Last Movie You Watched

[Karl Henning]

Needing a palate-cleanser from Der Ring, I'm re-watching the 1939 Of Mice and Men with Burgess Meredith as George, Lon Chaney, Jr as Lennie and Betty Field as Mae.

[San Antone]

Hannah and Her Sisters



Among my favorites from Allen.

[T. D.]

[AnotherSpin]

Ah, Ma Mère, Dieu et Sylvie Vartan, a cracking film about love that's bigger than life itself. True love, mind you, not the soppy stuff about shagging. It's got God, a pop icon, and enough French flair to make your heart do the twist. No fluffy romance here, just proper, mad, glorious devotion. Jolly good film.

[Roasted Swan]

My £4 a ticket local cinema is showing this this week;



Set in 1916 its about a small Yorkshire town's choral society trying to put on a concert despite the loss of so many male singers to the Front Line.  They decide to perform The Dream of Gerontius.  The script is by Alan Bennett and its directed ny Nicholas Hytner. 

My wife enjoyed it more than me.  A strong British cast, some nice typically Bennett(ian) one-liners but the whole film feels out of time and flawed in terms of characters and place.  So set in 1916 with very much 2020-style attitudes/morals.  For some reason they have Elgar turn up (having driven in an open top car from Manchester an hour away in full Doctorial robes from an investiture at the University).  Then they make him slightly pervy - offering the young woman who is going to sing The Angel (why is she cast as a soprano not a contralto?) access to lessons in return for implied "favours". 

Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor - can't conduct AT ALL (despite having a coach in the credits!) and he seems a bit weary throughout.  None of that intensity that marks his finest roles.  Nicholas Hytner thinks it would be a good idea to do a "semi-staged" version of the work which has some interesting basic ideas; Gerontius = Soldier, Angel = Nurse but it all feels very "National Theatre" not real-world let alone 1916.  That concept works because in the film you get tiny little filleted excerpts which makes for some striking images/equivalences but would be impossible to make coherent through an entire performance. 

The closing sequence of the latest group of young men departing by train to the front line is powerful as it is accompanied by the Elder/Halle/Coote recording of the Angel's Farewell and is genuinely moving (a fine musical performance).

One of those cosy period films that tries to have a wider message but fails.  I really hoped it would be better than this.....

[Karl Henning]

Needing a palate-cleanser from Der Ring, I'm re-watching the 1939 Of Mice and Men with Burgess Meredith as George, Lon Chaney, Jr as Lennie and Betty Field as Mae.

And, what I had forgotten: music by Aaron Copland. 

[Madiel]

Hail, Caesar!



Oh yes, this is SUCH a Coen Brothers film.

And frequently very funny. Ultimately it does feel a little disjointed, and even by the standards of this stuff the 2nd of Channing Tatum's two big scenes is completely ridiculous, but I had a good time.

The film looks fantastic, a love letter to bad Hollywood movies. I'm sure there were some things where making it look dated was a heck of a lot of work.

[Cato]

My £4 a ticket local cinema is showing this this week;



Set in 1916 its about a small Yorkshire town's choral society trying to put on a concert despite the loss of so many male singers to the Front Line.  They decide to perform The Dream of Gerontius.  The script is by Alan Bennett and its directed ny Nicholas Hytner. 

My wife enjoyed it more than me.  A strong British cast, some nice typically Bennett(ian) one-liners but the whole film feels out of time and flawed in terms of characters and place.  So set in 1916 with very much 2020-style attitudes/morals.  For some reason they have Elgar turn up (having driven in an open top car from Manchester an hour away in full Doctorial robes from an investiture at the University).  Then they make him slightly pervy - offering the young woman who is going to sing The Angel (why is she cast as a soprano not a contralto?) access to lessons in return for implied "favours". 

Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor - can't conduct AT ALL (despite having a coach in the credits!) and he seems a bit weary throughout.  None of that intensity that marks his finest roles.  Nicholas Hytner thinks it would be a good idea to do a "semi-staged" version of the work which has some interesting basic ideas; Gerontius = Soldier, Angel = Nurse but it all feels very "National Theatre" not real-world let alone 1916.  That concept works because in the film you get tiny little filleted excerpts which makes for some striking images/equivalences but would be impossible to make coherent through an entire performance. 

The closing sequence of the latest group of young men departing by train to the front line is powerful as it is accompanied by the Elder/Halle/Coote recording of the Angel's Farewell and is genuinely moving (a fine musical performance).

One of those cosy period films that tries to have a wider message but fails.  I really hoped it would be better than this.....

Your review reminds me of a movie from 1925, The Big Parade, one of the greatest silent movies ever made.  I saw a truncated version 70 years ago, and it was an eye opener in so many ways, even on an early television set.

Here is one of the scenes which stamped itself into my memory:

The actor, John Gilbert, was one of the biggest stars in the Silent Era: supposedly his voice was not what people had been imagining, but the truth was much more complicated, involving alcoholism and deliberate sabotaging of his career via studio heads and fellow actors.  He died before age 40 of alcoholism.

The actress, Renee Adoree, (yes, she was French, and what a name!), also had a great career, but died early in the sound era at age 31 (or 35, depending on the source) of a "lung disease."

[Fëanor]

Glad I gave this a second viewing, because I've almost completely reversed my position. Its not at all like its rushing or struggling to get through all the plot you need a miniseries to do justice, in fact its remarkable how leisurely and unhurried it is and how confident it is that it can move the story in just minimal gestures rather than big talky scenes. Though if you hadn't seen the miniseries or read the novel already I can't say how quickly lost you might be by the lack of clearer explanations.

When did Benedict Cumberbatch become a household name? Because I don't remember thinking of the young guy as him from the first viewing. Likewise Tom Hardy.

I'm struggling to get through my 2nd watching of the film.

Comparisons between this Tinker Tailor Solider Spy version and the BBC miniseries of 1979 are invidious, likewise the comparison between Gary Oldman and Alec Guinness, (IMHO) ... And also perhaps between Colin Firth and Ian Richardson.

[Karl Henning]

I'm struggling to get through my 2nd watching of the film.

Comparisons between this Tinker Tailor Solider Spy version and the BBC miniseries of 1979 are invidious, likewise the comparison between Gary Oldman and Alec Guinness, (IMHO) ... And also perhaps between Colin Firth and Ian Richardson.

FWIW, I like the movie all right, and watching the BBC miniseries is on my "To Do" list. I anticipate thorough enjoyment. 

[SimonNZ]

I'm struggling to get through my 2nd watching of the film.

Comparisons between this Tinker Tailor Solider Spy version and the BBC miniseries of 1979 are invidious, likewise the comparison between Gary Oldman and Alec Guinness, (IMHO) ... And also perhaps between Colin Firth and Ian Richardson.

Finished reading the novel this morning. I was a little surprised to discover that a scene that is in both the miniseries and the film near both endings of someone with a rifle and someone getting shot isn't actually in the book. The same person is found dead, but maybe it was that person that did it, but maybe it wasn't.

[SimonNZ]

Listening to a podcast episode on the film 2001 I pricked my ears at the statement that in the chess game between Hal and Poole that Hal cheats by saying it has a mate in three, this being either an early sign that Hal is glitching or it's a test of Poole to see if he can spot the lie, which he can't.

Turns out that's not true, its just slightly misstated. Looking into this I find this helpful wikipedia page on the 1910 game that Kubrick - a chess fanatic - used for the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poole_versus_HAL_9000

(really the lie told by Hal was "Thank you for a very enjoyable game." Whoever that "Roesch" was in 1910 they had played very weakly.)

[AnotherSpin]

Listening to a podcast episode on the film 2001 I pricked my ears at the statement that in the chess game between Hal and Poole that Hal cheats by saying it has a mate in three, this being either an early sign that Hal is glitching or it's a test of Poole to see if he can spot the lie, which he can't.

Turns out that's not true, its just slightly misstated. Looking into this I find this helpful wikipedia page on the 1910 game that Kubrick - a chess fanatic - used for the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poole_versus_HAL_9000

(really the lie told by Hal was "Thank you for a very enjoyable game." Whoever that "Roesch" was in 1910 they had played very weakly.)

Thank you, this is a fine moment. Kubrick loved chess. He chose a real old game in which one player made major mistakes. HAL plays it perfectly and wins quickly.

HAL is a super-intelligent computer trapped in a "win or lose" mindset. In Advaita, that is maya, the illusion of separation. HAL sees only pieces locked in conflict.

Yet HAL makes a tiny slip: he describes the move from the human player's perspective. It is a small crack in his otherwise perfect logic. Poole loses and does not even notice. That is all right; humans are not machines. In the film, people are capable of moving beyond games and tools. The monolith helps us evolve into the Star Child, free, whole, and united with everything.

The chess game tells us that HAL prevails within duality. Humans can simply stop playing and awaken to oneness.

[SimonNZ]

The monolith helps us evolve into the Star Child, free, whole, and united with everything.

I fear that may be an optimistic reading of the ending. In Clarke's novel the reborn Bowman considers his uncertain new power in exactly the same words that the neanderthal with the bone describes his.

[AnotherSpin]

I fear that may be an optimistic reading of the ending. In Clarke's novel the reborn Bowman considers his uncertain new power in exactly the same words that the neanderthal with the bone describes his.

I read the book a very long time ago and might miss some details. Still, as I recall, the similarity is there on the surface. The primitive man is not sure how to use the tool. The Star Child is not sure what to do next, but believes he will figure something out. I think Clarke wants to show a cycle, or rather a spiral, moving to a qualitatively higher level.

Is it all optimistic? I am not sure, but there is nothing optimistic about liberation. The optimists are the ones walking in circles.

[SimonNZ]

I read the book a very long time ago and might miss some details. Still, as I recall, the similarity is there on the surface. The primitive man is not sure how to use the tool. The Star Child is not sure what to do next, but believes he will figure something out. I think Clarke wants to show a cycle, or rather a spiral, moving to a qualitatively higher level.

Is it all optimistic? I am not sure, but there is nothing optimistic about liberation. The optimists are the ones walking in circles.

for what its worth...the podcast guys believe that when the reborn Bowman is looking at Earth it is without the ring of nuclear deployment weapons we see at the start of the Blue Danube sequence, and that he has rid them with his first thought


edt: and random connection with having just read Le Carre's Tinker Taylor....the title Kubrick took for Eyes Wide Shut almost certainly comes from that novel: the scene where Smiley visits the (ex-)archivist Connie Sachs

"Now, Stanley had defected while he was on a mailfist job in The Hague, she
explained. He was by profession an assassin of some sort and had been sent to
Holland to murder a Russian émigré who was getting on Centre's nerves.
Instead, he decided to give himself up. "Some girl had made a fool of him," said
Connie with great contempt. "The Dutch set him a honey trap, my dear, and he
barged in with his eyes wide shut.""