What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[Sandor 799]

I think Januz Kaminski is the worst DP working with a major director today, every film he shoots is ugly.  

He's shoots the ugliest pictures out there. The thing that strikes me as odd is Spielberg has worked with several who are so much better, I don't understand why he slums with JK. If I could ask him anything, it would be are you afraid of colors.

It becomes more and more appearant that you are very, very "old-school". Old ideas, old mentality, blue-screen, stop motion and matte lines, orchestral scores, classic trained actors, etc., etc.

Spielberg is and always was - THANKFULLY - a progressive director realising that the industry is constantly changing and people like Tarantino or Chris Nolan are redefining cinema the same way Spielberg did in the late 70's and 80's.

Spielberg however is SO good that he doesn't stick to old ideas, old mentalities and other things old, but constantly re-inventes himself. What a wonderful guy! Janusz is for me the emboddiment of that truly creative spirit! Munich is a beautifully shot film with a very 70's feel that other directors have tried to capture, but never as convincing as Spielberg and Kaminski.

[Dr.ZacharySmith 0]

If you want to watch a film that is deeply disturbing and will make you think, go to your local VideoEzy and borrow "The Circle"...an Iranian film.

See here for synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(film)

[Hitch 58]

Although the sex scene towards the end of the movie intercut with the execution of the hostages was a bit tasteless in my opinion.

[tpigeon 3]

Not exactly. It was the film's purpose not to provide anything clear cut, including its supposedly "good, brave, and noble" intentions and messages. The film's structure and devices reflect the seemingly confused (to some) yet very precise narrative. The visual poetry and character dynamics in the film are so subtle that because Spielberg isn't hitting you over the head, some perceive its narrative, "messages," and techniques as being confused. Not so.

But Ted, that's the old 'it's too subtle for you, meeeh!'-garbage. I don't think i missed any subtleties and still found the film unconvincing. The basic story comes off as believable only to people who spend their whole life in darkened cinemas or have zero connection to reality ('we choose the soon-to-be father in his 20s as uber-vulnerable lead for the mission' - YEAH RIGHT!, the same goes for the strange, to say the least, subplot with Lonsdale).

I repeat myself: take all the moralist bullshit away from Spielberg and give him exactly 112 minutes to make a taut thriller - the film would be a riot. So we have to wade through dozens of 'subtleties for 12-year olds' scenes, which come off rather contrived, at least for my rather european taste.

The score's serviceable, though. A 'thriller only' film would have robbed us of the emotional content of the score....so at least, we have that theme.

So, because I found the story "believable" as you say, I am just a simple person who has spent my whole life in a darkened cinema and have zero connection to reality? How insulting. Note to everyone: make sure you run your feelings on a certain film by publicist to find out of they are correct or if you just have zero connection to reality. Your assumptions about people's tastes of films, especially your condescending summation based on one film, are rather pompous. Clearly my American view is not quite up to speed with your European one. Have you read any of my previous posts concerning the film? I think I have sufficiently defended my arguments about the film, and it directly addresses the "moralist bullshit" you claim the film contains. I'm not so arrogant as to call my views on the film supreme above all others, but I think I am able to defend the idea that the film is not simple or full of subtlties for 12 year olds.

Ted

[publicist 4,643]

Oh god, let the PC police come and arrest me because i haven't added the customary IMHO.

I've read what you say and my verdict still stands: IF you found the story believable, you really can't complain that people are ribbing you about it, since 'Munich's story is highly unbelievable, period.

The Mossad, as powerful as any secret service organiszation in the whole world, feels the need to contact Baader-Meinhof- terrorists from Frankfurt to knit contacts to a swiss weapon dealers, organize hide-outs and passports???? I beg you.

The Baader-guy is the go-between between Avner and an italian leftist via whom they meet 'Le Group', an 'ultra-secret french private service (the Lonsdale story). 'Le Group' very well may be named 'SPECTRE' since their existence is as likely.

Lonsdale has to tell them where PLO-Man Zwaiter lives. Since Zweiter lived carefree in Rome under his real name you can see that the Mossad obviously is ran by a bunch of israeli Maxwell Smarts.

All these implausibilities just that Spielberg can show me blood and milk pouring together in the streets and i can finally see the light: yes, death and birth are some closely-tied things. The only character development of a protagonist is saved for Avner. Apart from that, violence and revenge doesn't solve anything...and you know what? Every other character is tailor-made to hammer this point home and does not have a pregnant wife.

I don't see anything in this i would label as especially thought-provoking. Highly superficial seems more like it.

[tpigeon 3]

You could have said IMHO and it still would have been pompous, arrogant, and demeaning. That's not the point. I rarely ever use that phrase but I can at least be respectful. And excuse me for not being in any secret organizations carrying out terror operations, because I think that's what it would take to know whether or not it's believable.

I didn't think the milk and blood image was one of the more powerful ones in the movie, and yes, it does have a recurring theme of death and life, but it is brought up in different, more subtle ways (yes, it's true): the death of the woman is one of the best images I've seen on film in a long time. I'm sorry if you find it moralist stuff, but images like that are throughout the movie and are quite ambiguous. I'd really rather not waste too much time elaborating for someone who's "European" tastes are far more advanced than my TV watching "American" tastes.

How subtle or overt is a film allowed to be, publicist? By what you're saying, it seems to me like any film with a theme is not allowed to suggest it because if it does, then it's talking down to its audience. Of course the film hammers ideas, but it does not claim to have any answers or tell you how to think. Yes, there is a lot that this film addresses; some of it is outward and straightforward, some of it is buried very deep. It uses familiarity and plot devices for something more.

Ted

[A24 4,371]

the death of the woman is one of the best images I've seen on film in a long time.

Amazing scene and very disturbing.

[Dr.ZacharySmith 0]

Although the sex scene towards the end of the movie intercut with the execution of the hostages was a bit tasteless in my opinion.

Sorry...but this is totally F#cked! It's an insult to the movie maker and not the sort of film one should poke fun at. Hitch...if you have a problem with me, okay...but this is a movie with fine sentiments. It shouldn't be made light of. It'd be like me making fun of the murders in Schindler's List... it would be disgusting!

[tpigeon 3]

I didn't find it tasteless at all.

Ted

[Dr.ZacharySmith 0]

I didn't find it tasteless at all.

Ted

Ted, have you seen "The Circle?"

A quote from Wiki:

The Circle (Dayereh) is a 2000 film by Iranian independent filmmaker Jafar Panahi that focuses on the treatment of women in Iran. Dayereh has won Golden Lion of Venice Film Festival in 2000, among other awards.

The film is composed of a series of stories that interconnect to describe various incidents in the lives of women, centering around a small group that was on leave from prison, and their attempt to negotiate modern Tehran in a single day. Throughout the film, other women's lives are interspersed to provide insights into the everyday challenges women face in Iran, where even walking alone in the street or smoking a cigarette in public is practically prohibited. Each story intersects, but none of them are complete, leaving the viewer to imagine both the background and the ending.

Throughout the movie, Panahi focuses on the little rules symbolizing difficulties of life for Iranian women, such as the need to wear a chador under certain circumstances or not being allowed to travel alone. He puts several aspects of life in contemporary Tehran in contrast: A marriage party, symbolizing a happy ending, in front of an abandoned girl, a soldier before a Basiji, married women vs. wandering girls, a romantic melody that all Iranians would recollect vs. a cruel bazar and etc.

All the actors are amateurs, except Fereshteh Sadr Orafai who plays Pari, and Fatemeh Naghavi, who plays the mother abandoning her daughter. The Circle is perhaps the best known of Panahi's works, yet it is banned in Iran.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Although the sex scene towards the end of the movie intercut with the execution of the hostages was a bit tasteless in my opinion.

Sorry...but this is totally F#cked! It's an insult to the movie maker and not the sort of film one should poke fun at. Hitch...if you have a problem with me, okay...but this is a movie with fine sentiments. It shouldn't be made light of. It'd be like me making fun of the murders in Schindler's List... it would be disgusting!

Whaaaa?

You do realize Hitch was referring to Munich, right?

- Marc, who also found that scene somewhat tasteless.

[Justin 2]

It doesn't really make sense. What exactly is he remembering since he didn't really see the murders?

Justin

[tpigeon 3]

Is he remembering it? Is it how he envisions it? Maybe it's something else.

Ted

[Red 75]

Are you feeling all right, Doc?

[nightscape94 965]

Is it how he envisions it?

That's pretty much what I thought when I saw it. It allows the filmaker to show what happened while also connecting it to the Abner character at the same time, even though he didn't witness it first hand. We can assume that is how he sees it in his head, like the nightmare it really was.

Tim

[Dr.ZacharySmith 0]

Although the sex scene towards the end of the movie intercut with the execution of the hostages was a bit tasteless in my opinion.

Sorry...but this is totally F#cked! It's an insult to the movie maker and not the sort of film one should poke fun at. Hitch...if you have a problem with me, okay...but this is a movie with fine sentiments. It shouldn't be made light of. It'd be like me making fun of the murders in Schindler's List... it would be disgusting!

Whaaaa?

You do realize Hitch was referring to Munich, right?

- Marc, who also found that scene somewhat tasteless.

Okay...I'll stand corrected. I thought he was having a go at "The Circle." It's not been my best 24 hours. I shall retire gracefully with apologies to Hitch.

And finally...I will offer my resignation from the forum, effective immediately.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

And finally...I will offer my resignation from the forum, effective immediately.

Eh?

[Hitch 58]

Hitch...if you have a problem with me, okay.

Au contraire, mon ami. I find your comments quite stimulating.

I shall retire gracefully with apologies to Hitch.

And finally...I will offer my resignation from the forum, effective immediately.

One down. 1,898 to go. Excluding me of course.

[Ollie 1,069]

Way to go Hitch....

[Red 75]

Why are you leaving Doc? There is no need for you to leave, unless you just want to, of course.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Don't leave! The board needs an intelligent Australian! I certainly couldn't be arsed filling the position.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think Januz Kaminski is the worst DP working with a major director today, every film he shoots is ugly.  

He's shoots the ugliest pictures out there. The thing that strikes me as odd is Spielberg has worked with several who are so much better, I don't understand why he slums with JK. If I could ask him anything, it would be are you afraid of colors.

It becomes more and more appearant that you are very, very "old-school". Old ideas, old mentality, blue-screen, stop motion and matte lines, orchestral scores, classic trained actors, etc., etc.

Spielberg is and always was - THANKFULLY - a progressive director realising that the industry is constantly changing and people like Tarantino or Chris Nolan are redefining cinema the same way Spielberg did in the late 70's and 80's.

Spielberg however is SO good that he doesn't stick to old ideas, old mentalities and other things old, but constantly re-inventes himself. What a wonderful guy! Janusz is for me the emboddiment of that truly creative spirit! Munich is a beautifully shot film with a very 70's feel that other directors have tried to capture, but never as convincing as Spielberg and Kaminski.

you don't have a clue to what your talking about.

The 70's was a vibrant colorful decade, but you sure couldn't tell it from this picture. Hell how would you know anyways, you can barely remember the 70's, if you were even alive. The true idiocy of your statement is that Tarantino, and Nolan are redefining cinema. Tarantino pays homage to films styles of the past, and Nolan makes mediocre films at best. More and more you seem to be losing touch with reality.

[AI 0]

since 'Munich's story is highly unbelievable, period.

Before 9/11, I may have agreed. I think it's apparent now that the worst you can imagine, can, and probably will, happen.

The 70's was a vibrant colorful decade.

Was human eye perception of color somehow sharper in the 70's? I am a little dubious...

[Sandor 799]

you don't have a clue to what your talking about.  

The 70's was a vibrant colorful decade, but you sure couldn't tell it from this picture. Hell how would you know anyways, you can barely remember the 70's, if you were even alive. More and more you seem to be losing touch with reality.

I think the gritty feel is adequate concerning the theme of the film. Even during the 70's a lot of films were made which favoured tone over color. The Godfather, Mean Streets, Salo, etc. Those films, mainly because they didn't deal with 'happy family' material were devoid of 'carnivalesque' colors and all. And it makes those films stronger. I feel a director and cinematographer should choose a visual landscape that serves the story that is being told.

And Munich is nowhere near as "colorless" as you would like people to believe.

The true idiocy of your statement is that Tarantino, and Nolan are redefining cinema. Tarantino pays homage to films styles of the past

Of course Tarantino pays homage to "blackplotation films", kung fu pictures and such, but if you can't see that Pulp Fiction was a milestone in the re-imagining of cinema, than you're either living in denial or you just "missed" it somehow. Pulp Fiction became THE film for an entire new generation, it opened doors, delicately playing with traditional structures, dialogue progressions and all.

I would go so far to say that Tarantino may the single most influential director/producer/screenwriter of the 90's. How many films have we seen these past 10 years that were marketed as having the "Tarantino spirit"?

and Nolan makes mediocre films at best.

Chris Nolan's Batman Begins may be mediocre (I agree), but I was refering mainly to Memento. It may not be the best film of all time, but it has achieved a modern cult status and has longer legs than most box office hits nowadays. It also became a cornerstone, a true inspiration. Films like Se7en, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Trainspotting, Boogie Nights, Requiem For A Dream, The Matrix, etc. were all at the forefront of re-inventing cinema. They're not all fantastic films, four star classics, Oscar winners, etc., but they were all progressive, non traditional films.

More and more you seem to be losing touch with reality.

The reality is that Spielberg is the perfect bridge between "old school" and "new school". He admires more progressive filmic visions as shown by his continuous collaboration with Kaminski, because in all honesty, the guy is a non-traditionalist.

It seems that the only one who is losing touch with reality is you, Joe. You still live somewhere in the 80's. I often get the impression you feel "they" stopped making great films about 15 years ago. Well, the truth is, the reality is, great films are still being made. Every year. Take last year's Whale Rider. Fabulous. It's as good as any great film made before. But its doesn't follow the laws of traditional film.

Since you're so "old school" about film, I know that you will disagree with about everything I have to say and vice versa. I feel that if we can learn to respect our different viewpoints along the way, we're in a win-win sort of situation.

[Hitch 58]

Don't leave! The board needs an intelligent Australian! I certainly couldn't be arsed filling the position.

We always have Drax He's well prepared for the challenge.

[AI 0]

Well I for one, am interested in seeing The Circle anyway.

[crocodile 8,090]

The true idiocy of your statement is that Tarantino, and Nolan are redefining cinema. Tarantino pays homage to films styles of the past, and Nolan makes mediocre films at best. More and more you seem to be losing touch with reality.

And who redefines cinema today if not Nolan (for example)? If his movies are mediocre, then who makes better ones?

Karol

[JoeinAR 1,949]

what has Nolan done to refine film, added his stamp of subpar action sequences, that is indeed a step forward.

[Sandor 799]

Memento.

[tpigeon 3]

Munich is far from being "colorless," Joe. It was amazingly shot, and very true to form of a lot of gritty 70's pictures like the kind Scorsese and Coppola made. The composition and shot design was among the best of last year's films, and there were many brilliantly shot movies last year.

As for redefining film, I think it's hard to say now who is changing the face of cinema since we are still in the now. As much as I like Tarantino and Pulp Fiction, his methods were really not all that new - he borrowed much from Scorsese, Allen, Altman, Bergman, Fellini and many others when it comes to structure. His influence on future filmmakers is apparent but as far as redefining goes, I don't think he quite fits the bill. There are so many different differend threads in film today that I think it's damn near impossible to say that one filmmaker is redefining all of cinema.

[Sandor 799]

People hear "redefining" and assume too much. Star Wars redefined cinema. Fact. Was it all new? No. Lucas payed as much homage to previous films and styles as Tarantino could ever do, but still it was reinventing the standards of that time. Pulp Fiction did the same. Its influence is noticable until today. It's a modern day classic.

[tpigeon 3]

Nothing is all new. That's not the point. Star Wars redefined pop cinema and influenced how movies are made with its visual appeal and use of cinematic techniques to amazing effect. It revolutionzed film technology. It didn't redefine things in terms of its story - I know that. While Pulp Fiction had a big influence on filmmakers and audiences, its essentially the one that caught on in the 90's. Many filmmakers have been using the same storytelling and structural techniques as Tarantino did; his film just happened to be the one with which audiences and young, aspiring filmmakers connected. I don't think it redefined or revolutionized anything. It's effect on pop culture did, but the film itself didn't, good as it was.

Ted

[crocodile 8,090]

Well, I think that the creativity in films today is often mistaken with versatility. It's frustrating that most films seem to be only homages to works from the past. I don't remember truly creative film in years. Can you?

Karol

[Romão 2,276]

I don't remember truly creative film in years. Can you?

Memento

Chris Nolan's Batman Begins may be mediocre (I agree)

I don't think there was anything mediocre in Batman Begins. IMHO, by far the best blockbuster in recent years.

[crocodile 8,090]

I don't remember truly creative film in years. Can you?

Memento

For me it was a long time ago. It was 2001. Who can possibly remember it?

Karol

[tpigeon 3]

Well, I think that the creativity in films today is often mistaken with versatility. It's frustrating that most films seem to be only homages to works from the past. I don't remember truly creative film in years. Can you?

Karol

By creativity do you mean innovation? If you're referring to Hollywood blockbuster type films, there is obviously very little of that. But I am of the school of thought that one can create new images by building upon what's already been seen. A film is a very complicated things, with thousands of elements that make it up. Coming up with an original image, or an original film, would depend on how its images can be created and assembled. I'm not sure if images can ever be truly "new" meaning totally fresh or original images, because every image, shot, or composition is created in relation to what has already been seen. To reject common conventions for something different is still to act in relation to those very conventions. It's like film genres - you can reject having a film fit into the conventions of a particular genre, but that decision is dictated by those very genre norms. In that sense, true originality is impossible. Viewers require familiarity and recognition of a convention in order to process the moving images of a film. Long story short, I hold the belief that true originality in film is how well one can assemble familiar parts into something different; using what's already there to mold something new. It's one big act of progress.

To answer your questions, Karol, I think there are a number of fresh, original films containing familiar elements - some acknowledging them overtly and toying with film and storytelling conventions, others advancing and stretching what's already been done and go in new directions with familiar plot devices, character conventions and structural material. There is great range of this in the films that come to mind: A History of Violence, Adaptation, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, Chinatown, Jaws, High Noon, The Searchers, Lost in Translation, L.A. Confidential, Minority Report, Munich, King Kong, Match Point, and many many others. In short, I most definitely think there is originality amongst today's films and filmmakers. Reading reports from the Toronto Film Festival this time every year always excites me for the next four months of film going when I see so many wonderful films.

Ted

[QMM 4]

If you want to see a pretty original film soon it seems that Del Toro's Pan's Labrynth is getting very good praise.

[Romão 2,276]

I'm very very curious about that one. Who's scoring it?

[tpigeon 3]

I absolutely cannot wait for that film.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

It is one of the several films I can't wait for...sounds fantastic. And I'm not a Del-Torro fan.

Chris Nolan's Batman Begins may be mediocre (I agree)

I don't think there was anything mediocre in Batman Begins. IMHO, by far the best blockbuster in recent years.

The final action scene is weak, weak, weak.

[crocodile 8,090]

Long story short, I hold the belief that true originality in film is how well one can assemble familiar parts into something different; using what's already there to mold something new. It's one big act of progress.  

Yes, but most of these films won't last, I'm afraid.

The final action scene is weak, weak, weak.

I would say it's mediocre, mediocre, mediocre. But not weak, weak, weak.

Karol

[tpigeon 3]

Long story short, I hold the belief that true originality in film is how well one can assemble familiar parts into something different; using what's already there to mold something new. It's one big act of progress.  

Yes, but most of these films won't last, I'm afraid.

What do you mean? Many of these films have lasted, since all of them have in some way resulted from films previous. I don't see any reason why a pattern that has been established more than a hundred years ago will suddenly stop.

Ted

[QMM 4]

I'm very very curious about that one. Who's scoring it?

IMDB lists Javier Navarrete as the composer

[Morlock 11]

I don't look to Gulliermo Del-Torro movie for the score, after the last few were scored by Beltrami

Morlock- who does not understand the appeal of Marco Beltrami

[QMM 4]

The only cue I liked from Hellboy was the one where Myers pulls up to the BPRD headquarters for the first time

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Munich is far from being "colorless," Joe. It was amazingly shot, and very true to form of a lot of gritty 70's pictures like the kind Scorsese and Coppola made

oh sure if you like shades of gray, its as ugly as any major film has been in years.

It doesn't reflect the 70's, the way it was, in any of the colors palates JK chooses. He's easily the worst dP that SS has worked with.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

It doesn't reflect the 70's, the way it was, in any of the colors palates JK chooses.

Joe,

have you ever stopped to consider that maybe Spielberg and Kaminski decided to shoot it that way because their goal wasn't to show it "the way the seventies were"?

[QMM 4]

The use of zoom and the heavily blocked one-shot scenes were always the biggest sign for me of the 70's style

Edit: Which I liked

[tpigeon 3]

There's more to cinematography than color as well, Joe. And your blanket statement about the 70's is plain wrong. Some of the best films of the 70's were not colorful in the least.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

And your blanket statement about the 70's is plain wrong. Some of the best films of the 70's were not colorful in the least.  

Ted

you misinterpreted, my blanket statement was about the 70's, not the 70's movies.

But some of the best films of the 70's were colorful.

Jaws, Star Wars, Superman(the best shot film of the 70's), The Sting, Patton,