Just think, but for a slight mix-up in language, instead of being Anglophiles, we could be called Saxophones!Frederica wrote: Even Beowulf didn't speak Anglo Saxon.
Masterpieces You Don't Really Care For
- greta de groat
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:06 am
- Location: California
- Contact:
Interestingly, in early talkies apparently the conventions hadn't been set and reviewers weren't quite sure what they wanted either. A reviewer of Du Barry, Woman of Passion complained that none of the actors had French accents! Why not complain that none of them were speaking French? (particularly 18th century French). Grand Hotel takes place in Germany, but only Wallace Beery has a German accent, making him seem like a foreigner in his own country. They were a little nervous about actors with real accents, too--Novarro and del Rio tended to get cast as exotics, but after a couple of movies there didn't seem to be any more need to explain Garbo's accent.Frederica wrote:
And most of them speak American English. Except for Romans, all Romans had British accents. No one ever speaks Provencal or Thuringian or Uto-Aztecan or Anglo-Saxon. Even Beowulf didn't speak Anglo Saxon.
Fred
Yes, i notice that modern people have American accents, while ancient people have British accents. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, except maybe giving the Brits a vast stage for chewing scenery. This kind of seems analogous to me to the early silents (such as Griffith) having actors behave naturalistically in a modern film but in a stylized Delsartian manner in costume, especially biblical, films. Maybe the Brits are our model for old-fashioned-therefore-serious acting? (fine with me whatever the reason, they're a blast to watch).
greta
- Mike Gebert
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9369
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Jonthan Rosenbaum pointed out how bizarre it is that Inspector Clouseau is unintelligible to other Frenchmen because of his thick French accent in English.
Well, and now we have the convention that the upper crust Romans speak British but the plebeian Hebrews are from New York City (eg, The Last Temptation of Christ). Which you must admit feels right, for the Bible to follow the conventions of 1930s screwball comedies.Yes, i notice that modern people have American accents, while ancient people have British accents. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, except maybe giving the Brits a vast stage for chewing scenery.
I had that problem with the recent version of Pride and Prejudice, the conviction that Keira Knightley's body type by definition is as glaring an anachronism in a Jane Austen movie as a cell phone or somebody saying "Yo, Darcy dogg! What's the shizzle?"The one thing that always annoys me when they get down to serious rumpy-pumpy in period drama is that all these 17th, 18th, 19th century aristocrats and peasants tend to have flawless 21st century tans under their finery or rags.
And the atmosphere in the 1940s was yellow, as you can tell by the tint that scenes set then always have (eg, Malcolm X).What you see in nearly all period pictures, even those produced today, is that everybody's wearing impeccably tailored, immaculate outfits, and the vintage cars are always gleaming and flawless without so much as a speck on the windshields.
Cinema has no voice, but it speaks to us with eyes that mirror the soul. ―Ivan Mosjoukine
- Harlett O'Dowd
- Posts: 2444
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:57 am
Great! Thanks a lot! Now tons of blasphemous titles are rolling around my empty head!Mike Gebert wrote: Well, and now we have the convention that the upper crust Romans speak British but the plebeian Hebrews are from New York City (eg, The Last Temptation of Christ). Which you must admit feels right, for the Bible to follow the conventions of 1930s screwball comedies.
My Man Jesus
Bringing Up Christ
Mr. Christ Goes to Golgotha
It Happened One Seder
His Girl Magdelene
1st Century...
There I do agree with you - I do wish The Red Shoes was a one-off, but after its US success they tried to recreate it with Tales Of Hoffmann (interesting but flawed) and Oh! Rosalinda (Crap, frankly.) However, if you haven't seen The Small Back Room (1949)....do try and get hold of a copy. Small scale, noirish, and with David Farrar and Kathleen Byron striking quiet sparks off each other.Mike Gebert wrote:
They do seem to go off the rails after The Red Shoes. Oh!! Rosalinda!! is a great-looking boxcar load of marshmallow fluff, and River Plate is a complete disappointment-- I think they composed it for widescreen and so everything's in long shot, which doesn't work on TV at all, but even if you could see the faces, it's not much of a drama (compare it to the great unknown British WWII naval film The Cruel Sea).
Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee over there IIRC) does need to be seen on the big screen....and it does predate Das Boot in the sense that Peter Finch's Langsdorff is shown as a 3D character, doomed for being in the wrong Navy at the wrong time.
The Cruel Sea?? Unknown??? It, and Jack Hawkins, has legendary status over here....but I do find the actors other than Hawkins a bit.....underpowered...but the climactic dilemma (you know the one I mean) is agonising to the point of unwatchability...still. Definitely recommended to those of you who don't know it.
I could use some digital restoration myself...
And the Devil is English....pretty much always....Mike Gebert wrote:
Well, and now we have the convention that the upper crust Romans speak British but the plebeian Hebrews are from New York City (eg, The Last Temptation of Christ). Which you must admit feels right, for the Bible to follow the conventions of 1930s screwball comedies.
I could use some digital restoration myself...
- Mike Gebert
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9369
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
The Cruel Sea is fairly unknown in the US, though I know it's very well known in Britain, deservedly so.
I have seen The Small Back Room, and it's quite good, though I think Contraband is the best of their black and white thrillers.
I have seen The Small Back Room, and it's quite good, though I think Contraband is the best of their black and white thrillers.
Cinema has no voice, but it speaks to us with eyes that mirror the soul. ―Ivan Mosjoukine
- Harlett O'Dowd
- Posts: 2444
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:57 am
And should have always been portrayed by George SaundersHarlett O'Dowd wrote:well, d'uh!Penfold wrote:
And the Devil is English....pretty much always....
http://www.rudolph-valentino.com" target="_blank" target="_blank
http://nitanaldi.com" target="_blank" target="_blank
http://www.dorothy-gish.com" target="_blank" target="_blank
http://nitanaldi.com" target="_blank" target="_blank
http://www.dorothy-gish.com" target="_blank" target="_blank
Oh please let me add here the ever so often within top-3 ranking/best of all times film OTTO E MEZZO. I dont think how hard I try I could ever get to see this film to the end.
Never got to understand why this is supposed to be so great... (could one name any Fellini film that is really great, anyway?)
Never got to understand why this is supposed to be so great... (could one name any Fellini film that is really great, anyway?)
Casablanca. I have seen this three times, but can’t understand its greatness. I rate this one just ok, not excellent – for me Casablanca is just a movie about people during the war, nothing more. And maybe I’m weird, but I’m not Humphrey Bogart fan.
Ben-Hur. 11 Oscars, for what? Overlong, overacted and so on. Silent version is much, much better.
Shane. That young kid, who repeats “Shane” time after time ruined the whole movie. Annoying kid.
A Place in the Sun. Where is the first half of the book? Now the story starts from the middle and George’s motives remain unknown. I’m sure Sergei Eisenstein would have gotten more out of the story.
Ben-Hur. 11 Oscars, for what? Overlong, overacted and so on. Silent version is much, much better.
Shane. That young kid, who repeats “Shane” time after time ruined the whole movie. Annoying kid.
A Place in the Sun. Where is the first half of the book? Now the story starts from the middle and George’s motives remain unknown. I’m sure Sergei Eisenstein would have gotten more out of the story.
-
Michael O'Regan
- Posts: 2133
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
I totally agree with you on Star Wars and Kubrick. With the rest you're on your own.Michael O'Regan wrote:CASABLANCA
REAR WINDOW
CITIZEN KANE (AMBERSONS is way superior)
all of the STAR WARS series - - what is all the fuss about?????
2001 - can't say I hate this one but, it IS way overrated, as is Kubrick in general.
-
Michael O'Regan
- Posts: 2133
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Masterpieces You Don't Really Care For
I've only been watching silent films for the past 6 months, and admit I've only scratched the surface, but I fail to see what was so great about:Mike Gebert wrote:... name movies that everybody seems to think are great, or ought to be, and why you look at them and go... ennh.
Ecstasy (Ekstase)
Prix de Beaute (I did like the song)
Pandora's Box (I preferred Diary of a Lost Girl)
Sparrows (I don't get Mary Pickford...yet)
Keaton and silent comedy in general except for a few Chaplin films.
Wings got me interested in silents so that's one of my favorites. My other favorites so far are Hunchback of Notre Dame, La Roue, J'Accuse, Die Freudlose Gasse.
- Mike Gebert
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9369
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Crucial, absolutely crucial....watch them as they were designed to be seen....big screen, big audience, preferably live music. It's a different ballgame...very few - only the very best - silent comedies can overcome the handicap of being seen at home, on a telly, on your own.Mike Gebert wrote:~boggle~Keaton and silent comedy in general except for a few Chaplin films.
Well, try to see them with a live audience, that's all I can say.
I could use some digital restoration myself...
-
SecondReel
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:47 pm
Saving Private Ryan-- First 20 minutes is brilliantly done cotton candy. The rest of the film is a pastiche of every bad war movie cliche. The deus ex machina is cringe inducing.
[Asa pulls the pin, ready to throw the grenade]
This one's for you, Kaiser Bill. Special delivery from Uncle Sam and all the boys in D company. Yeah... Johnny, Harris, Brooklyn Bob. And Reggie. Yeah, even Reggie. He ain't so stuck up once you get to know hi...
[*** KABOOM ***]
[Asa pulls the pin, ready to throw the grenade]
This one's for you, Kaiser Bill. Special delivery from Uncle Sam and all the boys in D company. Yeah... Johnny, Harris, Brooklyn Bob. And Reggie. Yeah, even Reggie. He ain't so stuck up once you get to know hi...
[*** KABOOM ***]
-
Michael O'Regan
- Posts: 2133
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Yep, I totally agree.SecondReel wrote:Saving Private Ryan-- First 20 minutes is brilliantly done cotton candy. The rest of the film is a pastiche of every bad war movie cliche. The deus ex machina is cringe inducing.
[Asa pulls the pin, ready to throw the grenade]
This one's for you, Kaiser Bill. Special delivery from Uncle Sam and all the boys in D company. Yeah... Johnny, Harris, Brooklyn Bob. And Reggie. Yeah, even Reggie. He ain't so stuck up once you get to know hi...
[*** KABOOM ***]
THE SHINING - not scary, not clever, not anything....
- silentfilm
- Moderator
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX USA
- Contact:
This thread is really starting to depress me! You would think that there are a few classics that everyone could agree on.
Bruce Calvert
http://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com
http://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com
-
Michael O'Regan
- Posts: 2133
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
Onlineboblipton
- Posts: 13805
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
- Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm
Bruce Calvert wrote
Of course it would help if people would bring up the specific issues that ruin what others consider great movies. But then people accuse me often enough of being prolix.
Bob
I find it exhilirating, Bruce. Yes, it would be nice to have everyone agree with us, but we don't learn anything.This thread is really starting to depress me! You would think that there are a few classics that everyone could agree on.
Of course it would help if people would bring up the specific issues that ruin what others consider great movies. But then people accuse me often enough of being prolix.
Bob
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
— L.P. Hartley
— L.P. Hartley
- Mike Gebert
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9369
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
- Harold Aherne
- Posts: 2011
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:08 pm
- Location: North Dakota
-
Marr&Colton
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:17 pm
I for one am enjoying all the opinions.....I think that's what makes film so great--we all get or fail to get something from a film.
All the personal reasons are valid--but I have a nostalgic attachment to many old films--I allow them to be my personal time machine back to being a child at the Saturday matinee in a local movie palace taking in a feast of visual and audio stimulation. If you approach a film that way, you can glean more from it.
I have run both P&B's BLIMP and RED SHOES at my movie parties to rave reviews--their use of technicolor and the visual are striking.
I'm another non-Chaplin fan--never liked heavy-handed silent comedy, but have discovered so MUCH good silent comedy done by not only the other major stars, but many unknowns.
Am on a pre-code kick right now, and can't get enough of those fast moving, slick tales of personal agenda! Come to think of it, Film Noir of the 40s & 50s took up where the pre-codes left off ten years earlier.
All the personal reasons are valid--but I have a nostalgic attachment to many old films--I allow them to be my personal time machine back to being a child at the Saturday matinee in a local movie palace taking in a feast of visual and audio stimulation. If you approach a film that way, you can glean more from it.
I have run both P&B's BLIMP and RED SHOES at my movie parties to rave reviews--their use of technicolor and the visual are striking.
I'm another non-Chaplin fan--never liked heavy-handed silent comedy, but have discovered so MUCH good silent comedy done by not only the other major stars, but many unknowns.
Am on a pre-code kick right now, and can't get enough of those fast moving, slick tales of personal agenda! Come to think of it, Film Noir of the 40s & 50s took up where the pre-codes left off ten years earlier.
Pandora's Box "Really Wacked Out!"
I watched G. W. Pabst PANDORA'S BOX for the first time in a long time. Actually, I had only watched the Second Site version before, and didn't even remember it. So this was my first time to really watch much of this film with the Jillian Anderson score on the Criterion release. I have had the 2 DVD set for a couple years or more, but only had seen the first 10 minutes or so, until just last night.
To be frank, I didn't much care for this movie the first time that I saw it, and didn't like it all that much better now. I know it supposed to be a Masterpiece, and many people think that it is really great and everything, but I just didn't get it? Part of the problem was that I'm not overly enamored with Louise Brooks, like allot of guys are, and the supporting cast did nothing for me. I didn't like anyone in it! Probably would have enjoyed LAZYBONES much more which I had planned to watch for awhile now. I hated the father, He was just awful! You have to care about the characters, and these characters just skunked it up for me! I really wanted to like this movie, but I didn't!
Lulu seemed to me to be allot more trouble than she was worth! Yet the ending is a shocker, and just left you perplexed. The whole story seemed so pointless? And the murderer walks of into the mist scott-free? What the devil? Terribly unsettling stuff. In all candor, I liked LOVE EM' AND LEAVE EM' with Louise and Evelyn Brent allot better than PANDORA'S BOX, and that is just a programmer. So go figure?
Jillian Anderson's score was maybe not as good as I expected overall, but I like some of the themes. It didn't seem to be all that well thought out to me. Haven't listened to the other two alternate scores on the disc. So why do so many people think this picture is so great??? Please explain. Louise Brooks beauty escaped me? Looked great in some scenes, not so hot in others. Give me Renee Adoree, or Colleen Moore! Both much better actresses in my opinion. Sorry, that's just how I feel.
To be frank, I didn't much care for this movie the first time that I saw it, and didn't like it all that much better now. I know it supposed to be a Masterpiece, and many people think that it is really great and everything, but I just didn't get it? Part of the problem was that I'm not overly enamored with Louise Brooks, like allot of guys are, and the supporting cast did nothing for me. I didn't like anyone in it! Probably would have enjoyed LAZYBONES much more which I had planned to watch for awhile now. I hated the father, He was just awful! You have to care about the characters, and these characters just skunked it up for me! I really wanted to like this movie, but I didn't!
Lulu seemed to me to be allot more trouble than she was worth! Yet the ending is a shocker, and just left you perplexed. The whole story seemed so pointless? And the murderer walks of into the mist scott-free? What the devil? Terribly unsettling stuff. In all candor, I liked LOVE EM' AND LEAVE EM' with Louise and Evelyn Brent allot better than PANDORA'S BOX, and that is just a programmer. So go figure?
Jillian Anderson's score was maybe not as good as I expected overall, but I like some of the themes. It didn't seem to be all that well thought out to me. Haven't listened to the other two alternate scores on the disc. So why do so many people think this picture is so great??? Please explain. Louise Brooks beauty escaped me? Looked great in some scenes, not so hot in others. Give me Renee Adoree, or Colleen Moore! Both much better actresses in my opinion. Sorry, that's just how I feel.
Last edited by Gagman 66 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Pandora's Box "Really Wacked Out!"
I think she's a beautiful woman, but I find her films overrated. Out of the four Brooks films I have, the only one I really like is Diary Of A Lost Girl. Can't imagine why Pandora's Box needed 4 scores. I was only able to watch it once.Gagman 66 wrote:So why do so many people think this picture is so great??? Please explain. Louise Brooks beauty escaped me?