Film Buffery

[Disinfo Agent]

Went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Enjoyed it.

[blueshift]

Oh, it does, I'll admit. It's why I rated it a three out of ten. But I just couldn't sit through it more than once, and I like cinemtography myself. It's why I've rated most Kubrick films higher than I would based on story alone. The man, brilliant though he was, had a tin ear for plot.

Actually, many disagree here and think that was Kubrick's strength. He objected to the way stories were told and wanted to tell them in a different manner. He made one tear-jerker ("Paths of Glory") and refused to make anything like that again. When he made 2001 he showed how the infancy of a human race is like the infancy of any human. First we learn to breathe, then eat and then walk and we must contend with free-falling, which dominated that film. Kubrick wanted to give out visual messages instead of verbal except in one film, A Clockwork Orange.

His last film (Eyes Wide Shut) was about dream science and he rearranged the background and travel directions and had mail boxes moving into differing locations along with address sequences that made no sense at all. All the subplots ran into walls as well because that is precisely what happens when we dream, with logic breaking completely down while we go right along with it as we dream. He used sexaual images as masks. The film had nothing to do with sex or jealousy. The book "Dreaming, an Introduction to the science of sleep" by J. Allan Hobson was in its making as Kubrick made the film. His telling the actors to disagree with the way it was advertised was a part of the film along with making the audience a participant. The whole film was a dream, starting in the evening and ending in one morning.
He wanted to fool his followers with this one and he did.

[Gillianren]

Actually, many disagree here and think that was Kubrick's strength.

Interesting. My friend who's the biggest Kubrick fan I know agrees with me.

[blueshift]

Interesting. My friend who's the biggest Kubrick fan I know agrees with me.

I am sure there are many that do. But what intrigues one differs from what intrigues another.

Remember those old 'Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce films about Sherlock Holmes? I absolutely loved them. But what was missing in them that would have made them more interesting? I felt that it would be nice if some director would come along and let the audience play the role of Sherlock Holmes and figure things out for ourselves. Kubrick provided me with that.

The trouble with plots is that they don't reflect life at all. All loose ends are tied together and the reader or viewer gets to understand everyone's motive. So when we die no one fights over the will? And nobody is surprised just who does hire the lawyer to contest the will? Loose ends don't tie together.If anything they split into more pieces.

Secondly, science is portrayed by the film industry as something done in a hurry without regard for the patience it really took to build up this technology and the patience it takes to understand it. Even the teachers nowadays speak with road rage. 2001 was paced perfectly. It irritated an impatience and unscientific audience that needed to learn to slow down in order to learn. Too bad many never picked up on that. Try speed reading MTW's Gravitation or a book on calculus and see where that gets you.

If Kubrick's works had one pattern at all it was that he built up tension slowly in a film like snowflakes piling up until one mistake would bring everything down like an avalanche on the characters, rendering them into puppets, uttering nothing but old worn out cliches who are now at the mercy of their fragile existence.

Stephen Spielberg once told Kubrick that he didn't like the "Shining" at all because he thought that Jack Nicolson went too far over the top. Kubrick smiled and looked at him and then asked to name his favorite actors of all time. After Spielberg reeled off a long list Kubrick responded, "Now did you notice that you didn't include James Cagney in that list?" Speilberg then slapped himself in the forehead and went to see the film again and then again and again. It is now one of his favorite films of all time.

[Gillianren]

Stephen Spielberg once told Kubrick that he didn't like the "Shining" at all because he thought that Jack Nicolson went too far over the top. Kubrick smiled and looked at him and then asked to name his favorite actors of all time. After Spielberg reeled off a long list Kubrick responded, "Now did you notice that you didn't include James Cagney in that list?" Speilberg then slapped himself in the forehead and went to see the film again and then again and again. It is now one of his favorite films of all time.

I'm sorry to hear that, if indeed it is true. Besides, James Cagney could quite often give understated performances, which Jack Nicholson, Gods love him, cannot. The fact is, Jack Nicholson was horribly miscast, as I've said before. It's not that he goes over the top at the end. It's that he starts over the top. To be played correctly, Jack Torrance must start as a normal guy. As Stephen King, whose opinion on the film I trust rather more, has said himself more than once.

I disagree, incidentally, that Kubrick has any specialization in letting you figure things out for yourself. Often, I find there's nothing there to figure out. I haven't watched any Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes in years (I don't like Sherlock Holmes), but there are quite a few mystery movies out there that let you figure things out on your own. Further, I think Kubrick himself worked to tie up loose ends. He just did a bad job at it.

[blueshift]

I'm sorry to hear that, if indeed it is true.

Rent "Eyes Wide Shut" and click on the extras that come with the film. The interviews are with Kidman, Cruise and Spielberg. Stephen says it right there.

Besides, James Cagney could quite often give understated performances, which Jack Nicholson, Gods love him, cannot. The fact is, Jack Nicholson was horribly miscast, as I've said before. It's not that he goes over the top at the end. It's that he starts over the top. To be played correctly, Jack Torrance must start as a normal guy.

Here is where I recall Nicholson actually starting out as low key but protected, as if he was hiding something. You apparently didn't think so. In the interview he even smiles quietly at the inteviewer and tells him that his wife is a real buff on horror films.

As Stephen King, whose opinion on the film I trust rather more, has said himself more than once.

If Kubrick did make one mistake it was taking something King wrote. Stephen King made predictable films and his rendition of the Shining was no match to Kubrick's.

I disagree, incidentally, that Kubrick has any specialization in letting you figure things out for yourself. Often, I find there's nothing there to figure out. I haven't watched any Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes in years (I don't like Sherlock Holmes), but there are quite a few mystery movies out there that let you figure things out on your own. Further, I think Kubrick himself worked to tie up loose ends. He just did a bad job at it.

I guess it depends on one's view and what evidence that one is gathering. For instance, I found it particularly curious that so many people thought that the monolith was something that instructed humans how to use tools. While it had a shape that differed from humans and could transport itself across space, why should that qualify it has having any more consciousness than that of a bird, which can do something humans can't do as well. I pictured the monolith as being just as ignorant and puzzled by the humans as the humans were puzzled by it. It then took a journey toward more consciousness without the tool dependency humans had in the same time span that humans learned to fly to the Moon. It was as dumb as they were in the start and was equally as puzzled in the ending. So it decided to do what anyone does when things seem screwed up and messy by starting over on another path.

Further, I thought that HAL was a touch like Pinnochio, listening to the breathing creatures he was working with and, perhaps, wondering if making a mistake would make it become human. After all, humans forgive their offspring when they make mistakes, don't they? Shouldn't they do the same for a computer? They wouldn't try and kill HAL over one mistake would they? And if they did plot it out, how would a child react? With rage? How do siblings mistreat one another? By locking the other out of the house? "Open the bay pod door please HAL".

Maybe it was my experience in the military that was a dead match to "Full Metal Jacket" that kept me after his films. (Two drill sergeants were blown away the cycle before me at Fort Knox) I didn't see him as infallable.

[EricM407]

I'm sorry to hear that, if indeed it is true. Besides, James Cagney could quite often give understated performances, which Jack Nicholson, Gods love him, cannot.

Actually, in "The Pledge" he's very un-Nicholson.

[HenrikOlsen]

Here is where I recall Nicholson actually starting out as low key but protected, as if he was hiding something. You apparently didn't think so. In the interview he even smiles quietly at the inteviewer and tells him that his wife is a real buff on horror films.

The problem with Nicholson in that role as I see it wasn't actually that he starts too over the top, but that simply by being Jack Nicholson we know from the start that he will blow up.

If they remake it, I'd like to see someone like Kevin Spacey as he can do completely crazy, but it's a surprise when he does and not just what you expect after seeing him.

[Gillianren]

If they remake it, I'd like to see someone like Kevin Spacey as he can do completely crazy, but it's a surprise when he does and not just what you expect after seeing him.

There's a made-for-TV remake. A four-hour miniseries. It's not terribly good in a lot of other ways, but Steven Weber does make a rather more believable Jack Torrance, and Gods know that Rebecca DeMornay is better at Wendy. Then again, it would be hard to be worse!

[Parrothead]

Saturday Nights, TVO (a PBS type station) airs Saturday Night at the Movies, they air a couple of films with a theme linking them. Last Saturday, I set the VCR taping, the theme was "The Cold War", more specifically John LeCarre's take on it.

The first one I had seen before, a few times and have read the novel. The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (1965), directed by Martin Ritt, stars: Richard Burton, Claire Bloom, Oskar Werner, Sam Wanamaker, Peter van Eyck. A spy handler Alec Leamus (Burton) posted in Berlin, coming to grips with his network of men being compromised. Called back to London he is offered a chance to "come in from the cold". His boss "Control" states things bluntly about their work:

I mean you've got to compare method with method, and ideal with ideal. I would say since the war, our methods - ours and those of the opposition - have become much the same. I mean you can't be less ruthless than the opposition simply because your government's policy is benevolent, can you now?

Refusing the desk job, Leamus is offerred another job. Plot twists ensue.

Instead of being action oriented, the movie is faithful to the novel and is plot driven, heck watch, listen to the dialogue and enjoy. Even when he doesn't speak, Burton manages to push things along with his facial expressions and movements. Filmed in b&w which really works for this excellent film.

Between movies a 15 - 20 minute piece, where a movie critic and an IR prof/author discuss LeCarre's spy tales and his more human/believable take on the genre. Also included were some clips from an early 1990's interview with Martin Ritt. It was interesting.

The second film, I hadn't seen before. The Deadly Affair (1966), directed by Sidney Lumet, stars: James Mason, Simone Signoret, Maximilian Schell, Harriet Andersson, Harry Andrews. Based on LeCarre's novel Call For The Dead. Charles Dobbs/George Smiley (James Mason) investigates the death of a Foreign Office staffer he had just interviewed. Unable to accept it is suicide, he leaves his job and with the help of a retiring soon/retired police officer (Harry Andrews), investigates the death. Andrews' character adds some humour to this film. Again more plot than action driven, which causes this one to seem to drag. Towards the end, there is a scene which takes place in a theatre with the Royal Shakespeare Company staging Edward II, the actor playing Edward II looked familiar, it's David Warner. Not as good as TSWCIFTC, but worth a look if you enjoy LeCarre. Apparently, they couldn't use Smiley and a couple of other character names in this one, as Paramount owned the rights to the names. Mason does a good job as Dobbs, seeking balance in his work and personal life.

I'll have to track down copies of the BBC's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People mini-series', with Alec Guinness playing the part of Smiley. Been sometime since I've seen them, I remember them to be excellent.

[Donnie B.]

I'll have to track down copies of the BBC's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People mini-series', with Alec Guinness playing the part of Smiley. Been sometime since I've seen them, I remember them to be excellent.

So do I. Are they available on DVD?

[Parrothead]

So do I. Are they available on DVD?

Yup. I'm doing a bit more searching, but generally I'm finding each set is just over $50 (cdn). I'll also check if the library or video store carries them, so I can view them before deciding on purchasing.

[blueshift]

The problem with Nicholson in that role as I see it wasn't actually that he starts too over the top, but that simply by being Jack Nicholson we know from the start that he will blow up.

If they remake it, I'd like to see someone like Kevin Spacey as he can do completely crazy, but it's a surprise when he does and not just what you expect after seeing him.

The trouble with remaking anything is that the audience knows the outcome and another version of the "Shining" is not going to match Kubrick's skill with a camera. Don't remake any film. None of the remakes of any films I have seen were worth viewing again. That's like taping a sporting event and hoping that one of the times you play it back the outcome will change.

Music is the same way. I like music that is foreign and unfamiliar to me. Niya Yesh, Rokia Traore, Geoffrey Oryema, ethiopiques, etc. When I get bored with those I will look for something newer to me. (I only listen to music about 3 times a year).

[Donnie B.]

Some people say the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers was better than the original. I don't, but not because I disagree -- I just haven't seen them both all the way through.

However, that one could be the lone exception. Most remakes aren't worth the celluloid they're shot on.

(Yes, I know they don't use celluliod any more.)

[LotusExcelle]

I agree that most remakes are a waste of time. However there was one remake recently that I preferred over the original version. "The Ring" I felt was much better than "Ringu". The original just didn't seem to have the constant creepy atmosphere that the remake (remarkably) pulled off.

[Van Rijn]

Some people say the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers was better than the original.

Which one? There are at least three movies that were intended as "remakes":

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Body Snatchers (1993)
The Invasion (2007)

I've seen the first two, but not this most recent one.

[Gillianren]

So the 1910 Frankenstein was the best? The 1925 The Wizard of Oz? (Not that I like the '39 one, but that's kind of not the point.) I agree that many remakes are horrible and pointless, but to say they're all bad and should never be done leaves out some awfully good movies.

[HenrikOlsen]

I was about to post my own list, but you beat me to it

[Gillianren]

I was about to post my own list, but you beat me to it

You've done it before, as I recall, so in fact I just ripped you off. My own remake.

[HenrikOlsen]

As has been mentioned earlier by someone I can't remember now, making a movie of a book can make a great movie even if someone else has already made a movie of the same book while remaking a movie almost never improves it.

Body Snatchers and indeed Frankenstein, Dracula, Oz, The Three Musketeers and all the others I tend to roll out when the subject comes up are all examples of the former.

[Gillianren]

I know there's been at least one straight-out remake of a movie that I've seen and preferred to the original, but I cannot now remember what it was. (I like the remake of Bedazzled, but I've never seen the original, so that's not it.)

At any rate, we watched Citizen Kane again tonight, and I was again caught by the amazing cinematography of that movie. Three of us in the room had seen it, and two had not. One even managed to have gone almost 23 years without ever having had the ending spoiled for him, and it was interesting to hear the ideas he had about what "Rosebud" was.

[geonuc]

We watched The Station Agent last night. Excellent film, and the first I've seen with a dwarf (Peter Dinklage) in the lead role. Patricia Clarkson, who I remember from the HBO series Six Feet Under, does an good job as well.
Recommended.

[gzhpcu]

As has been mentioned earlier by someone I can't remember now, making a movie of a book can make a great movie even if someone else has already made a movie of the same book while remaking a movie almost never improves it.

Body Snatchers and indeed Frankenstein, Dracula, Oz, The Three Musketeers and all the others I tend to roll out when the subject comes up are all examples of the former.

There are many versions of The Three Musketeers. The one I like the best, is the 1948 take with Gene Kelly and Lana Turner. Kelly is truly acrobatic and no fake scenes are needed. Today such scenes are either in slow motion (because the actor can't do it, or with improbable CGI effects)

Gene Kelly is a very convincing D'Artagnan and Lana Turner, perfect as Milady. The rest of the cast fit in their roles very well. Also fairly faithful to the original.

[HenrikOlsen]

There are many versions of The Three Musketeers. The one I like the best, is the 1948 take with Gene Kelly and Lana Turner. Kelly is truly acrobatic and no fake scenes are needed.
...
Also fairly faithful to the original.

That one's my favorite as well, it's interesting to see how many of the versions lets Mme Bonacieux survive and have written out the execution of Mylady.

It's also a good example of my thesis that if you want good martial arts on screen and you don't have a martial artist, pick an actor who is also a professional dancer.

Body Snatchers is, with three, the one with fewest versions on the list I made, The Three Musketeers had already been filmed a dozen or so times before the 1948 version was made.

[لطفيّ]

So the 1910 Frankenstein was the best? The 1925 The Wizard of Oz? (Not that I like the '39 one, but that's kind of not the point.) I agree that many remakes are horrible and pointless, but to say they're all bad and should never be done leaves out some awfully good movies.

I think most people prefer the 1956 The Man Who Knew Too Much also.

[Gillianren]

I suspect most people don't know the other one exists. I like the second one better, though I do generally prefer Peter Lorre films to Doris Day films.

Oh, and welcome! Read the rules and stay a while.

[لطفيّ]

I suspect most people don't know the other one exists. I like the second one better, though I do generally prefer Peter Lorre films to Doris Day films.

I think which one I prefer probably depends on which day it is

Oh, and welcome!

Thank you!

Read the rules and stay a while.

I have been a lurker for some time, so I think I know most of the rules, and have also gotten used to the unusual form of greeting at this board

[Gillianren]

I think which one I prefer probably depends on which day it is

I watched That Touch of Mink and The Glass-Bottom Boat not that long ago, and while I do like Pillow Talk, I wasn't too impressed with the other two.

I have been a lurker for some time, so I think I know most of the rules, and have also gotten used to the unusual form of greeting at this board

I'm sure you understand why we say it, too.

[لطفيّ]

I watched That Touch of Mink and The Glass-Bottom Boat not that long ago, and while I do like Pillow Talk, I wasn't too impressed with the other two.

I am sorry, I referred to the two versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much, not to Peter Lorre against Doris Day. Of these two, I prefer Peter Lorre

[Gillianren]

Ah. Sorry for the misunderstanding.