PDA

View Full Version : classic directors/films you dont get



gumdrops
19-07-2011, 11:26 AM
saw tarkovskys solaris last night. was looking forward to it for a while as i liked the soderbergh remake with clooney though thought it was a little too taut/efficient so assumed the original would give it more space to breathe. and it did. to a ridiculous extent. tbh it might have been cos i was really tired so was finding it hard to concentrate and the remake was still kinda fresh in my mind as i only saw it earlier this year but the whole first act on earth seemed to meander on forever and though i loved the visuals (the scene on the motorways was one of my favourites and the scenes of the pond/river were nicely meditative) and the relationship crisis at the heart was more interesting and ambiguous than in the remake, but overall it just seemed way too indulgent.

i might have to see it again just to be sure.

STN
19-07-2011, 11:31 AM
I have been thinking about watching Solaris again recently. I first saw it about ten years ago and thought it was mind-numbingly dull, but thought the visuals and story might resonate more now I'm older and more afraid.

On threads like this it's important to try and distinguish not getting and not liking isn't it? Otherwise it just becomes competitive iconoclasm...

gumdrops
19-07-2011, 12:43 PM
true.

i think the gap between general consensus from film critics and filmgoers (or fans) is often much greater than that between music critics and listeners.

e/y
19-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Solaris is one of my favourite films, I usually try to watch it once every month or two. That said, sometimes when I watch it, I do start nodding off - I suppose it depends on the mindset / how tired I am atm.

...

Don't think it has been assigned 'classic' status (yet?), but I really did not understand Uncle Bonmee. It was very nice to look at, but that was about it for me.

grizzleb
19-07-2011, 06:34 PM
Chinatown. I was surprised not to enjoy it, but it seemed to me like a poor noir pastiche.

Gregor XIII
19-07-2011, 10:06 PM
If it's Tarkovsky as a director you don't 'get', then try and watch The Mirror. That one is my favorite, and it goes by pretty briskly, at least by his standards. I like Solaris, but I really don't get Stalker. I like a few moments, but most of it is just three people walking around at an abandoned waterplant... On Apichatbong, I didn't get Blissfully Yours - it's in a way just three people on a so-so picnic... - but I really liked Syndromes and a Century.

On the question of critic vs public in music and film, I think there is kinda the same gap between the two. But there is more of a combative atmosphere in the filmworld, mostly due to the high cost of production. If the public doesn't like good music, so what, it will still persevere underground. But we have to fight to get good films made, yell when we see something good, bestow a lot of awards on it, etc. Otherwise, they won't get made.

ether
21-08-2011, 10:36 AM
anything by michael haneke.

zhao
21-08-2011, 11:42 AM
if tarkovsky is "indulgent" then perhaps so is the Iliad? or the Koran or the sistine chapel?

not sure but i think "indulgent" has something about gratuitousness and pointlessness about it, and, to me at least, every meditative long and slow sequence has a purpose in tarkovskys work.

but i wouldn't recommend the mirror to a non-initiate - to me his most abstract and fragmented. stalker is monolithic, but also achingly beautiful and overtly philosophical, and at least has something of a clear, straight forward plot.

i would recommend maybe the Sacrifice to start. it's a pretty "easy" one.

mistersloane
22-08-2011, 12:30 AM
I'm not enough of a wanker to get Antonioni.

STN
23-08-2011, 08:33 AM
Antonini, Lynch and Woody Allen - the fact that I simply find them all boring, rather than objectionable, might suggest I'm 'missing something'.

Mr. Tea
23-08-2011, 12:10 PM
I'm not sure about "not getting it" exactly, I mean it's still a great film, but considering the mythology that surrounds it...I think Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange didn't really fulfill the hopes I had for it when I saw it at the pictures when it came out again in 2000-ish. Lots of iconographic scenes, for sure, but there are scenes which are disturbing or even horrific in the book but are played almost for laughs in the film, and in places I think it's a bit too camp for its own good.

I think maybe I'd have enjoyed the film more if I'd seen it before reading the book, but I'd already read it and so was constantly comparing the two as I watched the film.

mistersloane
23-08-2011, 01:00 PM
I've always loved A Clockwork Orange. I can't remember if I read the book or saw the film first. I remember seeing the film when I was about fifteen / sixteen and thinking it was brilliant. I still think it's brilliant.

Probably my favourite Kubrick film. At times I feel like I should prefer some of the others (mainly Strangelove & Lolita), but there's an element of nostalgia for me with ACO as well it being an excellent film.

As for classics I don't get. The Good, the Bad & the Ugly. The score and final shootout were superb, but I just didn't see why people considered it to be the strongest of the three films. I thought Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More were far better. Particularly FAFDM.

Duck You Sucker/Fistful of Dynamite is my favourite Leone, it's just brilliant.

baboon2004
23-08-2011, 01:04 PM
anything by michael haneke.

that's interesting. i find Haneke pretty immediate, not including the first few. his films seem to relate to the actual world in which i live, and he seems interested in probing its pscyhological complexities in a way that isn't heavy-handed and isn't pretentious. blows most other European arthouse directors out of the water - though have always preferred US/Canadian/Australian/sometimes British indie to European arthouse, to give the broadest of generalisations.

IdleRich
23-08-2011, 04:21 PM
Not a fan of Woody Allen as a rule. Well I find that the ones that everyone thinks are amazing are at best average and the ones that people think are average I think are terrible.
But I guess I'm enough of a wanker to like Antonioni. Not to say I get as in understand him all the time but I pretty much always enjoy his films and feel as though I'm left with a lot to think about afterwards. Admittedly the amount of thinking the films engender in me afterwards tends to mean that I may view the actual watching experience through rose tinted spectacles but that enjoyable "aftertaste" is probably part of the worth of the film.

Gregor XIII
24-08-2011, 09:55 PM
if tarkovsky is "indulgent" then perhaps so is the Iliad? or the Koran or the sistine chapel?

not sure but i think "indulgent" has something about gratuitousness and pointlessness about it, and, to me at least, every meditative long and slow sequence has a purpose in tarkovskys work.

but i wouldn't recommend the mirror to a non-initiate - to me his most abstract and fragmented. stalker is monolithic, but also achingly beautiful and overtly philosophical, and at least has something of a clear, straight forward plot.

i would recommend maybe the Sacrifice to start. it's a pretty "easy" one.

Well, Stalker and Sacrifice are his most straightforward ones, with plots and whatnot, but even though they might be easier to get through, I think they are quite boring, and as such would hardly stimulate further viewing. The Mirror, on the other hand, is, as you say, fragmented and abstract, but it is also Tarkovskys most maximalist film. It's kinda short, but a whole lot of strange stuff happens. I would be surprised, if anyone can watch that film, and not at least feel intrigued and fascinated. Yes, it's baffling, I've seen it an awful lot of times and read several articles on it, as I wrote about it in class last winter, but I still don't get it. Yet I really want to see it again. And it feels as if there are threads in Mirror to every other Tarkovsky film as well, so having seen that one made it easier to get through the rest. Well, I'd still recommend starting with that one.

I don't get Eyes Wide Shut. Or, I really, really don't like it, and I'm baffled that anyone can see anything in it. It's color scheme is ugly and cold, Tom Cruise is absolutely horrible in it, and the rest of the cast aren't that great either.