|
Post by OldAussie on Feb 22, 2021 6:53:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Feb 22, 2021 6:54:37 GMT
AN EXCELLENT movie. Damn the critics.
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Feb 22, 2021 10:29:01 GMT
Lean had such a 14-year snit over RYAN's negative reviews that he didn't direct another film until PASSAGE TO INDIA in 1984.
Having patrons lined up around the block at theaters all over the world waiting to see it wasn't enough.
Apparently he made movies to please the critics rather than to entertain the audience.
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 22, 2021 15:19:00 GMT
My threepence worth 1) if you are going to go into directing films for a living then equipping yourself with a thick skin would seem to be a prerequisite. 2) The timing of the film and Lean's track record are important considerations. Lean had not made a film since 1965 - a global smash, and in the intervening 5 years classic Hollywood had crumbled ....and the New Hollywood was open for business and packing em in with BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE GRADUATE, ROSEMARYS BABY, MASH, EASY RIDER, and BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE. A film about a male prostitute had just won best picture oscar, being the first X film to do so. The "men with beards" , to quote Barry "Dutch" Detweiler, had taken over running the show, and there were a lot of beards in the audiences wanting to see beards on the screen, not a lush, painterly, old school period romantic drama. Lean had just scored three giant successes with ventures into epic film making... and had never really had a floperoo - a critic's darling (in UK anyway) for 3 decades. Kael took no prisoners and was at the vanguard of this explosion in cinematic permissiveness, and her tub thumping for BONNIE & CLYDE often credited with being a factor in its roaring success. Lean should have known that. I think Lean was out of touch with the changes in the industry and indeed public tastes. Recall allegations of "indulgence" and "vanity" abounded - month long stakeout for suitably photogenic bad weather etc ( I imagine three mouse clicks now)Something less harsh but similar happened to FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD a bit earlier, although both were big hits in the UK. 3) In terms of responses to criticism precipitating requirement Deborah Kerr threw in the towel around the same time. She had two 1969 releases: THE ARRANGEMENT was a notably poorly received film (a Maltin BOMB!) and her role described as demeaning ( I thought the film fine and her excellent but I plough a lonely furrow). One review of THE GYPSY MOTHS, in which she had a partly nude (?)makeout scene (so long since I have seen I can't recall ) with her ETERNITY Beach Party companion Burt Lancaster said " Disgusting... like having to watch your grandparents paw at each other" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but have the Capua biog of Kerr in my pile so can check for detail). She quit making movies (ASSAM GARDEN a lone 1985 comeback) although she acted on stage and TVs A WOMAN OF SUBSTANCE was a huge hit. She turned down the Jean Marsh role in EAGLE HAS LANDED which would have been fadscinating - her first real villainess. 4) The film is a very fine one - glorious to behold but watch on as big a screen as possible ... "and with a box of chocolates on the lap for the full effect" (as the Sunday Times said of RAINTREE COUNTY. ). Good choice for an Easter Sunday post lockdown family gathering matinee (thanks for giving me the thought!) . Mitchum rock solid, Chris Jones nailed the shellshock sequence (did his retirement relate to the mauling the film got?). In truth I believe John Mills has been much better elsewhere but don't begrudge him a gong and its that kind of part. I imagine Sarah Miles is still trying to get the funding for the sequel! Bless! At risk of OP putting me on ignore for life I prefer it to LAWRENCE Some men with beards
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 22, 2021 15:32:39 GMT
This is pretty much what I felt after watching it nearly a year ago:
I read about how harsh critics were when it was released, despite it being a huge financial success. And that it so affected David Lean he didn't make another movie for 14 years. Having seen it, Ryan's Daughter is something of a strange beast. If any other filmmaker made it, it'd be an impressive achievement just on a technical level. It does look beautiful. But knowing Lean made Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago back to back to back, it comes off as shallow. Especially with the love story which doesn't even begin until nearly an hour into the movie. It doesn't help that this is certainly less action heavy than any of those previous movies;the only real spectacle is the lush cinematography and that storm scene near the very end. Some of the acting is decent like Trevor Howard and Leo McKern. Barry Foster is built up as an intriguing antagonist and he does have a menacing air about him, but he's not in the movie much. I thought Sarah Miles was actually fine but both Robert Mitchum and especially Christopher Jones were miscast. John Mills' village idiot role was dated in the 1970s and is certainly ridiculous today;he won an Oscar for this?!? Its laborious running time (206 minutes?!? Shoot me now!) does give it the appearance of a vanity project and perhaps that is what bugged critics at the time. For right now, it's a 6/10 since I find its overindulgence more amusing than annoying. But I can't say I'd revisit it again.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 22, 2021 20:30:03 GMT
This is pretty much what I felt after watching it nearly a year ago: I read about how harsh critics were when it was released, despite it being a huge financial success. And that it so affected David Lean he didn't make another movie for 14 years. Having seen it, Ryan's Daughter is something of a strange beast. If any other filmmaker made it, it'd be an impressive achievement just on a technical level. It does look beautiful. But knowing Lean made Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago back to back to back, it comes off as shallow. Especially with the love story which doesn't even begin until nearly an hour into the movie. It doesn't help that this is certainly less action heavy than any of those previous movies;the only real spectacle is the lush cinematography and that storm scene near the very end. Some of the acting is decent like Trevor Howard and Leo McKern. Barry Foster is built up as an intriguing antagonist and he does have a menacing air about him, but he's not in the movie much. I thought Sarah Miles was actually fine but both Robert Mitchum and especially Christopher Jones were miscast. John Mills' village idiot role was dated in the 1970s and is certainly ridiculous today;he won an Oscar for this?!? Its laborious running time (206 minutes?!? Shoot me now!) does give it the appearance of a vanity project and perhaps that is what bugged critics at the time. For right now, it's a 6/10 since I find its overindulgence more amusing than annoying. But I can't say I'd revisit it again. Just what I was thinking. I think Mitchum was one of the colossal miscasts of all time, up with Fonda in War and Peace. John Mills was one of the worst Oscar winning performances (to be fair, it was a weak year for that category). And it wasn't so much as what Ryan's Daughter WAS as much as what it WAS NOT. It wasn't Kwai, it wasn't Lawrence, it wasn't Zhivago. It's like expecting steak for dinner and getting grilled cheese. Might be a damned fine sandwich, but it aint steak.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Feb 22, 2021 20:43:05 GMT
timshelboyAfter such an intelligent post, you are forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Feb 22, 2021 21:08:25 GMT
I shall make a horrible statement: I hated Lawrence of Arabia. Loved Kwai, Zhivago, Brief Encounter, Blithe Spirit, and I did enjoy Ryan's Daughter although I didn't like Jones and thought Mitchem's performance out of sync with the rest of the film. Still very pretty to look at.
Lean was an artist, and as such, could take criticism rather badly.
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 22, 2021 22:05:00 GMT
timshelboy After such an intelligent post, you are forgiven. Phew! One critcism I didn't buy - or that certainly wasn't true for me - was that the story wasn't "epic" enough to support the scale... the contrast between /juxtaposition of the beach panoramas, the amazing storm sequence ,the rolling Irish vistas and the quieter stuff like the woodland glade trysts, or the domestic scenes with Mitchum & Miles, enhanced both for me . I'd sort of agree with comments about Mitchum being less than ideal casting as a rural cuckold, but he did well with what he was given and his gravitas added much to the role and overall film. I guess audience expectations a factor in reception - agree with poster who said if you'd gone in wanting another KWAI/LARRY/DOC you'd be disappointed . Luckily for me I suspect I caught the first Brit TV airing circa 1975/6 and had already been primed by my Mum (my very own live in Kael), who who damned the critics herself vociferously, saying what a beautiful film it was ... and remains. Lean was possibly unlucky in having had such a great career hitherto and simply being unused to getting the odd brickbat with the bouquets. Critics can turn far quicker in a career (cf honorary Beardy Peter Bogdanovich, who started the 70s as the New Hollywood poster boy but by the end of the decade - in fact within in 2 or 3 movies - had lost his A list position for good (OK I guess MASK would count as a "success"/short lived comeback )
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Feb 22, 2021 22:20:34 GMT
I always place Ryan's Daughter among the top 5 films which MUST be seen on the big screen. Saw it twice at the cinema back then, what an experience!
Mitchum is good, but probably brings too much "tough guy" baggage to the role for it to work. Always thought James Mason would have been perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 22, 2021 23:13:07 GMT
I always place Ryan's Daughter among the top 5 films which MUST be seen on the big screen. Saw it twice at the cinema back then, what an experience! Mitchum is good, but probably brings too much "tough guy" baggage to the role for it to work. Always thought James Mason would have been perfect. If it was Mason, I'd watch it.
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Feb 24, 2021 23:54:06 GMT
It angers me that a gaggle of critics should treat Lean - or anyone - in that manner. A case in point of why I don't care what critics say. The collective talent of that Algonquin gathering could not come close to what Lean had shown in ten minutes of any of his films.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 25, 2021 7:02:58 GMT
It was okay, but much too long for the rather slight story.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Feb 28, 2021 0:50:34 GMT
I still haven't seen this one. It's the last of the latter Lean grand scale epics not released on bluray (at least here in the states). I figure if I can't see it on the big screen it needs to be at least in a higher resolution than DVD.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 23, 2022 19:46:36 GMT
This is pretty much what I felt after watching it nearly a year ago: I read about how harsh critics were when it was released, despite it being a huge financial success. And that it so affected David Lean he didn't make another movie for 14 years. Having seen it, Ryan's Daughter is something of a strange beast. If any other filmmaker made it, it'd be an impressive achievement just on a technical level. It does look beautiful. But knowing Lean made Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago back to back to back, it comes off as shallow. Especially with the love story which doesn't even begin until nearly an hour into the movie. It doesn't help that this is certainly less action heavy than any of those previous movies;the only real spectacle is the lush cinematography and that storm scene near the very end. Some of the acting is decent like Trevor Howard and Leo McKern. Barry Foster is built up as an intriguing antagonist and he does have a menacing air about him, but he's not in the movie much. I thought Sarah Miles was actually fine but both Robert Mitchum and especially Christopher Jones were miscast. John Mills' village idiot role was dated in the 1970s and is certainly ridiculous today;he won an Oscar for this?!? Its laborious running time (206 minutes?!? Shoot me now!) does give it the appearance of a vanity project and perhaps that is what bugged critics at the time. For right now, it's a 6/10 since I find its overindulgence more amusing than annoying. But I can't say I'd revisit it again. Just what I was thinking. I think Mitchum was one of the colossal miscasts of all time, up with Fonda in War and Peace. John Mills was one of the worst Oscar winning performances (to be fair, it was a weak year for that category). And it wasn't so much as what Ryan's Daughter WAS as much as what it WAS NOT. It wasn't Kwai, it wasn't Lawrence, it wasn't Zhivago. It's like expecting steak for dinner and getting grilled cheese. Might be a damned fine sandwich, but it aint steak.
If Mitchum was plying his character from The Wrath of God, it would had made a vast improvement.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 24, 2022 20:14:58 GMT
It angers me that a gaggle of critics should treat Lean - or anyone - in that manner. A case in point of why I don't care what critics say. The collective talent of that Algonquin gathering could not come close to what Lean had shown in ten minutes of any of his films.
I'm not a fan of critics in general, for similar reasons, though there's some critics and writers on cinema I do like and admire. I agree it's pathetic to treat people the way some of them do; those critics will never show respect to someone whose work they've taken a dislike to, they get high on being disrespectful and put their own favourites on a pedestal.
|
|