Last Movie You Watched

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Nonsense! I've never seen a Fellini film, I have never heard of McLuhan and to this day I have no idea who he is. The gag was funny anyway. And I think the gag would have been improved if he had used someone with some name recognition, like Margaret Atwood or Philip Roth, etc, rather than McLuhan, whoever he is.

Interesting trivia point: this part was originally supposed to be played by Luis Buñuel, but he was unable to do so for some reason. McLuhan was Allen's second choice.

McLuhan HAD name recognition. He had something more important: puffed up intellectual credentials. The best remaining example of those is Ulysses by Joyce. 

Actually McLuhan is very interesting to read nowadays, in the Internet age. I have an anthology of his writings - some of it is dated and stuck in the 60s, but some of it remains quite thought-provoking. He deserves his quiet, posthumous revival.

[kishnevi]

Nonsense! I've never seen a Fellini film, I have never heard of McLuhan and to this day I have no idea who he is. The gag was funny anyway. And I think the gag would have been improved if he had used someone with some name recognition, like Margaret Atwood or Philip Roth, etc, rather than McLuhan, whoever he is.

And, didn't Rodney Dangerfield use a similar gag in "Back to School" when he hired Kurt Vonnegut (?) to write a term paper about his own work, which got a C (if I remember right).

To be fair, my knowledge of McLuhan is limited to two quotes, one of which is not even a full sentence:  Global village and The medium is the message.

But Fellini....at least try

[André]

That  tobacco counter hides some hilarious and hot stuff indeed. « I can't breathe !  »

What a scene !! 

[vandermolen]

Ha! Yes a very good point. The fractionalisation of History is worrying.

Another boo-boo - I meant 'factionalisation' of history - the dangers of predictive text.

[Karl Henning]

Interesting trivia point: this part was originally supposed to be played by Luis Buñuel, but he was unable to do so for some reason. McLuhan was Allen's second choice.

It's a great moment, like Errol Flynn appearing in the Bugs Bunny short.

[Karl Henning]

Another boo-boo - I meant 'factionalisation' of history - the dangers of predictive text.

If I have missed this, pardon a chap . . . have you seen Dunkirk, Jeffrey?  Thoughts, as an English historian?  Or, as a private citizen? 

[Karl Henning]

I'd try to provide a counter example, if I could think of a film I've seen recently. In this age of proliferating programming sources and internet streaming sophisticated visual storytelling is done in television series. The only thing that's left behind in cinema is comic book movies. I think the humor I see in 'literary' television series is at least as sophisticated as anything Woody Allen did.

Okay.  I do not watch much new TV, so I cannot say.  But your counter-example may still underscore Ebert's point about big-studio movie-making.

[Karl Henning]

Or:  Ebert's remarks date from 2002.  Perhaps the environment has changed . . . .

[Ken B]

Grace of Monaco

This was actually better than it had any right to be.

[Karl Henning]

Grace of Monaco

This was actually better than it had any right to be.

A win, then.

[vandermolen]

If I have missed this, pardon a chap . . . have you seen Dunkirk, Jeffrey?  Thoughts, as an English historian?  Or, as a private citizen? 

Hi Karl,
Yes indeed I did see it at the cinema. Thought it was a great film with a fine soundtrack (playing non-stop). There were complaints that it ignored the French but French soldiers are featured fighting on at the start whilst the British head for the beaches. Some controversy over the role of the RAF, who faced criticism from the soldiers being straffed on the beaches for not being in evidence. The RAF were there, however, keeping the Luftwaffe off as far as possible although this wasn't always seen from the beaches. I think that Admiral Ramsay who coordinated the evacuation featured more in 'Darkest Hour' than in 'Dunkirk' but like 'Darkest Hour' I thought that 'Dunkirk' successfully conveyed the spirit of those momentous weeks in 1940 despite inevitable historical oversights and inaccuracies.

[Karl Henning]

Hi Karl,
Yes indeed I did see it at the cinema. Thought it was a great film with a fine soundtrack (playing non-stop). There were complaints that it ignored the French but French soldiers are featured fighting on at the start whilst the British head for the beaches. Some controversy over the role of the RAF, who faced criticism from the soldiers being straffed on the beaches for not being in evidence. The RAF were there, however, keeping the Luftwaffe off as far as possible although this wasn't always seen from the beaches. I think that Admiral Ramsay who coordinated the evacuation featured more in 'Darkest Hour' than in 'Dunkirk' but like 'Darkest Hour' I thought that 'Dunkirk' successfully conveyed the spirit of those momentous weeks in 1940 despite inevitable historical oversights and inaccuracies.

Thanks!  I need not feel 'historical guilt' in my enjoying it, then

[André]

Hi Karl,
Yes indeed I did see it at the cinema. Thought it was a great film with a fine soundtrack (playing non-stop). There were complaints that it ignored the French but French soldiers are featured fighting on at the start whilst the British head for the beaches. Some controversy over the role of the RAF, who faced criticism from the soldiers being straffed on the beaches for not being in evidence. The RAF were there, however, keeping the Luftwaffe off as far as possible although this wasn't always seen from the beaches. I think that Admiral Ramsay who coordinated the evacuation featured more in 'Darkest Hour' than in 'Dunkirk' but like 'Darkest Hour' I thought that 'Dunkirk' successfully conveyed the spirit of those momentous weeks in 1940 despite inevitable historical oversights and inaccuracies.

This was precisely Nolan's intent, and what we see on the screen: show only what was visible for the men on the beaches/boats, not what was happening on other theaters of events (other battlefield, aerial or on the ground). By strictly restricting the scenario to the men's specific viewpoint he avoided making choices about who, what, where and how to show this or that if it was not something the soldiers on the ground could see.

Similarly, the intrusion of Churchill's famous speech as they land is just a voice over, as it was heard on the radio waves. No need to see Churchill. He's even more present through his voice only. A brilliant move if you ask me. I don't know if Nolan will win on Oscar night, but IMO he has every right to be hopeful.

[vandermolen]

Thanks!  I need not feel 'historical guilt' in my enjoying it, then

On the contrary Karl you should enjoy it without reservation.

[vandermolen]

This was precisely Nolan's intent, and what we see on the screen: show only what was visible for the men on the beaches/boats, not what was happening on other theaters of events (other battlefield, aerial or on the ground). By strictly restricting the scenario to the men's specific viewpoint he avoided making choices about who, what, where and how to show this or that if it was not something the soldiers on the ground could see.

Similarly, the intrusion of Churchill's famous speech as they land is just a voice over, as it was heard on the radio waves. No need to see Churchill. He's even more present through his voice only. A brilliant move if you ask me. I don't know if Nolan will win on Oscar night, but IMO he has every right to be hopeful.

This is a much more eloquent and insightful analysis of the appeal of the film - spot on in all respects.

[Ken B]

This was precisely Nolan's intent, and what we see on the screen: show only what was visible for the men on the beaches/boats, not what was happening on other theaters of events (other battlefield, aerial or on the ground). By strictly restricting the scenario to the men's specific viewpoint he avoided making choices about who, what, where and how to show this or that if it was not something the soldiers on the ground could see.

Similarly, the intrusion of Churchill's famous speech as they land is just a voice over, as it was heard on the radio waves. No need to see Churchill. He's even more present through his voice only. A brilliant move if you ask me. I don't know if Nolan will win on Oscar night, but IMO he has every right to be hopeful.

Yes. The silliest criticism I heard was that no actor was shown as Churchill. Nolan's idea was brilliant ant just right.
It's an amazing script, proving the old adage that screenwriting is construction. There are two peaks in the story. The first, to avoid spoilers, is a single word. The second is the speech, illuminating that word.

[SonicMan46]

Tonight -looked on Amazon to see what might be available for streaming on my 'Movies to See' list - watched the one below:

American Made (2017) w/ Tom Cruise - ratings: 7.2/10, IMDB; 87%, Rotten Tomatoes - about a TWA pilot, Barry Seal, turned to the CIA + drug/gun transport - involved w/ the Columbian Medellin cartel - assassinated in 1986 at 46 years of age - colorful telling of this story w/ Cruise doing a good job - recommended only if interested in the true character and Tom in the role - Amazon rating 4*/5* - I'd do at least a 3 1/2* - entertaining watch - Dave

Barry Seal, a TWA pilot, is recruited by the CIA to provide reconnaissance on the burgeoning communist threat in Central America and soon finds himself in charge of one of the biggest covert CIA operations in the history of the United States. The operation spawns the birth of the Medellin cartel and almost brings down the Reagan White House.

 

[aligreto]

84 Charing Cross Road....

[milk]

This was precisely Nolan's intent, and what we see on the screen: show only what was visible for the men on the beaches/boats, not what was happening on other theaters of events (other battlefield, aerial or on the ground). By strictly restricting the scenario to the men's specific viewpoint he avoided making choices about who, what, where and how to show this or that if it was not something the soldiers on the ground could see.

Similarly, the intrusion of Churchill's famous speech as they land is just a voice over, as it was heard on the radio waves. No need to see Churchill. He's even more present through his voice only. A brilliant move if you ask me. I don't know if Nolan will win on Oscar night, but IMO he has every right to be hopeful.

Yes, that's it. For me, this kind of thing really hits the spot. I also think it's a high degree of difficulty to pull this off. I often dislike movies that try to show many perspectives or that try to portray a "biography" of an event. I like an experience. I think this comes from my bias towards the various movements of realism in cinema. Nolan gives us an experience that we can feel - sitting in a crowded theater. If people want explanations they can certainly read a hundred books on the topic. I hope this one wins the Oscar (though my favorite movies often don't get past the nominations).

[aligreto]

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle....





Remember that one?