Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[ufcfan4]

And the worst part for me was that I knew exactly what Tarantino read, why he was saying what he was saying...it was just wrong. He didn't understand what he'd read. He kept quoting the Matt Polly biography, but not only am I big shot enough to say that I met that dude (we got him to deliver one of the keynotes at the Bruce Lee conference that I put together in 2018 before I left the UK) and talked about all of that shit with him, Polly himself was saying afterwards that Tarantino was wrong. Ironically, I got into an argument with some knucklehead in the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood thread about Bruce and the stuntmen shit that is the exact conversation that I wish I could have with Tarantino, just sit him down and explain exactly what he's not understanding. Here's the shit that I said, first in response to the idea that the stuntmen hated Bruce and second in response to the idea that Bruce was a diva based on his not wanting to lose a fight to Robin in the Batman/The Green Hornet crossover:



Bruce had a learning curve on The Green Hornet, but that was like one week of difficulty at the very beginning of Bruce's career as a martial arts star which Tarantino misunderstood to be indicative of a career-long problem with all stuntworkers

Thanks a lot. This is great. There is a big difference between saying that Bruce was disliked by the stunt people and saying that the stunt people did not want to work with him because they did not like the style that he employed and rightly were concerned about how it came across on film.

That's really cool that you met with and arranged the keynote spot for Polly. That must have been a trip.

The Maron episode is the best thing that I've ever seen or heard with Tarantino as far as interviews go. As it happens, Tarantino has been a huge stand-up fan ever since he was a kid and has been a fan of Maron's for years and years. And Maron is such a great interviewer and conversationalist that Tarantino is looser than he's ever been (and he's not one to be stiff anyway) and Maron makes him laugh so hard that I've literally never heard Tarantino laugh like that. It's absolutely fantastic.

Looking forward to it.

I'm also a fan of hers. She has a kind of lowkey hotness combined with legit comedic chops. I used to love that recurring sketch when her and someone else would be the drunk bimbos selling shit.

Definitely. Haha yeah with Vanessa Bayer. Those were great. The funny thing too is that those two were widely recognized for not breaking in that era- in virtually any sketches. People would definitely single out those sketches though where they would deliver absolutely insane, funny, and ribald dialogue without even flinching. There were, ultimately, other sketches where each of them lost it. Strong has done so quite a bit in recent years but mainly when Ferrell or Bill Hader returned to host. To this day, I think Parnell is one of the only cast members I can think of that I never recall seeing break. Typically stoic cast members like Armisen even did so. By the time he, Hader, and Wiig were doing the Californians sketches toward the end of their run, it was like they were outright trying to crack each other up. I can appreciate that. As you mentioned with Gosling, I think there's something funny and relatable about hosts (and, by extension, cast members cracking up or trying to stifle their laughter).

There was one sketch from a Gosling episode (and it's a recurring one actually) where Kenan and Kyle Mooney are members of a jazz trio with Gosling and Kenan is trying to get Gosling to open up about something in his private life in asides during the performance. Mooney keeps, in a raspy voice he puts on for the character, intervening with comments like, "Leave the man be, Treece" (Kenan's character's name). Gosling just seems to lose it each time he does so lol. The alien abduction sketch is a classic. McKInnon was on fire in those.

Best scene of the movie IMO. When they cap Scott Glenn is a close second ("Y'all watching this?"), but that scene is so intense and it seems so clear that there's no way he's getting out of it. But the brilliance is that it doesn't feel forced, it's not a bullshit deus ex machina: His goodness and his refusal to compromise who he is and what he wants to stand for as a cop even gets him out of the worst situation imaginable with some of the worst people imaginable. Fucking brilliant.

Yeah those are probably my two favorite scenes as well. Glenn scene was really effective. As great as Scott Glenn is, I tend to remember the aftermath of his being shot even more than the exchange with him. From Denzel being like, "you're going to get a commendation for this," as he tries to frame it as though Hoyt killed him to the great moment when Hoyt goes, "that man was your friend and you killed him." And Denzel, in vintage Denzel delivery replies with something to the effect of, "why is he my friend? Because he knows my name?" You also have the shit gets real moment when Hawke adamantly states that he did not kill Roger, Alonzo did. "A Los Angeles narcotics officer was killed, serving a high-risk warrant..."

And lol at Dr. Dre having beef with Hawke from the moment he meets him. And lol at Peter Greene and Nick Chinlund being part of Alonzo's crew. Might as well have gotten Michael Wincott to round things out in terms of typical heelish, menacing character actors.

The scene at Smiley's place is ultra tense. Honestly, I think it's the scene that most readily comes to mind when I think of the movie, even ahead of Denzel's meltdown in front of Terry Crews and co.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Just to make sure that Rimbaud isn't always the only one reviewing movies that he's been watching in here, I've stolen some time these first couple of weeks of the new teaching term to catch-up on some new movies (mainly to avoid having to always say no to students who ask if I've seen this or that new movie). My mandate was all first-time viewings. No rewatches. And the scope was Best Picture nominees (plus a few movies that my students always bring up or write papers on as well as shit that has caught my eye and seemed interesting) since 2015.

Wish I'd seen more of these films so I could respond. I guess Best Picture nominees isn't my usual scene <45>

Moonlight: This one didn't suck, but it was very disappointing. The main problem was the script. It was disjointed and all over the place and in a way that cannibalized the emotional impact of what the main character was experiencing. It almost felt gimmicky; it certainly wasn't organic and it certainly didn't help the story. Mahershala Ali was the best part but it felt like he was only there for like 15 minutes plus nothing in his interactions with the main character seemed to be particularly important or profound to where he leaves such a lasting impact. It just wasn't a very good script. I "got" it, but I wish it would've been done better.

I remember my fellow cinephile mate telling me to watch this when it first came out, he absolutely ranted and raved about it. I was never that drawn to it though, doesn't sound like I've missed much.

Knives Out: I wanted this one to be better than it was. It felt like a worse version of Greedy done in Agatha Christie-light style. The biggest problems were the two leads. Daniel Craig was fucking HORRIBLE casting and his performance was terrible, while the girl had zero charisma and did nothing with the role. They needed someone like Melissa Villaseñor, someone who could play sweet and vulnerable but who also had comedic talent (or hell, any talent). But Jamie Lee Curtis was great, Don Johnson was great, and Michael Shannon was great. It was fun seeing all of them mixing it up together. And the plot was pretty clever, though I also didn't like the Chris Evans casting and the heel turn was super lame. Again, I don't really get the love, but it was enjoyable enough.

Watched this one at my gfs behest and tbh it was actually pretty decent. Was surprised that I did actually enjoy it quite a bit, reasonable way to pass an hour and a half or so. Nothing special per se, but just some light fun carried by a strong cast.

I genuinely do consider them that impressive. Plot and acting aside, they're legit technical achievements in terms of cinematography, editing, and sound. Krasinski is a beast of a filmmaker. Who knew?

Maybe I'll have to give them a try in that case.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Limbo (2020)

Saw this a fair few weeks ago but only getting round to catching up my review now.

Genuinely one of the best films I’ve seen in ages... delivers a note perfect blend of deadpan, absurdist comedy along with profoundly moving social commentary. I was extremely impressed with everything, the overall direction - the script, cinematography, performances - it’s all fantastic.

The story follows Omar, a young Syrian musician who finds himself on a remote Scottish island awaiting the result of his asylum claim. Along with a handful of other refugees he must contend with the draining realities of day-to-day life on the island. This includes the locals, who are typically perplexed, suspicious, or outright hostile towards their temporary new neighbours. Some of the funniest scenes are those where the refugees are subjected to some wonderfully surreal “cultural awareness” classes. They are utterly bizarre, but played completely straight in the film.

Most of all Omar must contend with the crushing tedium and emotional isolation of life as an asylum seeker. Far from his home and his family he is unable to bring himself to even play his Oud. I think it was simply brilliant how the director managed to tell this story in a serious way without resorting to stale cliches and dehumanising stereotypes about asylum seekers. The elements of absurd humour fit perfectly with the film's more moving moments. We come to really relate to the characters in the film (including Omar), and empathise with their stories.

I think this is precisely because of the way in which the film successfully straddles the line between surrealism and reality. There is an underlying social critique, but by coming at it’s themes indirectly the film is so much more successful in getting this across than if it was just the same old ‘Sky News’ style depiction of refugees. Not to say that there are no serious scenes, of course there, but it is easier to relate to an Afghan chicken farmer when we know that he has a love for all things Freddie Mercury. The comedy ultimately serves as a humanising component. The refugees are portrayed as they are, people just like us, with pasts, and hopes and dreams.

بكرة في المشمش’ “Tomorrow There Will Be Apricots….”

 

[Rimbaud82]

Macbeth (1948)

Seeing the trailer for Joel Coen's The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) put me in the notion to go back and revisit the Welles' version. The trailer at least gave me the sense that this take on the tragedy has been very influenced by visual language of Welle's film.

Well, not sure if Welle's was quite as good as I was remembering - budget constraints seriously affect so much of it - but it nevertheless still stands on it's own as a particularly odd and interesting depiction. Very truncated plot wise and lacks a lot in terms of the delivery of Shakespeare's language (there are some truly abysmal attempts a Scottish accent too); generally the whole thing does feel very cheap. In spite of this I'd say that Welle's expressionist visual language makes up for it. It's extremely impressive in how Welles was able to work around the budget constraints and breath life into it, the whole thing was apparently filmed entirely on barren studio floor, sparsely populated with repurposed set-pieces that had already been made for Westerns.

I'd love to have been able to see his "Voodoo Macbeth" from a few years earlier, an all-black stage play he had put on which transposes the plot to a fictional, Hatitian inspired Carribean island in the 19th century.

 

[Rimbaud82]

 

[Deleted member 110072]

It's true that when it comes to his pre-Pulp Fiction work Blow Out is Travolta's strongest performance. But nobody sucks De Palma's nuts as hard as Tarantino and it's always driven me nuts. (Pun intended.) So much of De Palma's career is just him ripping off Hitchcock. No joke, without Rear Window and Psycho, there'd be no De Palma. Blow Out is Rear Window with sound instead of sight. (And Body Double just is Rear Window.) That said, of all of his Hitchcock ripoffs, Blow Out is the best because it's the only one where De Palma didn't stop at imitation and actually made it his own.t.

For Hitchcock influence I would say Body Double is actually more Vertigo than it is Rear Window personally, it takes part of the premise of the latter but really I think the plot/style has more of the former. There is plenty of Italian influence in their as well though IMHO, the killer is pure Giallo and I think the closest film in terms of look might be Argento's Tenebrae from a couple of years before, most obviously the same love of modernism in the architecture.

Still though i think its a much better film than simply a load of good influences, I think at least as good as those influences visually with many good ideas of its own and you could argue its one of the forerunners in Hollywood metaness. Not quite sure De Palma's knows exactly what he's saying(beyond "I like to watch" ) but it does feel like this film was rather Vertigo like in terms of being rather overlooked at the time but carrying significant influence, Lynch's Mullholland Drive espeically does seem like its working from the same toolbox.

 

[Bullitt68]

In one of my classes, we're in the middle of a month-long unit analyzing Taxi Driver and I just found out that there's a new film written and directed by Paul Schrader and produced by Martin Scorsese called The Card Counter. It looks like after First Reformed, the closest Schrader will likely come to straight up remaking Diary of a Country Priest, he decided to make The Card Counter, the closest he'll likely come to straight up remaking Pickpocket.



Any of you see this one yet?

Well, not sure if Welle's [Macbeth] was quite as good as I was remembering - budget constraints seriously affect so much of it - but it nevertheless still stands on it's own as a particularly odd and interesting depiction.

I have zero recollection of this one beyond the memory of not liking it as much as I wanted to considering Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare play.

Very truncated plot wise and lacks a lot in terms of the delivery of Shakespeare's language (there are some truly abysmal attempts a Scottish accent too)

This may have been a contributing factor. I literally couldn't rewatch The Lady from Shanghai when I tried a couple of months ago because I couldn't listen to Welles doing his Irish accent.

I wish he would've cast someone besides Frances McDormand - I'm worried she's going to be awful in that role - but that looks so fucking cool and I can't wait to see Denzel in that role.

For Hitchcock influence I would say Body Double is actually more Vertigo than it is Rear Window personally, it takes part of the premise of the latter but really I think the plot/style has more of the former. There is plenty of Italian influence in their as well though IMHO, the killer is pure Giallo and I think the closest film in terms of look might be Argento's Tenebrae from a couple of years before, most obviously the same love of modernism in the architecture.

Still though i think its a much better film than simply a load of good influences, I think at least as good as those influences visually with many good ideas of its own and you could argue its one of the forerunners in Hollywood metaness. Not quite sure De Palma's knows exactly what he's saying(beyond "I like to watch" ) but it does feel like this film was rather Vertigo like in terms of being rather overlooked at the time but carrying significant influence, Lynch's Mullholland Drive espeically does seem like its working from the same toolbox.

Hmm, turns out it'd been so long since I'd seen Body Double that I didn't even remember anything Vertigo-related. But I just looked it up on Wikipedia and yeah, it's Rear Window and Vertigo smashed together.

And while this may be my animus talking, I personally don't consider De Palma "meta." He just straight up plagiarizes. He lifts things entirely. Scorsese is meta, Tarantino is meta...De Palma is just Wannabe Hitchcock. That's why, I submit, you're left with the feeling that De Palma doesn't know exactly what he's saying: It's because he has nothing to say. Most of his stuff is just a collection of story beats and images from Hitchcock shit that don't amount to anything original or insightful.

That said, it hasn't kept people from liking him. He's proven massively influential on Tarantino, and you're right, Mulholland Drive is quite the companion piece. But I still say that on the whole De Palma sucks. Only when he ventures out beyond Hitchcock territory - slightly in Blow Out and most productively in The Untouchables, as well as stuff like Casualties of War and Mission: Impossible - do I have any interest in him.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Hmm, turns out it'd been so long since I'd seen Body Double that I didn't even remember anything Vertigo-related. But I just looked it up on Wikipedia and yeah, it's Rear Window and Vertigo smashed together.

And while this may be my animus talking, I personally don't consider De Palma "meta." He just straight up plagiarizes. He lifts things entirely. Scorsese is meta, Tarantino is meta...De Palma is just Wannabe Hitchcock. That's why, I submit, you're left with the feeling that De Palma doesn't know exactly what he's saying: It's because he has nothing to say. Most of his stuff is just a collection of story beats and images from Hitchcock shit that don't amount to anything original or insightful.

That said, it hasn't kept people from liking him. He's proven massively influential on Tarantino, and you're right, Mulholland Drive is quite the companion piece. But I still say that on the whole De Palma sucks. Only when he ventures out beyond Hitchcock territory - slightly in Blow Out and most productively in The Untouchables, as well as stuff like Casualties of War and Mission: Impossible - do I have any interest in him.

I wouldnt confine being meta purely to making direct knowing refferences to other films though ala Tarantino, in this case I would say moreso that its a film about film making were the nature of the plot references the nature of the film plus arguably comments on De Palma's own career with the kind of film making it features.

Really Hitchcock himself was mostly concerned with making films that effected/entertained the audience directly rather than imparting some kind of message so I don't think you can be too critical of De Palma for not having the substance of say Lynch there. I do think its interesting to see a film that feels more like a collection of subconscious ideas from the director about cinema.

Honestly I find the reverse in terms of my interest in him as a film maker, the latter films you refference might not lift plot elements from other films as often but I actually feel there showing less skill and originality than someone like Body Double or Blow Out. In De Palma's case I think his main talent really is in creating his set peices, when people remember the Untouchables for example it tends to be the baby carriage scene which is making refference to loads of films back to Battleship Potemkin or in Mission Impossible the scene with Cruise hanging above the ground on a wire. Much of the rest of those films I find to be fairly generic cinema, could be any number of okish spy thrillers or crime films.

Something like Body Double though works almost entirely though a series of set peices though and whilst their basic nature isnt always original I think the specifics very often are and show a great deal of skill. Something like the scene in the shopping centre for example, a man following a woman when he she's shes being followed isnt exactly original but it was never done quite like that previously.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Macbeth (2015)

Hot on the trails of re-watching Welles’ Macbeth (1948) I decided to re-watch another version, this time the 2015 one which I hadn’t seen since it was first out in cinemas. Back then I remember being fairly impressed, thinking the film had a fairly engaging, particularly cinematic take on it.

Well, on a rewatch I really wasn’t impressed at all to be honest. It tries too hard to bring a kind of stylised, muddy, grittiness to it in a way which I didn’t particularly find successful. Others have said it too, but in all honesty 300 unfortunately comes to mind as a comparison for the battle scenes. They are pretty terrible, full of dull slow-mo and empty violence. I’ve got nothing against conveying the brutality of warfare and bloodshed in the story, but I don’t think these scenes really add anything. In fact, when they cut out the ‘something wicked this way comes’ sections from the weird sisters to make room for it, then that kind of shows the films priorities are in the wrong place.

It goes beyond these 300-esque battle scenes though, because obviously they make up a rather small portion of the run time. I just found the whole thing fairly drab and lifeless for most of the film. Half the time the characters constantly sport the same pained expression, and talk with the same monotone, semi-whispered dialogue. That’s not making Shakespeare gritty and realistic, it’s just boring. Of course there are certain scenes or lines which are handled well by Fassbender ("full of scorpions is my mind") and Cottilard, but in general I found this an extremely poor stylistic choice.

I’ll still give it some credit for the visuals. Apart from the terrible final sequence (Birnam Wood smh), and the battle sequences in general, it does actually look good for the most part. But I wasn’t impressed with much else. As I say it was quite surprising because I remember liking it in the cinema, but I suppose that’s a fair few years ago now.

 

[Bullitt68]

I watched the new Candyman and was very impressed. The quality of the film itself aside, I must say that as a remake it's phenomenal. It's exactly what a remake is supposed to be. It captured the spirit of the original but did its own thing. The politics of the film will definitely be what everyone talks about, but I was impressed with everything, from the writing to the cinematography to the music, it all worked very well. I was never the biggest fan of the original - I liked it well enough, but growing up the third one, Candyman: Day of the Dead, was always my favorite - but I do like the story/mythology and I loved how Peele and Co. updated it for 21st Century purposes. I don't know that Peele will ever top Get Out, but Candyman is definitely better than Us and brings him closer to his initial marriage of genre and culture. Plus, it's a great showcase for Nia DaCosta, whose aesthetic is an interesting mix between Kubrick's elegance and De Palma's flair. Highly recommended.

I wouldnt confine being meta purely to making direct knowing refferences to other films though ala Tarantino, in this case I would say moreso that its a film about film making were the nature of the plot references the nature of the film plus arguably comments on De Palma's own career with the kind of film making it features.

In this case, I think of this as more reflexive than meta. In my head, meta is references to film while reflexive is references to filmmaking. But now that I know what you're saying, I get it.

Really Hitchcock himself was mostly concerned with making films that effected/entertained the audience directly rather than imparting some kind of message so I don't think you can be too critical of De Palma for not having the substance of say Lynch there.

Sure I can. Hitchcock was above all else the Master of Suspense, sure, and he loved - and is one of the best of all-time at - playing the emotions of his audiences like a puppet master pulling strings, but the fact that he wasn't didactically communicating messages like a Spike Lee doesn't mean that he was just a popcorn director whose films have nothing of substance. That's what's particularly irritating about De Palma: It's like he only saw the popcorn in Hitchcock and so in plagiarizing him he ends up denuding Hitchcock's cinema of everything beyond the set-pieces and the style. Hitchcock's dealings with relationships and the perverse nature of desire (e.g. Notorious, Rear Window, Vertigo, and Psycho among countless other examples), with psychological problems from trauma and guilt to jealousy and misogyny (e.g. Shadow of a Doubt, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, and Marnie among countless other examples), on display throughout his career from the UK to the US is the way that he was much more than just schlocky thrills. De Palma, by contrast, never reached anywhere near the heights of Hitchcock, even at his best in stuff like Sisters and Raising Cain, instead just getting bogged down in exercises in style that amount to little more in my book than imitations of Hitchcock.

Honestly I find the reverse in terms of my interest in him as a film maker, the latter films you refference might not lift plot elements from other films as often but I actually feel there showing less skill and originality than someone like Body Double or Blow Out. In De Palma's case I think his main talent really is in creating his set peices, when people remember the Untouchables for example it tends to be the baby carriage scene which is making refference to loads of films back to Battleship Potemkin or in Mission Impossible the scene with Cruise hanging above the ground on a wire. Much of the rest of those films I find to be fairly generic cinema, could be any number of okish spy thrillers or crime films.

Yeah, this is definitely where we differ. The example of The Untouchables actually captures the issue perfectly, though, because that's an example more in the realm of a Scorsese or a Tarantino, where he's referencing something from the past but totally doing his own thing with it and transforming it based on the context of his own film. He's not just imitating/plagiarizing Eisenstein. Rather, he's taking one of the most iconic moments of political cinema and turning it into a powerful moment of ethical cinema: The reason that the scene stands out goes beyond cops and robbers/good guys and bad guys, it's Andy Garcia saving the baby and getting the bad guys. It's a showcase of just how good these good guys are. The bad guys have no problem with collateral damage, with fighting their war on the streets and working the Tommy Guns, etc., but here you've got the good guys literally protecting the public in the course of taking the bad guys off the streets. It's one of the best action sequences in contemporary cinema and the Eisenstein piece is the smallest part of that. What among his Hitchcock ripoffs do you think even compares to this in terms of originality/substance?

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Sure I can. Hitchcock was above all else the Master of Suspense, sure, and he loved - and is one of the best of all-time at - playing the emotions of his audiences like a puppet master pulling strings, but the fact that he wasn't didactically communicating messages like a Spike Lee doesn't mean that he was just a popcorn director whose films have nothing of substance. That's what's particularly irritating about De Palma: It's like he only saw the popcorn in Hitchcock and so in plagiarizing him he ends up denuding Hitchcock's cinema of everything beyond the set-pieces and the style. Hitchcock's dealings with relationships and the perverse nature of desire (e.g. Notorious, Rear Window, Vertigo, and Psycho among countless other examples), with psychological problems from trauma and guilt to jealousy and misogyny (e.g. Shadow of a Doubt, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, and Marnie among countless other examples), on display throughout his career from the UK to the US is the way that he was much more than just schlocky thrills. De Palma, by contrast, never reached anywhere near the heights of Hitchcock, even at his best in stuff like Sisters and Raising Cain, instead just getting bogged down in exercises in style that amount to little more in my book than imitations of Hitchcock.

I would disagree with that, I think you could take a similar kind of substance from De Palma that isnt automatically just a reflection of the Hitchcock influences. Body Double might take plot elements from Rear Window and Vertigo but its much more focused on male sexual desire and self disillusion plus the artifice of Hollywood.

Yeah, this is definitely where we differ. The example of The Untouchables actually captures the issue perfectly, though, because that's an example more in the realm of a Scorsese or a Tarantino, where he's referencing something from the past but totally doing his own thing with it and transforming it based on the context of his own film. He's not just imitating/plagiarizing Eisenstein. Rather, he's taking one of the most iconic moments of political cinema and turning it into a powerful moment of ethical cinema: The reason that the scene stands out goes beyond cops and robbers/good guys and bad guys, it's Andy Garcia saving the baby and getting the bad guys. It's a showcase of just how good these good guys are. The bad guys have no problem with collateral damage, with fighting their war on the streets and working the Tommy Guns, etc., but here you've got the good guys literally protecting the public in the course of taking the bad guys off the streets. It's one of the best action sequences in contemporary cinema and the Eisenstein piece is the smallest part of that. What among his Hitchcock ripoffs do you think even compares to this in terms of originality/substance?

I'm not saying that isnt a very well done scene, my point is that De Palma is at his best as a film maker working in that fashion, in creating tension filled set peices. His earlier films focus mostly on this were as the latter films you mention have a small number of set peices in a more conventional framework.

If I had to say what was the more original film, The Untouchables or Body Double I would definitely say the latter, both in the larger number of visually imaginative set peices and in the themes of the film itself. Really I find the Untouchables a good but pretty unremarkable crime thriller with a great set peice in it.

 

[Bullitt68]

I would disagree with that, I think you could take a similar kind of substance from De Palma that isnt automatically just a reflection of the Hitchcock influences. Body Double might take plot elements from Rear Window and Vertigo but its much more focused on male sexual desire and self disillusion plus the artifice of Hollywood.

I'm not saying that isnt a very well done scene, my point is that De Palma is at his best as a film maker working in that fashion, in creating tension filled set peices. His earlier films focus mostly on this were as the latter films you mention have a small number of set peices in a more conventional framework.

If I had to say what was the more original film, The Untouchables or Body Double I would definitely say the latter, both in the larger number of visually imaginative set peices and in the themes of the film itself. Really I find the Untouchables a good but pretty unremarkable crime thriller with a great set peice in it.

I think that you're hung up on the genre/"conventional" thing. Ironically, De Palma's Hitchcock ripoffs are strictly speaking the more conventional (in the pejorative sense as you're using it here) because he's staying entirely within the conventions of a Hitchcockian thriller and literally just running the Hitchcock playbook. Conversely, when he steps into the various genres he'd later work within - the gangster film (Scarface and The Untouchables), the war film (Casualties of War), the spy film (Mission: Impossible), and neo-noir (Femme Fatale and The Black Dahlia) - that's when he was at his most original because he wasn't just running the Hitchcock playbook. He was branching out on his own and doing his own thing. And when left to his own devices, he creates stuff like the horrifying buzzsaw scene at the beginning of and the epic shootout at the end of Scarface, De Niro's roundtable speech and the train station shootout in The Untouchables (not to mention Connery's "the Chicago way" speech), and the break-in scene in Mission: Impossible, all of which are original, stylish, and massively influential. The Untouchables in particular, with De Niro's batting practice around the table, has influenced such wildly different stuff from Wesley Snipes in New Jack City to Christopher Meloni in True Blood.





Nothing in De Palma's early Hitchcock Wannabe phase has stood the test of time. Nothing from Sisters endures, nothing from Obsession endures, nothing from Dressed to Kill endures. He had some nifty stuff with the split-screen effect to where you could tell this was a filmmaker with an interesting eye, but those early Hitchcock ripoffs have faded away in film history because there's nothing there beyond a filmmaker stuck within the bounds of an obsession with a better filmmaker. Once he branched out and left Hitchcock behind, that's when he actually left his mark on film history and in his own turn influenced later work, becoming in his own right a touchstone and a source of imitation/reference.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I think that you're hung up on the genre/"conventional" thing. Ironically, De Palma's Hitchcock ripoffs are strictly speaking the more conventional (in the pejorative sense as you're using it here) because he's staying entirely within the conventions of a Hitchcockian thriller and literally just running the Hitchcock playbook. Conversely, when he steps into the various genres he'd later work within - the gangster film (Scarface and The Untouchables), the war film (Casualties of War), the spy film (Mission: Impossible), and neo-noir (Femme Fatale and The Black Dahlia) - that's when he was at his most original because he wasn't just running the Hitchcock playbook. He was branching out on his own and doing his own thing. And when left to his own devices, he creates stuff like the horrifying buzzsaw scene at the beginning of and the epic shootout at the end of Scarface, De Niro's roundtable speech and the train station shootout in The Untouchables (not to mention Connery's "the Chicago way" speech), and the break-in scene in Mission: Impossible, all of which are original, stylish, and massively influential. The Untouchables in particular, with De Niro's batting practice around the table, has influenced such wildly different stuff from Wesley Snipes in New Jack City to Christopher Meloni in True Blood.





Nothing in De Palma's early Hitchcock Wannabe phase has stood the test of time. Nothing from Sisters endures, nothing from Obsession endures, nothing from Dressed to Kill endures. He had some nifty stuff with the split-screen effect to where you could tell this was a filmmaker with an interesting eye, but those early Hitchcock ripoffs have faded away in film history because there's nothing there beyond a filmmaker stuck within the bounds of an obsession with a better filmmaker. Once he branched out and left Hitchcock behind, that's when he actually left his mark on film history and in his own turn influenced later work, becoming in his own right a touchstone and a source of imitation/reference.

Something like Mission Impossible you might not be able to look to such exact influences in the script but that doesnt make it original, rather I would say its drawing on a lot of very well worn genre conventions that we've actually seen used many more times than the direct Hitchcock influences in his earlier work. To me that script(not written by De Palma) is pretty generic and the main attraction the film has is De Palma's visual flair and ability to build up set peices. So yes the earlier films does have some pretty clear influences from Hitckcock but I think they use those influences in an original fashion and they play to what he does best as a director, more focus on their ability to craft effecttive set peices.

As far as whats endured I spose that depends what your talking about doesnt it? the latter films being more conventional blockbusters remain quite widely viewed but in terms of critical(and from other directors) acclaim I would argue the early 80's remain the high point of his career, Blow Out, Scarface and Body Double if anything have grown in statue whilst the latter work has diminished.

In terms of substance as well I think theres a good deal less of it in the latter films that tend to boil down to pretty standard goodguy beats badguy.

 

[Bullitt68]

Something like Mission Impossible you might not be able to look to such exact influences in the script but that doesnt make it original, rather I would say its drawing on a lot of very well worn genre conventions that we've actually seen used many more times than the direct Hitchcock influences in his earlier work. To me that script(not written by De Palma) is pretty generic and the main attraction the film has is De Palma's visual flair and ability to build up set peices. So yes the earlier films does have some pretty clear influences from Hitckcock but I think they use those influences in an original fashion and they play to what he does best as a director, more focus on their ability to craft effecttive set peices.

As far as whats endured I spose that depends what your talking about doesnt it? the latter films being more conventional blockbusters remain quite widely viewed but in terms of critical(and from other directors) acclaim I would argue the early 80's remain the high point of his career, Blow Out, Scarface and Body Double if anything have grown in statue whilst the latter work has diminished.

In terms of substance as well I think theres a good deal less of it in the latter films that tend to boil down to pretty standard goodguy beats badguy.

Meh. You're a snob and you're letting De Palma off the hook for his blatant Hitchcock plagiarism. But it's still fun kicking the ball around with you

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Meh. You're a snob and you're letting De Palma off the hook for his blatant Hitchcock plagiarism. But it's still fun kicking the ball around with you

You were the one who claimed the early 80's de palma stuff was empty unoriginal cinema so I think its pretty questionable to throw "snob" that back at me for saying the same about his latter work.

You could argue plageirsim maybe an issue I spose in terms of writting credits but really I don't think De Palma is alone there. In terms of films that take very significant influence from another film you wouldnt have to search far to find many that are very highly reguarded, many of them being much more direct remakes. If you expanded that into writting then really wholy original films would probably be in a minirty given how many have been adapted from literature.

 

[Bullitt68]

You were the one who claimed the early 80's de palma stuff was empty unoriginal cinema so I think its pretty questionable to throw "snob" that back at me for saying the same about his latter work.

I was just fucking with you. But to clarify, I meant "snob" in the sense that you prefer the early artsy indie stuff to the later popular mainstream stuff.

You could argue plageirsim maybe an issue I spose in terms of writting credits but really I don't think De Palma is alone there. In terms of films that take very significant influence from another film you wouldnt have to search far to find many that are very highly reguarded, many of them being much more direct remakes. If you expanded that into writting then really wholy original films would probably be in a minirty given how many have been adapted from literature.

Come on, dude. You know what we're talking about here. We're not talking about "influence" or "adaptation." We're talking about exact shots from Rear Window and Vertigo, exact plots from Rear Window and Dial M for Murder, exact characters and themes from Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho, all stitched together to make a Hitchcock quilt of cinema devoid of originality. De Palma wasn't influenced by Hitchcock the way that Hitchcock was influenced by Murnau or Kubrick was influenced by Ophüls or Scorsese was influenced by Fellini or Tarantino was influenced by Godard or Woo was influenced by Melville...De Palma was literally redoing Hitchcock. Whether you like De Palma's early shit or dislike it, what you're looking at is a dude doing his best impression of Hitchcock. At its best, it's a good Hitchcock impression. At its worst, it's a bad Hitchcock impression. Either way, it's the opposite of original.

(Compare this to De Palma actually remaking a film, in the case of Scarface, or adapting a television show, in the case of The Untouchables, and now, ironically, the word can be used - now De Palma is taking that next step beyond imitation and actually filtering influences through his own unique vision, his own genre sensibilities, etc.)

And you've thrown out vague generalizations a few times, but if I may ask you to specify one, please bring up some examples of films that you think are even close to the degree of imitation/ripoff any of De Palma's early films are to Hitchcock's, because all I can think of have to do with Bergman: Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice, in which he literally made a Bergman film with Bergman's people on Bergman's island as a tribute to the man, or Woody Allen's many Bergman remakes/ripoffs. And in each case, IMO, there's more of the for lack of a better word imitator discernible (Tarkovsky or Allen) than the imitated (Bergman) as compared to the ratio of De Palma to Hitchcock in something like Obsession or Dressed to Kill.

Even something like Taxi Driver, which is basically Vertigo meets The Searchers, can easily be viewed without even picking up either influence - I know this because I'm currently analyzing it with students in a class and even the students who have seen those films didn't pick up the influence - yet nobody who's ever seen the Hitchcock films De Palma steals from could possibly miss their appearances in De Palma's films.

I really don't know how to say it any other way or demonstrate it any clearer. To reiterate, if you like De Palma's early Hitchcock stuff, that's fine, but in no universe are those Hitchcock ripoffs even in the realm of originality. They're pastiche at best and plagiarism at worst.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Come on, dude. You know what we're talking about here. We're not talking about "influence" or "adaptation." We're talking about exact shots from Rear Window and Vertigo, exact plots from Rear Window and Dial M for Murder, exact characters and themes from Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho, all stitched together to make a Hitchcock quilt of cinema devoid of originality. De Palma wasn't influenced by Hitchcock the way that Hitchcock was influenced by Murnau or Kubrick was influenced by Ophüls or Scorsese was influenced by Fellini or Tarantino was influenced by Godard or Woo was influenced by Melville...De Palma was literally redoing Hitchcock. Whether you like De Palma's early shit or dislike it, what you're looking at is a dude doing his best impression of Hitchcock. At its best, it's a good Hitchcock impression. At its worst, it's a bad Hitchcock impression. Either way, it's the opposite of original.

(Compare this to De Palma actually remaking a film, in the case of Scarface, or adapting a television show, in the case of The Untouchables, and now, ironically, the word can be used - now De Palma is taking that next step beyond imitation and actually filtering influences through his own unique vision, his own genre sensibilities, etc.)

And you've thrown out vague generalizations a few times, but if I may ask you to specify one, please bring up some examples of films that you think are even close to the degree of imitation/ripoff any of De Palma's early films are to Hitchcock's, because all I can think of have to do with Bergman: Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice, in which he literally made a Bergman film with Bergman's people on Bergman's island as a tribute to the man, or Woody Allen's many Bergman remakes/ripoffs. And in each case, IMO, there's more of the for lack of a better word imitator discernible (Tarkovsky or Allen) than the imitated (Bergman) as compared to the ratio of De Palma to Hitchcock in something like Obsession or Dressed to Kill.

Even something like Taxi Driver, which is basically Vertigo meets The Searchers, can easily be viewed without even picking up either influence - I know this because I'm currently analyzing it with students in a class and even the students who have seen those films didn't pick up the influence - yet nobody who's ever seen the Hitchcock films De Palma steals from could possibly miss their appearances in De Palma's films.

I really don't know how to say it any other way or demonstrate it any clearer. To reiterate, if you like De Palma's early Hitchcock stuff, that's fine, but in no universe are those Hitchcock ripoffs even in the realm of originality. They're pastiche at best and plagiarism at worst.

I think your underestimating the originality that can be brought to a film whilst still having very obvious influences personally, I mean would you say Hendrix cover of All Along the Watchtower is unoriginal? Talking Heads cover of Take Me To The River? I view those De Palma films are very much along the same lines, they very expect the audience to know they are referencing Hitchcock but add significantly to that material, really those films arent anything close to direct lifts visually IMHO even if some shots are making reference to Hitck and even the similar plot points are used to different ends.

Again really I think De Palma as a film maker what made/makes him interesting is very much his ability to construct visually interesting set pieces, as his career progressed though into the latter films you mention I think that ability was somewhat diluted, the films are better than more generic blockbusters but I find its moreso when you see him include those kinds of scenes. A film like Mission Impossible might not make such direct references to another work as Body Double does to Vertigo and Rear Window but that doesnt mean its more original, again I find much of it to be fairly generic action spy thriller territory not just in plot but more importantly stylistically.

Another example that comes to mind to me would be Sorcerer, taking not just the basic plot of Wages of Fear but many quite close lifts of situations yet I think its still a highly original film. The style of the film is significantly different and the nature of it shifts from one about the effect of fear on people to a story about men at the mercy of fate.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021)

With Joel Coen’s first solo film project he delivers an absolutely stunning take on Shakespeare’s most cinematic play. I saw this in the cinema last night as part of the BFI London Film Festival and was extremely impressed.

The most distinctive feature is probably the visuals, particularly the sharp black-and-white cinematography. Linked to this is the choice of set-design, which very deliberately places this version outside the bounds of historical realism. The film plays into it’s theatrical origins with sparse, almost spectral sets which perfectly chime with the 1.19:1 aspect ratio.This narrow aspect ratio, and the dramatic use of light and shadow, very effectively evokes an earlier cinema while equally drawing attention to the stage-bound roots of the Shakespeare's play. In this way it expertly draws on the original text without shying away from purely cinematic techniques.

On this point it seemed rather clear that of all the previous filmed adaptations of Macbeth, it is the stark visuals and barren sets of Orson Welles’ version that clearly exerted some influence. Although as always I’ve stayed away from any media in advance of watching so haven’t seen any interviews with Joel Coen to confirm or deny this suspicion. What was perhaps more a result of budgetary limitation in Welles' version becomes a purely stylistic choice here, but the effect is brilliant. Coen provides an incredibly haunting, darkly atmospheric version of Macbeth.

In any case if all the film had was wonderful visuals then it would hardly be worth such praise. Thankfully everything else, from the perfectly taut pacing to the performances is also spot on. It possesses an elementality which serves to strip the story of its exterior artifice, instead emphasising the psychological horror and internal turmoil of it’s characters. I was actually a bit hesitant when I first saw Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand in the trailer, but it turns out that was an extremely hasty misjudgment. Both of them put in some of the finest performances I’ve yet seen of these characters. Across the board there isn't a bad performance to be found, certainly nothing which stands out. Once again the film knocks it out of the park.

While naturally allowing for recency bias given I just saw it last night I have to say that this ranks up there with the very best Macbeth adaptations (ie. Polanski’s 1971 version, and Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood). Certainly a damn sight better than its most recent contender (Justin Kurzel’s 2015 version). In case you couldn’t tell, I loved it! Highly highly recommended.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The French Dispatch (2021)

Surely the most Wes Anderson-y thing that Wes Anderson ever Wes Anderson-ed.

Personally, I wasn’t all that impressed with this one however. It has all the visual style, framing devices and general quirkiness we have come to expect from one of modern cinema’s most idiosyncratic filmmakers. Certainly it looks absolutely fantastic, as always with Anderson it is a feast for the eyes. Yet, in spite of this I was not particularly drawn in by it. Now I won’t say it’s absolutely terrible either, it definitely did have it’s moments (well, some moments at least), but on the whole it landed rather flat.

I wouldn’t be one to simply dismiss Anderson’s films as ‘style over substance’, or as ‘quirkiness for its own sake’ or whatever else. I loved The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), and enjoyed less heralded works like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004). With those films though I felt like the exterior artifice - and his entire style very much draws attention to the artifice - also managed to accommodate an underlying emotional depth. Not so much here.

A certain ‘coldness’ is obviously something we are used to with Anderson, as he frequently filters his films through several layers of meta-fiction and ironic distance. The French Dispatch is no different, taking as it’s narrative starting point a fictional newspaper supplement (inspired by The New Yorker), with the story told as a series of articles, or short vignettes, in the papers final ever edition. These stories, all set in the rather suitably named French town of Ennui-sur-Blasé, generally failed to stir much interest. They failed to leave any kind of emotional punch. Instead, they come off as not much more than hollow exercises in style.

I’m not sure if it’s solely the film's anthology approach which lets it down compared to Anderson’s earlier works, but it certainly doesn’t help. The film attempts to build some connective emotional tissue between these individual tales through the overarching story of the death of the magazine's editor (played by Bill Murray). I can’t say I particularly cared. As a consequence we are left with the episodes themselves which are also, unfortunately, a rather mixed bag...

The opening two I liked well enough - a portrait of Ennui-sur-Blasé itself, followed by an art story, “The Concrete Masterpiece” which simultaneously pokes fun at the world of modern art and the stories which art tells itself. Fairly amusing stuff. However, the remaining are not two are not so good. “Revisions to a Manifesto” deals with a fictionalised version of the Parisian May ‘68 riots, only in the most disgustingly trite, twee fashion imaginable. Godard pastiches aren’t enough to save this portion, for me it was almost unbearable. The final story, “The Private Dining Room of the Police Commissioner”, has a few more decent moments but I still found it rather daft. I don’t think any of them landed fully.

Taken as a whole I don’t think The French Dispatch really amounts to much, as much as I wanted to love it. Not terrible, but nowhere near the sum of its parts

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Lion in Winter (1968)

This historical melodrama is decent fun, with some engaging performances but to be honest I found myself pretty tired of it by the end. Set at a fictional Christmastime court held at Chinon by Henry II in 1183, the film (adapted from a play released two years earlier) depicts the dynastic feuds and petty squabbles of the Plantagenet's - Henry II; his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine; and their three surviving sons, Richard, John and Geoffrey - both between each other, and with the young French King Phillip II (son of Eleanor's ex-husband). This event of course never actually happened, but it provides a single location with which to convey the political and personal tensions between them - very much betraying it's origins as a play - and does a reasonable job in this sense.

It is a lively and entertaining film; very dialogue-heavy as you might expect, but the dialogue is generally very witty and acerbic. Very much in a similar vein to HBOs Succession - family bickering with constant barbs one after the other. Most of the performances are well-done on their terms, very much caricatures all round but at least in a way which suits the style of the film. The only one that stands out as truly awful is Nigel Terry as John, who wouldn't be out of place in Monty Python.

It is definitely very enjoyable to start with, but it soon wears thin in my view. Individual exchanges could be clever and witty, but the film basically gives us this and not much else for the whole of the run-time. After a while my enjoyment gave way to tedium, because it essentially reduces these grand dynastic feuds and geo-political machinations to little more than a modern day TV soap opera. Much more Coronation Street than the Shakespeare to which it aspires.