century Fox came by to set up "Sound 360"...he left without doing anything. Dolby optical stereo was new, but Sound 360 used four track magnetic prints. These had right, left, center and surround tracks. Sound 360 had a center track, but the surround track was separated into right, left, and rear. The Hyatt had no rear speakers. The engineer left the setup alone. So the intended rear track played to the right and left of the house. The other tracks played behind the screen. I'll bet this was the case in many theaters that played this embarrassing film, that Fox had shelved intending to not release. They changed their minds when "Star Wars" was such a massive hit. However, it did have one excellent scene, the one where a retaliation missle strike is launched.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 16, 2018 8:38:57 GMT
You mean.....an even bigger turd than "Damnation Alley?" But "Damnation Alley" had "Sound 360"!!!
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 15, 2018 12:46:58 GMT
Another standout Hitch half-hour, broadcast last night, and at least my third viewing, The Foghorn, maybe my favorite of all the half-hours. It's a haunting, elliptical episode, likely difficult for many to follow; I love it. Barbara Bel Geddes and Michael Rennie are superb, and perfectly cast in their roles. The short story it's adapted from, by Gertrude Atherton, is also outstanding. Since you mentioned this one I decided to watch it. I remembered nothing about it so this was probably my first encounter. The default about setting is to assume a contemporary time frame unless given evidence to the contrary. For fashion I quickly assumed it was set between 1910-1920 and from dialogue that the world is not at war so the earlier part of that range was likely. Most period piece shows set up a reason for being set I the past but this one seemed to go out of its way not to do so. It could almost have been set in 2018 except for costuming. This caused me to come to a conclusion about the ending. I was correct. I found this a passable episode because of its cast. You thought some would find it confusing, but I guess I found it too straight-foward.
|
|