Last Movie You Watched

[hildegard]

Would be funnier, if it weren't so close for comfort.

[Bulldog]

My grandson and I went to see District 9 yesterday.  It started off poorly, became increasingly interesting, then bottomed out toward the end.  Overall, a very cheap movie all-around.

[Lilas Pastia]

Footnote to Napoleon: Conrad Veidt played the Marquis de Sade (seen on the cast list - can't recall it at all).

I've seen Murnau's Tartuffe, but IMO it has aged terribly. It may be more the acting than the direction - of which I can't say I paid much attention. German expressionist stalwarts Emil Jannings, Werner Kraus an Lil Dagover bluster and pose insufferably, destroying the finesse of Molière's play. But then, how do you put through a Molière play without words? If I have the chance I'll see it again - if only because Murnau is one of the gods of cinema.

Tonight:

When I first saw it in my early twenties, I was baffled by Gertrud. I had seen every other Dreyer film starting with Jeanne d'Arc and held them in the highest esteem (singling out Ordet as one of the greatest masterpieces of all time). Gertrud is surprising and almost infuriating in its elliptical, minimalist direction. A single prop (a mirror, a painting on the wall, a door frame, a park bench) acquires enormous visual importance by virtue of the almost total nakedness of the sets and decors. As the Criterion notes put it, the main action of the protagonists consists of getting up from or sitting down on a sofa - going from one couch to another. And boy, is it ever slow! True enough. But every frame has a visual perfection that is practically unsurpassed. Dreyer's manic perfectionism achieves a kind of grandeur that casts its own spell. I'm quite sure Dreyer had certain scenes of Bergman's Smiles of a Midsummer Night in mind. The underlying  irony of many scenes is never allowed to come to the fore (as in Smiles), but there's an unmistakable connection between scenes from both films. This is easily Dreyer's most static film, rivalling Bresson's own minimalist style. There are clear influences from Sjöberg's Miss Julie, too. But that is a very different subject matter.

[hildegard]

Footnote to Napoleon: Conrad Veidt played the Marquis de Sade (seen on the cast list - can't recall it at all).

He does not appear in this version of the cast (below). Gance, though, is listed as Louis Saint-Just, 17th from the bottom.

[Harry]

It was a interesting experience, start studded with many British actors of renown, and although the interaction between them was perfect, as a whole the film was a bit lame, and the end of this picture was a bit embarrassing.

[Harry]

A great movie, and immensely fun to watch.

[Harry]

Would be funnier, if it weren't so close for comfort.

Ohh, you did not tell me this was a British comedy, well that changes my intention of not seeing it. I will take a peek, just for the fun of it!

[DavidW]

A great movie, and immensely fun to watch.

QFT

[karlhenning]

Last night, Casino Royale (Daniel Craig) with the whole family;  unanimous approbation.

[George]

QFT

Indeed! 

[Drasko]

Footnote to Napoleon: Conrad Veidt played the Marquis de Sade (seen on the cast list - can't recall it at all).

I've seen Murnau's Tartuffe, but IMO it has aged terribly. It may be more the acting than the direction - of which I can't say I paid much attention. German expressionist stalwarts Emil Jannings, Werner Kraus an Lil Dagover bluster and pose insufferably, destroying the finesse of Molière's play. But then, how do you put through a Molière play without words? If I have the chance I'll see it again - if only because Murnau is one of the gods of cinema.

I've also seen castlist with Veidt, but I haven't noticed him in Coppola's version, nor he is credited as Hildegard showed above. So it's either very brief appearance which I missed or his role is left out completely in that restoration. The new Brownlow restoration for British Film Institute is full 100 minutes longer, maybe there he has longer screen time, I've no idea?

I agree re Murnau's Tartuffe, possibly his weakest film.

[Dr. Dread]

I saw I LOVE YOU, MAN and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS over the weekend. Both were mildly entertaining. Nothing to go on about.

[karlhenning]

I'd go on about pursuing happiness. Truly, I would.

[Harry]

I have played this movie at least a dozen times, and can not get enough of it. What a shame its such a short film.

[CD]

An Epiphany has descended upon you, my young friend. At that point, Ordet's cinematic splendors reveal themselves for what they are: unique in the world of the 7th Art. For me, this film has been hovering in a cloud, way above any other for almost 4 decades. I was still a teenager then, and had issues with the subject matter. But the pace, images, lighting were unlike any other. Never has a clothes line been so transcendently beautiful.

That's how it felt for me. I watched it a few years ago, knowing nothing about Dreyer or what I was getting into, and I thought it was just OK. I initially sympathized with the agnostic Mikkel, thought the character of Johannes was irritating, and felt that the ending was just too over the top. This time I felt more sympathy for the father, who is desparately trying to hold his family together while everything bad that can happen does indeed happen. At the point in the film after Inger dies and Johannes runs away, and he's out alone in the field calling for him...  that was it for me, like the emotional pitch being turned to 11. And this time the ending to me was beautiful, something that can only happen in cinema.

[CD]

Gertrud (1964), Dir. Carl Th. Dreyer




Magnificent Obsession (1954), Dir. Douglas Sirk

[CD]

Tonight:

When I first saw it in my early twenties, I was baffled by Gertrud. I had seen every other Dreyer film starting with Jeanne d'Arc and held them in the highest esteem (singling out Ordet as one of the greatest masterpieces of all time). Gertrud is surprising and almost infuriating in its elliptical, minimalist direction. A single prop (a mirror, a painting on the wall, a door frame, a park bench) acquires enormous visual importance by virtue of the almost total nakedness of the sets and decors. As the Criterion notes put it, the main action of the protagonists consists of getting up from or sitting down on a sofa - going from one couch to another. And boy, is it ever slow! True enough. But every frame has a visual perfection that is practically unsurpassed. Dreyer's manic perfectionism achieves a kind of grandeur that casts its own spell. I'm quite sure Dreyer had certain scenes of Bergman's Smiles of a Midsummer Night in mind. The underlying  irony of many scenes is never allowed to come to the fore (as in Smiles), but there's an unmistakable connection between scenes from both films. This is easily Dreyer's most static film, rivalling Bresson's own minimalist style. There are clear influences from Sjöberg's Miss Julie, too. But that is a very different subject matter.

Oops, just saw this. I didn't make any comment because I'm not sure I "got" it at all. I'll have to watch it again some time.

[Harpo]

I saw I LOVE YOU, MAN and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS over the weekend. Both were mildly entertaining. Nothing to go on about.

Sonic and I discussed I Love You Man on July 20, and I quote myself:

Look up "puerile" in the dictionary and a picture of this DVD appears. About a guy about to get married who realizes he has no male friends and goes out to acquire some.  Lots of flatulence and poo poo jokes. Male bonding could have been an interesting topic,but Butch Cassidy or Brian's Song this isn't. I don't think I would have liked such a film even when I was in college (back then we went to Ingmar Bergman even if we didn't understand him).

[DavidW]

I watched the Machinist, it's great disturbing but cathartic.  It was appropriate that Bale was reading Dostoevsky's The Idiot (without hitting you over the head) since the tale of his character has strong parallels with Crime and Punishment.  It's a difficult, uncomfortable watch but well worth it, thumbs up!

[karlhenning]

. . .  Lots of flatulence and poo poo jokes.

None for me, thanks.