Xtratime Community banner

121 - 130 of 130 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
Nah, the script already has the "epic" pioneer theme, is historically grounded, has grand vistas. This is absent fx in Rio Bravo which (almost) could've been set in a police precint in 1976.
Script? THe usual place you can feel the hand of the director is editing and Ford helped out there. Anyways, Westerns do have the epic feeling since always, which leads me to another point about Ford leaving the big studies in the turn of 40's: Western was already a genre in decline, both in movies but general arts. America was more urban, pulp and hard boiled fiction was already being published replacing the figure of lone gunsman/sherif in the american imaginary. Stagecoach was already a risky project and the juggernaut Gone with the Wind pretty much re-wrote American mythology from the Western themes to the Civil War and became the great american epic telling about the new kind of hero, the entrepreneur with a cynical moral compass. Not much different from what happened in XIX century, when the most romantic and idealist literature of Emerson, Whitman or Cooper was challenged by the darker, cynical and gritter Hawthorne, Melville and Poe.
No wonder, so many Westerns of quality after the 40's were desconstruction, with My Darling Clementine working as a Swan Song (I suppose the distance from the myth helped to give the movie it is universal feeling). The movie is quite melancholy with (perhaps over the top) Doc Holliday with shakespeare proportions. This makes High Noon (which I forgot to mention, just like forgot to mention Fred Zinneman) quite a metalinguistic movie: the hero and the dame in distress are quite archetypical, but the problem are not them, but society that refuses to acknowledge them, pretty much like the audience turned away from western movies.

Ford still won Oscars only for the non-Westerns, although he was nominated for Stagecoach, whereas Hitch was nominated for several thrillers, not just Rebecca which had the castle and the fancy dresses.

Yeah, but this is beyond Ford and Hitchy. Westerns won Oscars, where more glamourized, etc. Hitch was basically the only director able to break the rejection to his dark themes during the golden Hollywood age. Of course, you can say Ford was more american than Hitch too and since both are the leading minds on those genres, this may be a fair cause of reckognition by the public.

But Tokyo Story did appear. Even Kurosawa's highest placed film is also after Late Spring. :sneaky: Granted, it's just a list every ten years.

Not the only list, I mean, lists are meant to be wrong, alone they mean little and only make sense if Pele is the only name in the list. I was a bit unfair with Chaplin, he had a lot of control of his movies and I think this show for example in Great Dictador and Modern Times and both are made in a way that overall technical devleopment or anything more complex reggarding editing or Wellesim wouldn't affect much those movies.

You can see the results in 2002 are a bit different https://web.archive.org/web/20021019225844/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/index.html , so you have to wait if that iis showing some tendecy ressurgency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,688 Posts
Script? THe usual place you can feel the hand of the director is editing and Ford helped out there. Anyways, Westerns do have the epic feeling since always, which leads me to another point about Ford leaving the big studies in the turn of 40's: Western was already a genre in decline, both in movies but general arts. America was more urban, pulp and hard boiled fiction was already being published replacing the figure of lone gunsman/sherif in the american imaginary. Stagecoach was already a risky project and the juggernaut Gone with the Wind pretty much re-wrote American mythology from the Western themes to the Civil War and became the great american epic telling about the new kind of hero, the entrepreneur with a cynical moral compass. Not much different from what happened in XIX century, when the most romantic and idealist literature of Emerson, Whitman or Cooper was challenged by the darker, cynical and gritter Hawthorne, Melville and Poe.
No wonder, so many Westerns of quality after the 40's were desconstruction, with My Darling Clementine working as a Swan Song (I suppose the distance from the myth helped to give the movie it is universal feeling). The movie is quite melancholy with (perhaps over the top) Doc Holliday with shakespeare proportions. This makes High Noon (which I forgot to mention, just like forgot to mention Fred Zinneman) quite a metalinguistic movie: the hero and the dame in distress are quite archetypical, but the problem are not them, but society that refuses to acknowledge them, pretty much like the audience turned away from western movies.
You couldn't well edit in grand tableaus if none were filmed to begin with. The famous Ford remark after seeing Red River "I didn't know the SoB could act!" makes sense only because he hadn't directed Wayne. And the grounding in history and the mythological aspect is in the story already, first cattle drive to Abelene or wherever it is. Sure, it was in many Westerns, but not in the other of Hawks' (and not in most Anthony Mann Westerns either fx), he didn't really seem to care. Rio Bravo to my mind was a succesful deconstruction of the deconstructing High Noon btw.



Yeah, but this is beyond Ford and Hitchy. Westerns won Oscars, where more glamourized, etc. Hitch was basically the only director able to break the rejection to his dark themes during the golden Hollywood age. Of course, you can say Ford was more american than Hitch too and since both are the leading minds on those genres, this may be a fair cause of reckognition by the public.

Westerns didn't win Oscars though, not even the prestige films of the 1950s like Shane or The Big Country.

As for thrillers (overlapping noirs), there were some like Gaslight, Double Indemnity, The Third Man (not particular favourites of mine, but succesful).



Not the only list, I mean, lists are meant to be wrong, alone they mean little and only make sense if Pele is the only name in the list. I was a bit unfair with Chaplin, he had a lot of control of his movies and I think this show for example in Great Dictador and Modern Times and both are made in a way that overall technical devleopment or anything more complex reggarding editing or Wellesim wouldn't affect much those movies.

You can see the results in 2002 are a bit different https://web.archive.org/web/20021019225844/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/index.html , so you have to wait if that iis showing some tendecy ressurgency.
Three in a row for Ozu is just fine since he was still relatively little known in 1982.

No need to defend Chaplin's uniqueness to me, unless you want to set him apart from Ford or something (no need for that either imo).
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
You couldn't well edit in grand tableaus if none were filmed to begin with. The famous Ford remark after seeing Red River "I didn't know the SoB could act!" makes sense only because he hadn't directed Wayne. And the grounding in history and the mythological aspect is in the story already, first cattle drive to Abelene or wherever it is. Sure, it was in many Westerns, but not in the other of Hawks' (and not in most Anthony Mann Westerns either fx), he didn't really seem to care. Rio Bravo to my mind was a succesful deconstruction of the deconstructing High Noon btw.
With editing you can change everything that was filmed, but that is not my point (nor it is to claim it is a Ford movie), but the reason you feel the fordish aspects in the movie it is because Fords fingers are there. Of course, whole aspect of already stabilished motifs and such were there, since Hawks was also quite relevant in building them.

Westerns didn't win Oscars though, not even the prestige films of the 1950s like Shane or The Big Country.

As for thrillers (overlapping noirs), there were some like Gaslight, Double Indemnity, The Third Man (not particular favourites of mine, but succesful).
Third Man was not even nominated for best movie and westerns did win: Cimarron (and latter they had Dance with Wolves and Unforgiven) and they still got more nominations and some of the other prestigious prizes. The Treasure of Sierra Madre, High Noon, Shane or Stagecoach were strong favorites at the time and you can see more prestige directors dealing with "prestige" western than thrillers (thrillers in the Hitchcook sense, of course, police thrillers like French Conection are exactly what kind of movie that replaced Westerns). Noir movies had art status since day one too.

Three in a row for Ozu is just fine since he was still relatively little known in 1982.
Yes, but look the other movies being voted in the public selection. It is obvious a rather selected audience/readers voting there and Andy comment about more recent movies not cutting in just come as true. So, he was little known, but half of the list is made of little known (hyperbolic half of the list,) movies or at least movies you would need to search for in clubs, etc.

No need to defend Chaplin's uniqueness to me, unless you want to set him apart from Ford or something (no need for that either imo).
Just correcting my mistake, Nothing else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,688 Posts
I think one could do worse than 800 people who presumably know a bit about world cinema history when you're looking for a vote on the best films in world cinema history. But by all means, we could settle for the director's poll, then you get your Coppolas and Kubricks in the top 10/20, though Tokyo Story is #1 in that one. 😁
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,545 Posts
You dont need to defend the poll, it is a valid poll. My point it is that to that specific audience, Tokyo Story is not unknown as it is to IMBD users. Quite otherwise, by the kind of movies voted, there is a handful of more obscure movies there, so I would say, it is the kind of audience that would expect to know Tokyo Story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,052 Posts
hardly any obscure movies on those lists. mostly standard canonical classics. rather some questionable titles on them, mainly on the critics poll, like mulholland drive or shoah. instead they let stranger than paradise or even worse, deus e diabo na terra do sol, out. plus they prove they have not much clue, for putting Il Gattopardo on #57 only 🤦

at least they got 8 1/2 right, as Fellini‘s best
 
121 - 130 of 130 Posts
Top