Heh. I fell behind, and am just now getting to Spartan. One of the characters in the supporting cast looked very familiar, and it drove me batty for about 15 minutes: Clark Gregg played Agent Coulson in Iron Man films.
Yeah, Clark Gregg is a fantastic character actor who keeps turning up in the most random things.
I think a new challenger entered the arena to battle for the right to be my birthday party movie. , jacob.
Oh man Elki I am so glad you liked it. :^:
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
The Searchers.
There are times in film when an actor transcends mere typecasting to the point where their roles are iconic. Where merely saying their name conjures very specific images, roles, codes and words. John Wayne did this and became the most iconic cowboy of all time. When he was paired with John Ford, viewers knew what kind of film they were in for. Good and Evil will be well defined. The landscape will be beautiful and empty. Civilization will triumph over lawlessness. The two men created a shared mythology that has never been equaled by any other combination. Some have come close. Scorsese and Bobby D would come so very close with crime films. But no one every quite had the magic of the Two Johns. It is with this in mind that audiences went to the movies and saw The Searchers.
It was not the film they were expecting. Ethan isn't a good man. He's not a decent man. John Wayne took all that had he put into the myth of a cowboy and turned it just a little so the light fell differently. The stoicism of the cowboy became nothing more then a lack of humanity. The use of weapons to tame a wild land became nothing more then a nightmare of violence. The creation of civilization was nothing more then wanton destruction. The belief in the superiority of the White Man's culture was little more then racism. All that the two men had held up as good was turned so it's flaws could exposed as evil. Ethan is a little racist at first, not really an issue for the audience at the time. Then he gets a little more racist. And then he achieves a level of racism that even the audiences of the 50's found excessive. But the characters the audience sympathizes with, the ones that play our role as observer aren't much better.
I know that John Wayne isn't an actor that one thinks of when you think great dramatic roles. A number of his films didn't ask a heck of a lot of him. But again, this film isn't those films. Much of the movie revolves around the subtext of Ethan's love for Martha. Something that only shows up in early scenes in the form of touches that linger too long, or looks shared that are too tender to give to a sister in law. Of his anger and rage at her rape mixed in with the hatred and racism already in his heart. Ethan isn't a card board cut out of a character. He's evil and vile but not without his charm. And John Wayne plays the role with a depth that only very good actors can really achieve.
Like many Westerns, it's a story of obsession. Ethan and Martin are seeking a little girl. Martin's adopted sister and Ethan's niece. She's been taken in the raid that left Martin's adopted family wiped out by the Comanche. So the two men set off on a quest to find her. Martin wants to rescue her but Ethan has a different goal for the little girl. To remove the taint of the Indian from her by killing her. The two men develop a relationship, a twisted father and son relationship of admiration and hate. One that builds to an unexpected but unavoidable climax, leaving us with perhaps the most perfect ending in film.
It wasn't the first deconstructionist Western. Not even close. But the two John's had a power that few would ever have. They had brought back the Western with Stagecoach. They created a new shared myth of the west. And then with thunder they broke the myth apart, knowing it's flaws in a way that only a creator can. This is what audiences saw when they sat down to watch The Searchers, and yet few would realize the importance of what they were watching. They would say all that needed to be said about the Western, and all that would be left with was the good-byes. It would be up to men like Leone to invent a new myth of the West.
In the end, this fine movie would be passed over by the critics of it's day. No academy awards, no praise, no nothing. But the film makers of the 70's saw this film, and they saw it for the classic it is. It would influence people like Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Steven Spielberg, John Milius, Jean-Luc Godard, Wim Wenders, and George Lucas. Bits of The Searchers ends up in many of the works of the 70's. Taxi Driver takes the theme and transfers it to modern New York. Schrader would make it again in Hardcore. Spielberg would use Devil's Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Milius would talk about how he would always try to put a little bit of The Searchers into each of his films. Godard compared the ending to Ulysses being reunited with Telemachus. Wenders would take bits of it and put it into Paris Texas. And the shot of Luke finding his aunt and uncle's farm destroyed mirrors Martin finding his family's farm destroyed both in story and in visuals. Buddy Holly would take Wayne's signature line from the film and turn it into song. It left an impact on film and culture that lingers among us to this day.
With all of that said, I present to you, The Searchers.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
The Restored version of Metropolis arrives on Netflix November 16th.
Your normally scheduled Fluffy will not be seen tonight due to, oh, let's say volcanoes.
This D&D Instant Watch review has been rated
for Criterion.
PLAY TIME (1967)
-Un petit background Play Time destroyed Jacques Tati. I'm getting ahead of myself here. Let me start over.
-Un petit background, part deux Play Time was directed by Jacques Tati, a French comic who was best known for portraying the character Monsieur Hulot in a number of successful films in the 50s. Hulot was something of a cross between Charlie Chaplin, Mr. Bean, and some of the less outrageous Monty Python creations. He lumbered about in his raincoat, his hat, and his pipe (and those socks of his). If you want some idea of what Play Time has to offer, Tati's 1958 film Mon Oncle offers a miniature view of what was to come. The Hulot character visits the house of a family member, where the audience is shown all the modern conveniences that have been poorly implemented into almost every square inch. Hilarity ensues. It's an examination of the new encroaching on the old. The scale, though, is small.
Tati came up with the idea for Play Time in 1959. Instead of a house of modern marvels and the surrounding little town, Tati wanted to up the ante. Thus came the production that spawned “Tativille”.
You know how they created that set for Alien when they got to the Space Jockey? That was a decent-sized set. You know how they created the arena for the chariot scene in Ben Hur? A good-sized set.
Jacques Tati essentially built a small functional city for Play Time. It took over one hundred laborers five months to construct it. For the length of time that it operated, it had its own constantly running power supply. The buildings were heated. It was somewhere in the ballpark of 15 square kilometers in size. That's a really big set.
It was shot on 70mm because Tati felt it was the only format that would properly showcase his locations and the action he wanted to show (more on that later). 70mm largely died out as a main format in the early 70s. 2001: A Space Odyssey came out the following year, marking perhaps the high point for experimental use of this outside of sweeping old-school Hollywood epics. (For the purpose of this review, I am ignoring the existence of Baraka).
The Internet Movie Database, unfortunately, does not list all the extras that appear in Play Time. There are a huge number of them. When all the actors were on set, Tativille was essentially a fully inhabited city.
So: Huge set that doubled as a city. Expensive shooting style. Lots of people. Play Time destroyed Jacques Tati. Due to budget issues and weather issues, shooting took three years to complete. In order to see his film through, he had to take out loans that would end up crushing him. But, by golly, he finished the movie (editing took nine months and just about all of the film was [quite obviously] ADR'd), and the proof was on the screen. Critics loved what they saw. Audiences, though...
Play Time is a strange movie. The obvious draw for audiences at the time would have been the character of Monsieur Hulot. While he does play a large part in the movie, it isn't really about him. There are sparse amounts of direct dialogue. A lot of the film's best moments are small and understated. Tati would only allow the film to be screened in 70mm, not shrunk down to 35mm for larger distribution (it was eventually released in America in 1973 in 35mm with a shorter run time, but it failed to make a mark there, either). Perhaps most harmful to the film was its central premise: absurd, confusing modernity threatening to overtake the old ways. This may have seemed fresh in 1959, but when it got around to being released in the late 60s, the times, they were a-changin'. Play Time suffered at the box office, failing to make back enough to make good on his debts. Tati made only two more feature-length films after this, one of them a TV-movie.
He also tore down Tativille.
That's right, he destroyed it. The studio wanted to use it for film students to shoot projects on. Nope. He tore it down. Call it madness, call it hubris, it takes a unique man to create a modern city for a film and then tear it down when you're done.
-Tell me more, Gim
Alright!
-The Story (thar be minor spoilers ahead)
As I mentioned, this film is unusual. If you're looking for a strong central plot and characters to invest heavily in, you had better start drinking because it's going to be a rough ride. If you're okay with Tati guiding you through his muted version of a modern Paris, then climb aboard (and start drinking because it feels nice).
The MAIN main character is Monsieur Hulot, who has come to Paris for a business meeting. His attempts to even meet with the person he is scheduled to meet lead him through an almost nightmare maze of modern building design, trapping him and almost taunting him.
He's sort of pushed and led around the rest of the city for the rest of the film, seeming to run into people every now and again that he was in the Army with. He ends up crossing paths with...
The OTHER main character is a young American woman traveling with a large group of middle-aged American women, being shuffled around from boring location to boring location. She wants to glimpse the beautiful Paris she has read about, but it constantly eludes her. Only in reflected glimpses is she able to see some of it.
She constantly crosses paths with Hulot, and that night they end up properly meeting and spending a nice time together. Hulot is able to show her some of the beauty that has been hidden behind all the dull attempts to modernize everything. In the end she leaves content, happy with the Paris she had to wait to discover.
The REAL main character is the Paris Tati has constructed. Which leads me to...
-What Makes This Film Neat or "The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it's full of glass!"
This film is grey. My Lord, is this movie grey. Just look at all that grey.
That is a lot of greys and blues and blacks and dull whites. Tati created his own visual Orwellian city. Everything is drab, full of straight lines and attempts to create order. Really, really boring order. As the film progresses, there are flashes of color, but they aren't necessarily liberating experiences.
But what may be more overwhelming is all the glass. Modernity means transparency.
(I forgot to get some good glass shots. Whoops. Trust me, there is a lot of glass.)
You can see everything, but there isn't much to see except more grey and more glass. This is the world Tati is poking fun at. And he excels at setting up small moments showing how absurd everything around his characters have become. But he doesn't create a strictly oppressive world. And that's something I'm not sure I have gotten across in this quasi-review. This film is actually quite funny. Instead of unbearably oppressive, this modern Paris is more amusing. It's just stale and ridiculous, something which our out-of-towners come to find out.
The highlight of the movie is possibly its second hour, where the boring day gives way to hilariously dysfunctional night. The movie converges on a nightclub which is so new that it begins to slowly fall apart. One person is, almost literally, deconstructed over the course of the night. But out of this madness springs forth new life in this weary town. The young American woman, who has been shuffled around from glass building to glass building, finally ends up seeing a side of Paris that she can fall in love with. The movie ends on a joyous note as the night gives way to a new morning and Hulot must bid farewell to this young woman.
It's hard to describe this movie or why I love it. There are no close-ups, the action moves along at a leisurely pace, and you either catch the jokes or you don't. It's a charming exploration of the modern world of the 50s and 60s as seen through the eyes of a quiet Frenchman who manages to stumble through all of it.
Truffaut said it was “a film that comes from another planet, where they make films differently.” I would have to agree.
My mother called me up once a fucking week until I watched the week six movie.
It's brilliant.
It is one of the best things on Netflix.
My movie?
Yes.
It's one of the best things I've ever seen.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Yeah, think I'm going to have to sign up for this.
I saw The Searchers as a kid, and I still remember that silhouette in the door, with the camera looking out on Monument Valley. Such an iconic western.
RhalloTonny on
!
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
another movie I actually own
will be watching this one. The Searchers was quite a treat.
I've tried to watch this before but never got through
My mother called me up once a fucking week until I watched the week six movie.
It's brilliant.
It is one of the best things on Netflix.
My movie?
Yes.
It's one of the best things I've ever seen.
I know. I'm really having to think about this essay that Thom wants everyone to write. I don't want to give away too much about the movie because going into it with no prior knowledge really helps with all the surprises.
So at the suggestion of jkosh I watched Blue Velvet last night. I may not have been entirely sober, which I think made it more enjoyable. Also I am not a film buff, so I'm not going to use fancy terms to describe things.
Anyway, holy shit that's a powerful movie. That's the best way I can describe it, powerful. It's a good example of the right way to do suspense. A lot of the suspenseful scenes had more of a natural than forced feeling of suspense to them, if that makes sense at all. In other words there were a lot of scenes that were extremely suspenseful without a "Oh no the guy his on his way down the hall right now!" I should have taken notes or something because there were a lot of scenes that struck me as being really well directed. Loved the angles so many of the scenes were shot from.
Also holy shit can Dennis Hopper play a fucking villain. I don't just mean the parts where he was acting psychotic either, I mean his very presence was fucking frightening.
I really really liked Detective Williams as a character. The entire time I was wanting to scream "NO! Don't fucking go to him about it! He's in on it! STOP THAT!" Again just really good at building tension. I was really expecting Williams to end up killing Jeffrey or something.
All around it's just amazing how many scenes in that movie stick with you long afterwards. So many memorable moments. Going to have to check out Eraserhead and Mulholland Dr. now for sure.
There is a movie I want everyone to see and feel passionate about, but I don't know if it is right for this thread.
You see, it is about a bad movie. Not an indie bad movie with bad cinematography or bad dialogue but a great premise or anything like that, but a truly poor movie. It is amazingly bad at all aspects of the film making process, but not in a humorous way. There is no so bad it is good here.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
There is a movie I want everyone to see and feel passionate about, but I don't know if it is right for this thread.
You see, it is about a bad movie. Not an indie bad movie with bad cinematography or bad dialogue but a great premise or anything like that, but a truly poor movie. It is amazingly bad at all aspects of the film making process, but not in a humorous way. There is no so bad it is good here.
The requirements are passion about the movie and you have to think that someone would enjoy watching it. If you feel it meets the second one then go ahead. If you don't, then it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
american movie?
edit - I guess not since it's not streamable anymore.
edit - I guess not since it's not streamable anymore.
It must be on Netflix Instant Watch. Doesn't need to be American, doesn't need to be fiction. High Brow, Low Brow are all fine. I'd love to see a wide variety of films here.
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
So I watched Playtime and Gim was right about the grayness of the early parts. Even the colors that appeared seemed to serve to make the world even grayer.
So I watched Playtime and Gim was right about the grayness of the early parts. Even the colors that appeared seemed to serve to make the world even grayer.
I tried watching it at work, but the tether of my phone couldn't connect to the Netflix server. Kept timing out. Oh wells.
So what you're describing, is it very similar to Sin City? How the red they used really made the black and white stand out more?
Ryadic on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
So I watched Playtime and Gim was right about the grayness of the early parts. Even the colors that appeared seemed to serve to make the world even grayer.
I tried watching it at work, but the tether of my phone couldn't connect to the Netflix server. Kept timing out. Oh wells.
So what you're describing, is it very similar to Sin City? How the red they used really made the black and white stand out more?
Not really. In that it was more about the sharpness of the contrast. In this it's more about the blending. How the gray even seeps into the color and assimilates it.
I love documentaries. But never before has a documentary just pulled me so deep into it that it plays with my emotions. This documentary does just that.
Dear Zachary is a documentary by Kurt Kuenne. His best friend, Andrew Bagby, was murdered by Andrew's ex-girlfriend. The documentary is, as the title suggests, a letter to Zachary, Andrew's son. It is an attempt to chronicle Andrew's life so that when Zachary is older, he can finally meet his father through this film.
Kurt makes it his mission to travel all over the US as well as Europe to meet all of Andrew's friends and family and ask them about Andrew. They tell stories, share memories, and express their love for Andrew.
Kurt grew up wanting to be a filmmaker. He would often make amateur films with Andrew being the star. So he already had a lot of footage of Andrew that he had gathered throughout the years. Seeing these just gives you a deeper glimpse into the life of Andrew.
As hard as I may try to describe Andrew to you, and the type of man he was, I couldn't come close to what this film does. It's brilliant.
I could write a lot more about this. But all the things going through my mind really just give away too much of the story of the film. Because of the manner in which the film is told, I think it's best to go in with as little knowledge as possible. Even the little I've shared may already take away from the magic he film brings to you when it exposes little by little the events that transpired.
If you are a person that cries during movies, be prepared to bawl like a baby during this. I don't cry. It's difficult for me to. My mom died when I was 14, so after that experience, things don't affect me that much. But this movie squeezed me so hard that I nearly cried. That says a lot. I don't normally like movies that try to make you cry. I don't feel this movie aims to do that. The director just felt the need to tell the story and share it with everyone.
I've seen this movie twice. I watched it once alone and then once with my fiance. I've told so many people about it, and after seeing it they all thanked me for recommending it. I've recommended movies before, but never have I been thanked for them.
I wouldn't consider this movie in my top 10, at all. Mainly because it isn't a movie I could watch over and over. But I think it's one of those movies that few have heard of and one that I think everyone will enjoy. I think you would have an extremely difficult time finding someone who will say that they did not enjoy this movie.
Ryadic on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
That movie was incredibly powerful.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
astrobstrdSo full of mercy...Registered Userregular
I love documentaries. But never before has a documentary just pulled me so deep into it that it plays with my emotions. This documentary does just that.
Dear Zachary is a documentary by Kurt Kuenne. His best friend, Andrew Bagby, was murdered by Andrew's ex-girlfriend. The documentary is, as the title suggests, a letter to Zachary, Andrew's son. It is an attempt to chronicle Andrew's life so that when Zachary is older, he can finally meet his father through this film.
Kurt makes it his mission to travel all over the US as well as Europe to meet all of Andrew's friends and family and ask them about Andrew. They tell stories, share memories, and express their love for Andrew.
Kurt grew up wanting to be a filmmaker. He would often make amateur films with Andrew being the star. So he already had a lot of footage of Andrew that he had gathered throughout the years. Seeing these just gives you a deeper glimpse into the life of Andrew.
As hard as I may try to describe Andrew to you, and the type of man he was, I couldn't come close to what this film does. It's brilliant.
I could write a lot more about this. But all the things going through my mind really just give away too much of the story of the film. Because of the manner in which the film is told, I think it's best to go in with as little knowledge as possible. Even the little I've shared may already take away from the magic he film brings to you when it exposes little by little the events that transpired.
If you are a person that cries during movies, be prepared to bawl like a baby during this. I don't cry. It's difficult for me to. My mom died when I was 14, so after that experience, things don't affect me that much. But this movie squeezed me so hard that I nearly cried. That says a lot. I don't normally like movies that try to make you cry. I don't feel this movie aims to do that. The director just felt the need to tell the story and share it with everyone.
I've seen this movie twice. I watched it once alone and then once with my fiance. I've told so many people about it, and after seeing it they all thanked me for recommending it. I've recommended movies before, but never have I been thanked for them.
I wouldn't consider this movie in my top 10, at all. Mainly because it isn't a movie I could watch over and over. But I think it's one of those movies that few have heard of and one that I think everyone will enjoy. I think you would have an extremely difficult time finding someone who will say that they did not enjoy this movie.
Enjoy might be the wrong word here. I felt like I'd been beaten up for like two days after I saw that film.
Posts
Best of luck to you Thomamelas.
Uh, what?
He also directed Choke, which was fantastic.
Oh man Elki I am so glad you liked it. :^:
There are times in film when an actor transcends mere typecasting to the point where their roles are iconic. Where merely saying their name conjures very specific images, roles, codes and words. John Wayne did this and became the most iconic cowboy of all time. When he was paired with John Ford, viewers knew what kind of film they were in for. Good and Evil will be well defined. The landscape will be beautiful and empty. Civilization will triumph over lawlessness. The two men created a shared mythology that has never been equaled by any other combination. Some have come close. Scorsese and Bobby D would come so very close with crime films. But no one every quite had the magic of the Two Johns. It is with this in mind that audiences went to the movies and saw The Searchers.
It was not the film they were expecting. Ethan isn't a good man. He's not a decent man. John Wayne took all that had he put into the myth of a cowboy and turned it just a little so the light fell differently. The stoicism of the cowboy became nothing more then a lack of humanity. The use of weapons to tame a wild land became nothing more then a nightmare of violence. The creation of civilization was nothing more then wanton destruction. The belief in the superiority of the White Man's culture was little more then racism. All that the two men had held up as good was turned so it's flaws could exposed as evil. Ethan is a little racist at first, not really an issue for the audience at the time. Then he gets a little more racist. And then he achieves a level of racism that even the audiences of the 50's found excessive. But the characters the audience sympathizes with, the ones that play our role as observer aren't much better.
I know that John Wayne isn't an actor that one thinks of when you think great dramatic roles. A number of his films didn't ask a heck of a lot of him. But again, this film isn't those films. Much of the movie revolves around the subtext of Ethan's love for Martha. Something that only shows up in early scenes in the form of touches that linger too long, or looks shared that are too tender to give to a sister in law. Of his anger and rage at her rape mixed in with the hatred and racism already in his heart. Ethan isn't a card board cut out of a character. He's evil and vile but not without his charm. And John Wayne plays the role with a depth that only very good actors can really achieve.
Like many Westerns, it's a story of obsession. Ethan and Martin are seeking a little girl. Martin's adopted sister and Ethan's niece. She's been taken in the raid that left Martin's adopted family wiped out by the Comanche. So the two men set off on a quest to find her. Martin wants to rescue her but Ethan has a different goal for the little girl. To remove the taint of the Indian from her by killing her. The two men develop a relationship, a twisted father and son relationship of admiration and hate. One that builds to an unexpected but unavoidable climax, leaving us with perhaps the most perfect ending in film.
It wasn't the first deconstructionist Western. Not even close. But the two John's had a power that few would ever have. They had brought back the Western with Stagecoach. They created a new shared myth of the west. And then with thunder they broke the myth apart, knowing it's flaws in a way that only a creator can. This is what audiences saw when they sat down to watch The Searchers, and yet few would realize the importance of what they were watching. They would say all that needed to be said about the Western, and all that would be left with was the good-byes. It would be up to men like Leone to invent a new myth of the West.
In the end, this fine movie would be passed over by the critics of it's day. No academy awards, no praise, no nothing. But the film makers of the 70's saw this film, and they saw it for the classic it is. It would influence people like Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Steven Spielberg, John Milius, Jean-Luc Godard, Wim Wenders, and George Lucas. Bits of The Searchers ends up in many of the works of the 70's. Taxi Driver takes the theme and transfers it to modern New York. Schrader would make it again in Hardcore. Spielberg would use Devil's Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Milius would talk about how he would always try to put a little bit of The Searchers into each of his films. Godard compared the ending to Ulysses being reunited with Telemachus. Wenders would take bits of it and put it into Paris Texas. And the shot of Luke finding his aunt and uncle's farm destroyed mirrors Martin finding his family's farm destroyed both in story and in visuals. Buddy Holly would take Wayne's signature line from the film and turn it into song. It left an impact on film and culture that lingers among us to this day.
With all of that said, I present to you, The Searchers.
saw it in the theater :P
Well then you can watch The Searchers. :P
hell yes. I will try and pop this in this week.
that was cool as hell
I just really thought it was missing a Will Smith rap song during the credits
I'm not much into westerns. It has been a while since I seen one, though.
But wow... this movie certainly showed it's age.
The humor in it is badly misplaced.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I need to make a note in the OP. Due to Netflix goofing up it's Canadian start, this week's essay will be from Gim.
This D&D Instant Watch review has been rated
for Criterion.
PLAY TIME (1967)
-Un petit background
Play Time destroyed Jacques Tati. I'm getting ahead of myself here. Let me start over.
-Un petit background, part deux
Play Time was directed by Jacques Tati, a French comic who was best known for portraying the character Monsieur Hulot in a number of successful films in the 50s. Hulot was something of a cross between Charlie Chaplin, Mr. Bean, and some of the less outrageous Monty Python creations. He lumbered about in his raincoat, his hat, and his pipe (and those socks of his). If you want some idea of what Play Time has to offer, Tati's 1958 film Mon Oncle offers a miniature view of what was to come. The Hulot character visits the house of a family member, where the audience is shown all the modern conveniences that have been poorly implemented into almost every square inch. Hilarity ensues. It's an examination of the new encroaching on the old. The scale, though, is small.
Tati came up with the idea for Play Time in 1959. Instead of a house of modern marvels and the surrounding little town, Tati wanted to up the ante. Thus came the production that spawned “Tativille”.
You know how they created that set for Alien when they got to the Space Jockey? That was a decent-sized set. You know how they created the arena for the chariot scene in Ben Hur? A good-sized set.
Jacques Tati essentially built a small functional city for Play Time. It took over one hundred laborers five months to construct it. For the length of time that it operated, it had its own constantly running power supply. The buildings were heated. It was somewhere in the ballpark of 15 square kilometers in size. That's a really big set.
It was shot on 70mm because Tati felt it was the only format that would properly showcase his locations and the action he wanted to show (more on that later). 70mm largely died out as a main format in the early 70s. 2001: A Space Odyssey came out the following year, marking perhaps the high point for experimental use of this outside of sweeping old-school Hollywood epics. (For the purpose of this review, I am ignoring the existence of Baraka).
The Internet Movie Database, unfortunately, does not list all the extras that appear in Play Time. There are a huge number of them. When all the actors were on set, Tativille was essentially a fully inhabited city.
So: Huge set that doubled as a city. Expensive shooting style. Lots of people. Play Time destroyed Jacques Tati. Due to budget issues and weather issues, shooting took three years to complete. In order to see his film through, he had to take out loans that would end up crushing him. But, by golly, he finished the movie (editing took nine months and just about all of the film was [quite obviously] ADR'd), and the proof was on the screen. Critics loved what they saw. Audiences, though...
Play Time is a strange movie. The obvious draw for audiences at the time would have been the character of Monsieur Hulot. While he does play a large part in the movie, it isn't really about him. There are sparse amounts of direct dialogue. A lot of the film's best moments are small and understated. Tati would only allow the film to be screened in 70mm, not shrunk down to 35mm for larger distribution (it was eventually released in America in 1973 in 35mm with a shorter run time, but it failed to make a mark there, either). Perhaps most harmful to the film was its central premise: absurd, confusing modernity threatening to overtake the old ways. This may have seemed fresh in 1959, but when it got around to being released in the late 60s, the times, they were a-changin'. Play Time suffered at the box office, failing to make back enough to make good on his debts. Tati made only two more feature-length films after this, one of them a TV-movie.
He also tore down Tativille.
That's right, he destroyed it. The studio wanted to use it for film students to shoot projects on. Nope. He tore it down. Call it madness, call it hubris, it takes a unique man to create a modern city for a film and then tear it down when you're done.
-Tell me more, Gim
Alright!
-The Story (thar be minor spoilers ahead)
As I mentioned, this film is unusual. If you're looking for a strong central plot and characters to invest heavily in, you had better start drinking because it's going to be a rough ride. If you're okay with Tati guiding you through his muted version of a modern Paris, then climb aboard (and start drinking because it feels nice).
The MAIN main character is Monsieur Hulot, who has come to Paris for a business meeting. His attempts to even meet with the person he is scheduled to meet lead him through an almost nightmare maze of modern building design, trapping him and almost taunting him.
He's sort of pushed and led around the rest of the city for the rest of the film, seeming to run into people every now and again that he was in the Army with. He ends up crossing paths with...
The OTHER main character is a young American woman traveling with a large group of middle-aged American women, being shuffled around from boring location to boring location. She wants to glimpse the beautiful Paris she has read about, but it constantly eludes her. Only in reflected glimpses is she able to see some of it.
She constantly crosses paths with Hulot, and that night they end up properly meeting and spending a nice time together. Hulot is able to show her some of the beauty that has been hidden behind all the dull attempts to modernize everything. In the end she leaves content, happy with the Paris she had to wait to discover.
The REAL main character is the Paris Tati has constructed. Which leads me to...
-What Makes This Film Neat or "The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it's full of glass!"
This film is grey. My Lord, is this movie grey. Just look at all that grey.
That is a lot of greys and blues and blacks and dull whites. Tati created his own visual Orwellian city. Everything is drab, full of straight lines and attempts to create order. Really, really boring order. As the film progresses, there are flashes of color, but they aren't necessarily liberating experiences.
But what may be more overwhelming is all the glass. Modernity means transparency.
(I forgot to get some good glass shots. Whoops. Trust me, there is a lot of glass.)
You can see everything, but there isn't much to see except more grey and more glass. This is the world Tati is poking fun at. And he excels at setting up small moments showing how absurd everything around his characters have become. But he doesn't create a strictly oppressive world. And that's something I'm not sure I have gotten across in this quasi-review. This film is actually quite funny. Instead of unbearably oppressive, this modern Paris is more amusing. It's just stale and ridiculous, something which our out-of-towners come to find out.
The highlight of the movie is possibly its second hour, where the boring day gives way to hilariously dysfunctional night. The movie converges on a nightclub which is so new that it begins to slowly fall apart. One person is, almost literally, deconstructed over the course of the night. But out of this madness springs forth new life in this weary town. The young American woman, who has been shuffled around from glass building to glass building, finally ends up seeing a side of Paris that she can fall in love with. The movie ends on a joyous note as the night gives way to a new morning and Hulot must bid farewell to this young woman.
It's hard to describe this movie or why I love it. There are no close-ups, the action moves along at a leisurely pace, and you either catch the jokes or you don't. It's a charming exploration of the modern world of the 50s and 60s as seen through the eyes of a quiet Frenchman who manages to stumble through all of it.
Truffaut said it was “a film that comes from another planet, where they make films differently.” I would have to agree.
Gents and not-gents, Play Time.
It's brilliant.
It is one of the best things on Netflix.
My movie?
Yes.
It's one of the best things I've ever seen.
I saw The Searchers as a kid, and I still remember that silhouette in the door, with the camera looking out on Monument Valley. Such an iconic western.
will be watching this one. The Searchers was quite a treat.
I've tried to watch this before but never got through
now is the tiiiiime
I know. I'm really having to think about this essay that Thom wants everyone to write. I don't want to give away too much about the movie because going into it with no prior knowledge really helps with all the surprises.
Also holy shit can Dennis Hopper play a fucking villain. I don't just mean the parts where he was acting psychotic either, I mean his very presence was fucking frightening.
I really really liked Detective Williams as a character. The entire time I was wanting to scream "NO! Don't fucking go to him about it! He's in on it! STOP THAT!" Again just really good at building tension. I was really expecting Williams to end up killing Jeffrey or something.
All around it's just amazing how many scenes in that movie stick with you long afterwards. So many memorable moments. Going to have to check out Eraserhead and Mulholland Dr. now for sure.
Awesome suggestion!
Edit: Oh yeah and it had a great score.
You see, it is about a bad movie. Not an indie bad movie with bad cinematography or bad dialogue but a great premise or anything like that, but a truly poor movie. It is amazingly bad at all aspects of the film making process, but not in a humorous way. There is no so bad it is good here.
The requirements are passion about the movie and you have to think that someone would enjoy watching it. If you feel it meets the second one then go ahead. If you don't, then it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie.
edit - I guess not since it's not streamable anymore.
It must be on Netflix Instant Watch. Doesn't need to be American, doesn't need to be fiction. High Brow, Low Brow are all fine. I'd love to see a wide variety of films here.
I think it could be helpful to budding film makers and real fans of the art form as to how to not make a movie...but will they enjoy it? It's tricky.
The film bothered me for a good week after I watched it and I think about it every time I see this thread.
I feel people should be warned about it. I just don't know.
I'll do it, especially if it can be done on Turkey week. This film is a turkey. I bet someone out there will it enjoyable.
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/American-Movie/60000060?strackid=55539aebb06138ce_0_srl&strkid=1193559844_0_0&trkid=438381
I tried watching it at work, but the tether of my phone couldn't connect to the Netflix server. Kept timing out. Oh wells.
So what you're describing, is it very similar to Sin City? How the red they used really made the black and white stand out more?
Not really. In that it was more about the sharpness of the contrast. In this it's more about the blending. How the gray even seeps into the color and assimilates it.
I love documentaries. But never before has a documentary just pulled me so deep into it that it plays with my emotions. This documentary does just that.
Dear Zachary is a documentary by Kurt Kuenne. His best friend, Andrew Bagby, was murdered by Andrew's ex-girlfriend. The documentary is, as the title suggests, a letter to Zachary, Andrew's son. It is an attempt to chronicle Andrew's life so that when Zachary is older, he can finally meet his father through this film.
Kurt makes it his mission to travel all over the US as well as Europe to meet all of Andrew's friends and family and ask them about Andrew. They tell stories, share memories, and express their love for Andrew.
Kurt grew up wanting to be a filmmaker. He would often make amateur films with Andrew being the star. So he already had a lot of footage of Andrew that he had gathered throughout the years. Seeing these just gives you a deeper glimpse into the life of Andrew.
As hard as I may try to describe Andrew to you, and the type of man he was, I couldn't come close to what this film does. It's brilliant.
I could write a lot more about this. But all the things going through my mind really just give away too much of the story of the film. Because of the manner in which the film is told, I think it's best to go in with as little knowledge as possible. Even the little I've shared may already take away from the magic he film brings to you when it exposes little by little the events that transpired.
If you are a person that cries during movies, be prepared to bawl like a baby during this. I don't cry. It's difficult for me to. My mom died when I was 14, so after that experience, things don't affect me that much. But this movie squeezed me so hard that I nearly cried. That says a lot. I don't normally like movies that try to make you cry. I don't feel this movie aims to do that. The director just felt the need to tell the story and share it with everyone.
I've seen this movie twice. I watched it once alone and then once with my fiance. I've told so many people about it, and after seeing it they all thanked me for recommending it. I've recommended movies before, but never have I been thanked for them.
I wouldn't consider this movie in my top 10, at all. Mainly because it isn't a movie I could watch over and over. But I think it's one of those movies that few have heard of and one that I think everyone will enjoy. I think you would have an extremely difficult time finding someone who will say that they did not enjoy this movie.
Enjoy might be the wrong word here. I felt like I'd been beaten up for like two days after I saw that film.