2012 Sight & Sound Survey

Harmsway wrote:

Sure VERTIGO is great. I don't know how else you'd measure greatness if it isn't.

Impact on filmmakers and the art form itself? Aside from De Palma, its influence has been fairly limited.

HJackson wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Bollox.

Armond White wrote:

Avventura, L' 1960 Michelangelo Antonioni
Intolerance 1916 D.W. Griffith
Jules et Jim 1962 François Truffaut
Lawrence of Arabia 1962 David Lean
Lola 1961 Jacques Demy
Magnificent Ambersons, The 1942 Orson Welles
Nashville 1975 Robert Altman
Nouvelle Vague 1990 Jean-Luc Godard
Passion of Joan of Arc 1927 Carl Theodor Dreyer
Sansho Dayu 1954 Mizoguchi Kenji

Quote :

CASABLANCA (1942)
GASLIGHT (1944)
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)
HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940)
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
LAURA (1944)
ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
RED RIVER (1948)
SHERLOCK JR. (1924)
CITIZEN KANE (1941)

Nothing like that list.

White's list is a little more broad minded, but outside of LOLA and NOUVELLE VAGUE, nothing on his list is particularly unusual.

Whereas the INTRO TO CLASSIC MOVIES list is exclusively American, Armond's is dominated by European cinema. Kenji is also a much more unusual choice than say Kurosawo or Ozu.

I'd say the only real obvious choices are LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and INTOLERANCE.

And JULES AND JIM, AVVENTURA, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (I'm not sure why this would make anyone's list), and PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC.

Though, overall, the list isn't bad at all. They're all good films. I do like that he included INTOLERANCE. It seems that Griffith's work is being shunned as political correctness prevails in the United States. Sometimes I think certain groups of "film lovers" go out of their way to make sure Griffith and his work is defamed and, ultimately, avoided. It's sad to think that the great-grandfather of American cinema is no longer recognized for his contributions to the art form, but, instead, for his social and political views. It's difficult to enter a discussion about Griffith and not hear arguments about how he was a racist.

Control wrote:

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (I'm not sure why this would make anyone's list)

You calling that an obvious choice?

For the record, this is Armond's list from the 2002 BFI poll.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Spielberg)
L'avventura (Antonioni)
Intolerance (Griffith)
Jules et Jim (Truffaut)
Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
Lola (Demy)
The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles)
Masculin féminin (Godard)
Nashville (Altman)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)

You bet. That's what people choose when they haven't seen any of Welles' other works, besides CITIZEN KANE, isn't it? (Although, I'm sure White's watched a lot of Welles.)

It turned out to be a cob-job. It should have been renamed THE AMBERSONS because of how many promising scenes were pulled from the picture. Nothing magnificent about the final product.

Largo's Shark wrote:

For the record, this is Armond's list from the 2002 BFI poll.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Spielberg)
L'avventura (Antonioni)
Intolerance (Griffith)
Jules et Jim (Truffaut)
Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
Lola (Demy)
The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles)
Masculin féminin (Godard)
Nashville (Altman)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)

That's an interesting list and proves consistency. He's not just name-dropping and pulling titles out of his ass to look like he knows something.

Too much Godard, though.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Whereas the INTRO TO CLASSIC MOVIES list is exclusively American, Armond's is dominated by European cinema. Kenji is also a much more unusual choice than say Kurosawo or Ozu.

I'd say the only real obvious choices are LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and INTOLERANCE.

Would you not even concede that PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC and L'AVVENTURA are hardly outside-the-box choices when they rank 9th and 21st respectively on the compiled list?

As for Mizoguchi being more unusual than Kurosawa or Ozu, I think you're overplaying your hand a little. The top six Japanese films are ordered as two Ozus, then two Kurosawas, then two Mizoguchis (including the title White listed). Mizoguchi is clearly a close third behind the other two (Ugetsu even placed in the top ten at some point), and Sansho Dayu is hardly an obscure minor work. You'd be on better ground championing him as a vanguard for underseen cinema if he had listed a title by Naruse or Imamura, but a major work by Mizoguchi seems to be stretching it.

Not that I think there is a problem with listing films that happen to be known or widely regarded. It seems odd to me to judge a film on the basis of whether or not other people admire it.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Sure VERTIGO is great. I don't know how else you'd measure greatness if it isn't.

Impact on filmmakers and the art form itself? Aside from De Palma, its influence has been fairly limited.

You're reguritating White here. White significantly undersells VERTIGO's influence. You can see the influence of VERTIGO playing out in the films of Alain Resnais, Eric Rohmer, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Kar-Wai Wong, Chris Marker, Pedro Almodovar, and Chantal Akerman (that's just off the top of my head; I could come up with more, I'm sure, if I took longer to think about it).

Control wrote:

You bet. That's what people choose when they haven't seen any of Welles' other works, besides CITIZEN KANE, isn't it? (Although, I'm sure White's watched a lot of Welles.)

Nah, I always thought second most well-known Welles was TOUCH OF EVIL Most people I'd know would have no fucking idea what THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was, let alone who directed.

I like it a lot, regardless of the studio "butchering." It might not be Welles's vision, but it's a vision I greatly admire.

Quote :

Too much Godard, though.

Nothing wrong with Goddard, unless you're Harms of course.

HJackson wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Whereas the INTRO TO CLASSIC MOVIES list is exclusively American, Armond's is dominated by European cinema. Kenji is also a much more unusual choice than say Kurosawo or Ozu.

I'd say the only real obvious choices are LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and INTOLERANCE.

Would you not even concede that PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC and L'AVVENTURA are hardly outside-the-box choices when they rank 9th and 21st respectively on the compiled list?

As for Mizoguchi being more unusual than Kurosawa or Ozu, I think you're overplaying your hand a little. The top six Japanese films are ordered as two Ozus, then two Kurosawas, then two Mizoguchis (including the title White listed). Mizoguchi is clearly a close third behind the other two (Ugetsu even placed in the top ten at some point), and Sansho Dayu is hardly an obscure minor work. You'd be on better ground championing him as a vanguard for underseen cinema if he had listed a title by Naruse or Imamura, but a major work by Mizoguchi seems to be stretching it.

Well, it does seem to me that Kurosawa and Ozu are (rightly or wrongly) the two most internationally revered Japanese directors, and consistently get more coverage than Mizoguchi, but you're right: Mizoguchi is still a well-established face on the "world cinema" scene. I'm not particularly familiar with his work, although I've seen SANSHO DAYU and UGETSU and they both blew me away.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Nothing wrong with Goddard, unless you're Harms of course.

I thought Harms was a big Godard fan.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Nah, I always thought second most well-known Welles was TOUCH OF EVIL Most people I'd know would have no fucking idea what THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was, let alone who directed.

TOUCH OF EVIL is probably the second-best known among the general populace. Critics have always loved THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, though. I'm kinda on the outside looking in with AMBERSONS. I don't dislike it, but I've yet to figure out why so many critics find it captivating.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Nothing wrong with Goddard, unless you're Harms of course.

I thought Harms was a big Godard fan.

I kinda made a 180 on Godard. The more I saw of his later stuff, the less I liked him, until I hit a point where I found his later work so irritating that it starting corroding my affection for some of the earlier films I'd previously enjoyed a great deal (BREATHLESS, VIVRE SA VIE, CONTEMPT). I might just need some space before I return to them again.

Harmsway wrote:

I'm kinda on the outside looking in with AMBERSONS. I don't dislike it, but I've yet to figure out why so many critics find it captivating.

I feel the same way, for the most part. After reading about what was cut from the film and Welles' intentions, I feel that the final product was essentially a mess. It's sad, actually.

Control wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

I'm kinda on the outside looking in with AMBERSONS. I don't dislike it, but I've yet to figure out why so many critics find it captivating.

I feel the same way, for the most part. After reading about what was cut from the film and Welles' intentions, I feel that the final product was essentially a mess. It's sad, actually.

I was impressed, but I think I need to see it again. Just watching it frustrating because of the history.

In the cut we have, AMBERSONS is rather unfocused and lacks inertia. It just sort of ambles along, with one abrupt transition following another. When we reached the end, my wife turned to me and said, "Wait, it's over?"

I was nearly in tears by the end.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I was nearly in tears by the end.

You and many others. That's what I don't really get. While I find these characters interesting, I don't find them emotionally engaging.