ILX Film Club, The (1924-2019)

Here is an idea I hope catches on.
I've made a spreadsheet compiling

* The top 100 from the ILX Morbsies
* Any additional films which had a 1st place vote in said Morbsies
* The top 100 from the Sight & Sound critics' poll
* The top 100 from the Sight & Sound directors' poll

Here is the spreadsheet - please tell me if there is anything wrong and I'll do my best to fix it.

And I'm going to watch all 205 of them, one per week, in chronological order, until I finish at the start of 2027. And you can join me! If you like.

The first on the list is Sherlock Jr., from 1924 - I'll watch it this weekend, then it will be open for discussion from Monday 13th. It will be easy to share links at the start, as we go on will need more help probably. If people want to rate the films as we go, please feel free, don't think I will.

Think this will be useful for me as I have only seen 78 of these before, despite having spent three years at film school, hope it's useful to you too.

I've been privately working on catching up on the missing films from these polls; this could be fun, though, after looking at the spreadsheet, I'd be skipping the movies I haven't seen that only made the list due to someone here listing it at #1 on their ballot.

think there are only something like 15 of those in any case, we'll see how you feel when we get to Holiday On The Buses, but this project is very much a hop on, hop off deal.

Hugh Leonard, reviewing Holiday on the Buses gave the film zero stars out of four. Leonard added "This one should be buried in unhallowed ground".

I'll for sure chime in even if I haven't given the movie a fresh watch. (But I'll try my best to give each film a fresh watch.)

^ditto (except for this part)

I've been slowly watching the ones I haven't seen from the S&S top 100. It's only about 10 (though I might not see Peele's "Get Out" as I don't fancy it and it's obviously going to drop off next time).

Might extend it to the 250.

Another 40 on the rest. Would watch most of it bar Blue by Jarman. Fuck that shit.

Or Annie Hall.

Why Blue? I've always meant to "watch" that as I love a few of his other films.

xp Yeah this same project 20 years ago would have at least four or five Woody Allen films on the list, instead of zero.

I find Jarman's films to be pretty exasperating, and I feel I will hate it even when the subject matter is sad.

xp

i will try to participate, when i can! i find it really difficult to take part in film discussions, for various reasons, but i do enjoy watching them. i'm no kind of old-school buff but, due to the ilx influence (and using morbs' letterboxd list) i've seen a lot of the earlier films here, and within the last several months, to boot. it'll be nice to give them a rewatch so soon after my first encounter with them.

Sherlock Jr. is perfectly 45 minutes long

Or Annie Hall.
― xyzzzz

I'm probably one of the few (only?) people on here who was heartened to see Annie Hall show up. Not defending Woody Allen, just glad there are some people left who can make that distinction between the person and the film (easier with Rosemary's Baby/Chinatown, I think, just because they're so much better as films; also, Polanski's largely invisible, though he does have the cameo in Chinatown).

For some other thread, I know.

I think that this film club needs to do the On The Buses film trilogy to truly capture how it was in Ted Heath's Pre & Post EEC Britain.

I think we can all agree that the ending to Annie Hall is, in effect, a happy one

"just glad there are some people left who can make that distinction between the person and the film (easier with Rosemary's Baby/Chinatown, I think, just because they're so much better as films; also, Polanski's largely invisible"

I wouldn't watch a Polanski film nowadays either, Clemenza. I have no interest in supporting their work while these people are alive.

I think that this film club needs to do the On The Buses film trilogy to truly capture how it was in Ted Heath's Pre & Post EEC Britain.

― Toshirō Nofune (The Seventh ILXorai), Friday, 10 February 2023 bookmarkflaglink

We just have to step outside for that, these days..

I’m in

I think we can all agree that the ending to _Annie Hall_ is, in effect, a happy one

Ugh, for some reason, I ventured outside this safe haven and ended up interacting with Jeffrey Wells. Not pleasant.

Yeah I'm in, tho can't promise to keep up every week - one objective I have this year is to watch more films from the rest of the world than US films overall and while these lists are varied and wonderful I fear they'd still land me on the wrong side of that in the end.

Why does ILX hate L'Atalante so much?

Is this true?

Yes, fuck all canal barges.

Alba can you tell which ilxors are hating I'll bully them for you.

Ha ha I was just making a glib comment after seeing the spreadsheet and noticing tha it placed relatively well in the S&S top 100s but nowhere with ILX.

I think that applies even more to Beau Travail but I was looking at the early films.

Gonna watch Beau Travail in a proper theater next week -- my first non-DVD/streaming experience w/it!

While everyone's gearing up, a reasonably engaging quiz:

Try this quiz - https://t.co/yyLpPtjiKP pic.twitter.com/fdHFKTXEpL

— DVDBeaver (@DVDBeaver) February 11, 2023

66/100. I raced through it, probably wouldn't have done much better if I'd taken my time (I either knew it or guessed--though I would have gone back and changed a few guesses based on subsequent answers).

more mainstream:
https://www.cinenerdle2.app/

68/100. Projectionist but no professor. But what's wrong with being a projectionist?

Wtf, I'm boycotting this quiz

Reasoning?

Putting professors above projectionists!

Ah!

96/100 and only because I accidentally put Jacques Rivette when I meant François Truffaut

Check out the big brain on Brad!

77/100 -- a couple of dumb mistakes on movies I've seen, a couple of lucky guesses on movies I haven't seen

71, though at least half were guesses.

(Some of them informed guesses, though.)

76. About five films I did see and couldn't place grr

88. Nailed every one I knew, every guess I guessed wrong

Oh and messed up Spike Lee . Just couldn't place that image in that film somehow

84/100!

I guessed on most of the contemporary Asian stuff, which rarely payed off. And I got the Black female directors all switched around. The only film I've seen that I miscredited was Death of Mr. Lazarescu.

I just exchanged texts with my friend who actually is a projectionist but did not mention this quiz.

I got 89. several of them were guesses based on what I know about the filmmakers’ visual aesthetics or the time periods from the images. I got several directors mixed up - Mizoguchi and Kobayashi, Kazan and Wyler, Etrice and Saura and others. I guessed Larisa Shepitko’s The Ascent correctly only because I have recently seen stills from it on twitter, but I haven’t watched it. Also still have yet to watch Djibril Diop Mambéty’s films, a few of which are on Kanopy, or Cheryl Dunye’s The Watermelon Woman

My projectionist friend told me about this yesterday:
https://framed.wtf

oh, it's a one-per-day thing, like wordle

Yes. I only started doing it yesterday.

But I like, I like.

I love Framed but I get annoyed every time a Marvel movie zilches my overall record

Will we be using this thread for discussion of films that are not on your list but are still, say, Morbius favorites?

Just the ones on the list, think there are several which wouldn't be there without his influence.

just downloaded sherlock jr, which i think just sneaks in as public domain. only i seem to have an entirely silent one and i can her neighbours clanking around

Looking through the list, some of my favourite directors, Louis Malle, Miloš Forman, Roy Andersson, Sidney Lumet, are either missing entirely or have a single entry, think this is probably A Good Thing on a personal level, more to explore, less so to those whose favourites are more well-represented I suppose, though otoh everyone likes talking about their favourites.

xp There are many different options for watching Sherlock Jr on YouTube with different soundtracks.

To your last post: that is sort of the whole good and bad of lists in a nutshell.

I've watched the first hundred.

For those who have MUBI, try to catch The General over the next 3 days before it gets yanked

I really am going to be forced to watch Holiday on the Buses huh

Whose first place vote was that?

Is Holiday on the Buses the same as Mexican Bus Ride?

Man those MUBI Leaving Soons are torture. I rewatched THE GENERAL recently and maybe still have it saved on my cable box so I think I will pass on that and watch a few others.

i never her.

finished Sherlock Jr as it was only 44 minutes long. (this was an archive.org download rather than youtube. ogg video in fact, only 100MB, 400x300 but perfectly watchable)

is that a recognised meaning of the work sheik?

yes -

2 usually sheik : a man supposed to be irresistibly attractive to romantic young women

lots of things that are now cliches, probably a lot different back in 1924. the suitcase jump kinda spoilt it - everything else was at least possible

THE GENERAL also avaiable in several other places, Amazon Prime, Criterion and... wait for it... Tubi. https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-general

Actually I have to be careful here as I have been fooled before. Oftentimes something will show up there as being on Amazon Prime but in fact it is only there with a subscription, a subscription to MUBI.

Is Holiday on the Buses the same as Mexican Bus Ride?

― The Windows of the URL (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 12 February 2023 17:27 (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

I like to think so.

As Mark S likes to tell me, the first On The Buses film was the highest grossing film at the box office that year.

Pfunkboy was Holiday on the Bus's #1 vote

I knew it would be him, that wacky pfunkboy.

hes a menace

> I knew it would be him, that wacky pfunkboy.
> ― Toshirō Nofune (The Seventh ILXorai)

letterboxd, the vexing and sometimes OK film logging website

Ok, close enough to Monday.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Sherlock_jr_poster.jpg

Sherlock, Jr., Buster Keaton 1924
Morbies #480 Sight & Sound Critics #54
Youtube link

First time I'd seen this, I do have a complete Buster Keaton box set but am only halfway through it. Had to watch it twice as the story only made sense with the final scene (to be fair the fact that I had about 20 acupuncture needles stuck in me probably didn't help) - second viewing I found I could appreciate the whole thing, not just the astounding set-piece stunt scenes. Suppose the reason that this is the Keaton film of choice is not just the intricate plotting, the metafictionality of having the action take place on a cinema screen as a projection of the character's own life, represented as this grand, escapist drama is a brilliant conceit, and the final scene where he learns how to propose to his girlfriend by watching the couple on screen is just a great bit of cinema. Also recognised a few scenes from the 1980 documentary series "Hollywood" - including the water tower shot which broke Keaton's neck.

I loved it when I saw it in my 20s, just kind of drifted away.

On the Keaton thread, I posted about how perplexing Bogdanovich's Keaton documentary was.

What about it?

Buster Keaton

I kind of liked that but fair enough.

THE GENERAL also avaiable in several other places, Amazon Prime, Criterion and... wait for it... Tubi. https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-general

― The Windows of the URL (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, February 12, 2023 11:34 AM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Also Wikipedia (it entered the public domain last year): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film)

Oh wait, actually, it's been in the public domain for decades. But anyway, yeah, it's widely available.

That's happened to me more than once, seeing multiple versions of the same film, sometimes on the same platform, many in terrible shape, wondering why this is so and then... d'oh!

everything up to and including man with a movie camera is public domain (in usa, other places vary). i think the rules changed so that some things were, then weren't, then were again but I've also read that once a thing is pd its always pd so...

but what you will find is that some things have later audio, hence the completely silent versions on places like archive.org

the problem i had with Sherlock Jr was, despite having not seen it before, everything was a bit too familiar through clips and copies.

My current favorite BK is The Navigator which is in the sweet spot of having seen it enough times but not too many times, but that could easily change of course.

I just watched Sherlock Jr for the first time. really lovely film, a nice way to kick things off. a couple notes and questions:

- near the beginning, the pile of trash, the dollars within it, the wallet with many dollars within it, and the woman who was missing a dollar - that was masterful, very like a stage play, and did wonders to quickly establish the nature of his character.
- there's a banana peel gag in this film. when did the banana peel gag start? when was the last banana peel gag?
- i loved the film within a film, which is most of this film, "Hearts and Pearls", and especially how the musicians were shown at the bottom of the shot, playing along. but the music that is played (via youtube) was added later on, of course. so, i think it would particularly brilliant to see this film in theaters, as it was shown then, with buster keaton in a film within a film with the musicans in real life playing music to accompany the fake musicians on the screen above them.
- i know keaton did all of his own stunts. holy shit, some of them. it's such a quick shot, but that part where he's on them motorcycle and the bridge collapses and he smoothly glides from an upper plane to a lower? he should have died! amazing.

oh yeah, and also, what is this painting at the top?

https://i.imgur.com/TCazPDQ.jpg

it resembles matisse's Dancers, but it's not that

it's a metafictional action movie presenting alternative lives, but it has a heart too = it's the EEAAO of 1924!

Episode of "Hollywood" (1980) on Chaplin, Lloyd & Keaton is here, it's well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PvymClFrPU

will try to watch SHERLOCK JR tonight

have we had a 2010s poll btw? I know we all gave some picks in one thread or another recently

Maybe it's because of my current steady diet of Hong Kong and Indian action cinema, but though Sherlock Junior is full of great jokes what stuck out more to me is how much Keaton laid down the foundations for action cinema. This is a matter of record - Jackie Chan has spoken of his influence a lot. The stunts of course, but also stuff like the pool table scene could totally fit into a modern action film. Morbius grumbled about the lack of Keaton when ILX did an action movies poll, and I recall rolling my eyes at that a bit, but yeah he was right!

otm

The world does not deserve Buster Keaton—yet he does not complain.
-David Thomson

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Vintage_Potemkin.jpg/424px-Vintage_Potemkin.jpg

Battleship Potemkin Sergei Eisenstein, 1925
Morbsies #762, Sight & Sound Critics #54, Sight & Sound Directors #93
YouTube link

I've been doing something like this since Xmas, starting with Dr M's list (I posted a list in the last movies watched thread).

And in the last month or so I've focused on the BFI list.

The Gleaners and I (Varda, 2000)
My Neighbour Totoro (Miyazaki, 1988)
Wanda (Loden, 1970)
City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)

Wanda was pretty good and the one film in the top 100 I hadn't heard of at all.

Miyazaki was fine (I took against anime for random reasons in a lame way in the past) and I felt quite a bit for the drawings of the little sister and the fluffy monster even if it was the overall package was no revelation in the end. But that's a deficiency in not really growing up with children's lit, I think.

The Varda was pretty much perfect despite the slightly annoying tics where she is playing a role.

OK, now here's one I rewatched pretty recently, and in proximity with another silent movie with thousands of cuts that will be coming up shortly enough, and ...

Eisenstein's insertion of homoerotics aside, this one just didn't hold up that well for me. Even the Odessa steps sequence felt a few, ahem, cuts below similar montage blitzes from the same era.

(And by "didn't hold up that well" I mean it's still pretty good, but I much much much prefer the theatrics of Ivan the Terrible.)

I saw it--meaning I was physically present when it was screened--in film class 40 years ago.

Potemkin's short enough to show in a film class, as I did last week with the Odessa steps sequence before switching to The Limey (the module was on editing).

Would've been better to flip from the Odessa steps to "Take Off With Us"

So here's where I admit I'm a bad cinephile when it comes to silent cinema. The stuff I do like tends towards the populist - comedy, serials, fantasy/horror stuff with lots of cool sets and effects for me to gawk at. When things get loftier I struggle.

Rooting for the lads in this an' all but I find it difficult to imagine this being anyone's favourite film. The last twenty or so minutes in partic were hard going for me, not a big war movie guy either.

That being said: the Odessa sequence is rightly famous and very exciting. There's some memorable shots - the sailors imagining themselves hanging off the sails, the broken glasses. The preacher dude was striking.

I like the pulpy flavour of the chapter headings - Drama On The Deck, A Dead Man Calls Out.

The coloured red flag (assuming this was painted in the original and not some bizarre choice from the restoration?) looks a bit garish tbh.

Props to the score from the version I watched (BFI Player); subtle it ain't but it kept my attention at many moments where I think it would otherwise have been flagging.

I've also just finished this. First thought: that must have been some really bad soup.

But yes, there were so many brilliant shots or scenes here - the tracking shots at the start of the steps sequence are just astounding for example - but as an entire film it didn't really do that much for me. I can see why it's important, there's a lot that feels brand new here, but it's obvious why this is typically excepted rather than watched in full.

I think I need a good commentary track to really unlock this one for me, provided one exists that actually engages with what is happening onscreen as opposed to rambling off the movie's production and cast and crew's other credits as seems to have become the norm for the form.

xppst it was made with beef that had bugs in it!

they are maggots, not worms!

Revolutions podcast had an episode mostly about the history behind this story, may have to dig it out.

More dead kids in this one than a lot of other movies in our Film Club, fwiw

yeah the kid getting trampled was pretty gruesome and unexpected

Inspired jarring shots in Bonnie & Clyde and The Godfather:

https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/bc30-230x300.jpg

Eisenstein thought a lot about editing on a shot-by-shot level but didn't seem to concern himself too much with overall pacing. As a Godard fan, I don't mind didactic movies, but I'm never not going to feel like I'm sitting in a classroom when an Eisenstein film is playing.

More dead kids in this one than a lot of other movies in our Film Club, fwiw

2nd only to Children of Men

(shoah?)

Sadly Narciso Serrador's Who Could Kill A Child? didn't make the cut.

As a Godard fan, I don't mind didactic movies, but I'm never not going to feel like I'm sitting in a classroom when an Eisenstein film is playing.

But Godard has doubts, he contradicts himself, he changes his mind! By contrast Potemkin is as clear cut and certain as any white hats vs black hats action film. There is no interest in interrogating anything.

To be clear, I'm not saying I wanted the czarist officer class to get a more sympathetic portrayal - it's not an event that can be Both Sides-ed. But I think the very nature of silent cinema means there's a ceiling on the interiority the characters can display, and as a result on how well the film can portray the actual complexity of events (not that silent acting can't evoke interiority, but the examples I can think of go heavily against naturalism, and so wouldn't really work here).

I'm reminded of Tom Ewing once saying on here that he doesn't think pop music is a good vehicle for actual political arguments - agitprop, sure. I think the same may be true of silent cinema; Potemkin works well as propaganda, it is cathartic and stirring and as I said the events it portrays deserve such feelings. But it doesn't teach you much of anything about politics, I don't think.

The czarist officer class are well worth criticising, but the film also functions as a piece of anti-Cossack propaganda, made in the midst of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Cossackization

so some more moral ambiguity would probably be welcome.

"But Godard has doubts, he contradicts himself, he changes his mind! By contrast Potemkin is as clear cut and certain as any white hats vs black hats action film. There is no interest in interrogating anything."

It's quite a bit to expect from a film made when the revolution hadn't yet reached its tenth anniversary. Plus it's a historical film.

Really need to see Ivan the Terrible

Wait until you've seen it to call it "terrible"

It's quite a bit to expect from a film made when the revolution hadn't yet reached its tenth anniversary.

Art of that sort is made often enough even as events are unfolding, let alone ten years later. But let's be real, if it was any of that it wouldn't have gotten made.

Plus it's a historical film.

I don't know what this means.

All the President's Men is, I think, a truly great film made two or three years after the events it depicts.

Battleship Potemkin was made 20 years after the events it portrays, think how many WWII films were made between 1940 and 1965.

I mean a lot of historical films just take a look back at a version of events, but ofc there is a reading to them so nevermind that.

"But let's be real, if it was any of that it wouldn't have gotten made."

It depends what you wanted to say that it didn't. Stuff can get through the censor, depending on how it's told, or it can be told in an underhand way.

xxp

Stuff can get through the censor, depending on how it's told, or it can be told in an underhand way.

Agreed, but I think that a) most regimes go through phases where such subterfuge is more viable or less viable and b) it is as a rule much easier to do if there aren't too many eyes around you, so easier in literature than film for example. A big budget spectacle made under Stalin I think would have odds set against itself in that department, though you never know - are there examples of this in 20's Soviet cinema?

At any rate, I don't think propaganda is necc a bad thing, as I said it can be cathartic. Just think it's apples and oranges when compared to a Godard film.

When I was comparing the two of them, I wasn't actually thinking of the political message, more the way that everything onscreen is "presented" through an explicit explanatory frame, where the audience is supposed to notice the way events are being portrayed, and the formal means, along with the events depicted.

more the way that everything onscreen is "presented" through an explicit explanatory frame, where the audience is supposed to notice the way events are being portrayed, and the formal means, along with the events depicted.

Interesting, do you take this from Eisenstein's writings? I haven't read him.

I can't say I noticed this in the film itself, which I felt to be reasonably immersive - I do think I noticed the formal aspects more than with yer average movie, but I think that always happens to me with silent cinema. In fact I've heard an argument be made that they should show more of it in film school because it forces students to focus on form.

It is one of Eisenstein's theories that cinema must be as didactic as possible.

Dialectical too.

The Watermelon Woman is on MUBI UK ATM. Watched it a couple of days ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Watermelon_Woman

And it's on the S&S list (100-250). What's remarkable is the person's background: woman, black, Lesbian. Making a film about those very things but the film isn't worn down by them, as the script is often funny and charming.

I wouldn't say it's top 250 but who cares it absolutely should be there. It's an excellent example of the gaming of the poll. Many voters used their votes smartly.

I love a ranking where The Watermelon Woman outranks, say, The Deer Hunter.

I watched it at the height of the pandemic when Criterion made it available.

Always wonder if Cimino's work is going to get revisited in view of the revelation that they were maybe trans? I can't get much clarity on that, but there's enough evidence for the New Yorker to mention it - https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/a-new-biography-of-michael-cimino-is-as-fascinating-and-melancholy-as-the-filmmaker-himself - it's not like a fan fiction thing.

Anyway yeah Watermelon Woman rules. The film it reminds me most of, though obviously it's miles ahead of it in quality and intelligence, is Clerks.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/The_general_movie_poster.jpg

The General, Buster Keaton, 1926
Morbsies #733, Sight & Sound Critics #95

Spirited Away (Miyazaki, 2001). A lot more action than Totoro. Lots of adventures were had.

Really love the drawings, like just the quality of them, the colour schemes...very beautiful to look at.

Saw The General semi-recently, so won't rewatch. It's good ofc, less blown away by it than Sherlock tho.

I really enjoyed The General, it feels much more advanced than Sherlock Jr, almost like a modern action film in many ways. There wasn't a single moment where I felt it dragging, those train sequences were flawless. Still I feel it is a bit tainted by its taking the side of The South, in particular the battle scenes at the end are very reminiscent of Birth of a Nation. The Civil War and in particular the "Lost Cause" narrative are such fixtures of pre-WWII Hollywood.

Yeah, it's so needless as well, not like the film is about the Lost Cause or a Rebel Stand or anything ideological like that, switch the sides and nothing would change. It's depressing how much this was just something in the air, that ppl would employ without even thinking about it.

it was a solid hour of train japes, was good.

the leading ladies on both this and the previous one, was that a fashionable look at the time, because they both looked like such frumps.

(xpost, yes, the south thing was a bit o_O)

real jeopardy in what he was doing as well, i mean a real train, moving along, him dancing along the top of it or sat on the cow catcher in a bid to stop it derailing.

were a couple of time when i wondered if it was a real locomotive actually. do they move off that fast? istr there being a lot of build up before they actually move. but maybe i'm thinking of trains with lots of carriages, which this wasn't

afaik it's all real trains, yes. including the one going over the bridge, allegedly the most expensive shot in history.

This was also the movie wherein he broke his neck, no?

again? he's already broken his neck once in this thread! (sherlock jr, the water tower fall)

actually, i didn't know until someone mentioned it. and sherlock jr fall does look more jarring than anything in the general. but yeah, similar train setting

it was the water tower in Sherlock Jr, yes. though I did wonder why he felt like doing such similar scenes so soon after such a traumatic experience.

Ah I was wrong ... I remembered it being the water tower gag, but for some reason misremembered it as being in The General.

There was "movie poster on walls" talk which reminded me that on watching The General I realised that my parents had a framed print from it on the wall all through my childhood. Asked my mum about it and it turns out they only watched it for the first time a couple of years ago.

I remember a lot of Chaplin posters in relative's houses growing up.

i do remember being home for christmas and turning The General on as a random alternative to the endless sport and we all sat there quite happily as a family and watched it. (similar thing happened with Hulot's Vacance iirc a decade earlier)

Just finished Sherlock Jr. and moving onto Battleship.

I am the young one that never touched silent cinema. I offer myself as the dunce for you all to play off in this thread. I realise now I had a quiet and small fear I wouldn’t enjoy silent cinema due to only ever gouging on high definition colour and sound. Glad to have all fears and inhibitions ridiculed with how amazing Sherlock Jr. is! That motorcycle scene was just hit after hit. Then to be reminded it is all Cinema with the fade back to reality (with another hit!) was the perfect affirmation of the art form. Such a celebration of life and goodness. None of this 21st century cynicism, no irony, no meanness. It was so refreshing.

How many of these one-vote wonders from the #SightAndSoundPoll have you seen? https://t.co/wM9jWDP2ZD@letterboxd pic.twitter.com/oExu2YmQWu

— BFI (@BFI) March 6, 2023

4

Fear
Macario
Casting Blossoms to the Sky
The Organizer

Sadly zero.

And speaking of things I shamefully had not seen before...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/Metropolis_%28German_three-sheet_poster%29.jpg

Metropolis, Fritz Lang, 1927
Morbsies #597, Sight & Sound Critics #67

Still have to watch last 40 minutes, here's the version I'm watching- youtube link

Possibly my most famous haven't-seen film.

Undoubtedly the greatest film featuring Loverboy and Bonnie Tyler songs.

Thanks for doing this
Had a blast watching the two Keaton films - that suitcase stunt in insane

Finished Metropolis (finally) - some thoughts

I said that Battleship Potemkin was a few brilliant shots & scenes surrounded by a lot of other stuff that didn't grab me. Well Metropolis includes an absolute load of simply astonishing scenes and shots, ones I was familiar with, ones I was not, just so many superb ideas in design, direction, editing, the dancing scene with all the eyes watching has to be my favourite. However, as a whole film I was often left either confused or bored. The plot is nonsensical, the villain of the film is a grotesque personification of communist revolution, and the ending where the heroic son-of-the-billionaire makes his dad shake hands with the union leader is straight-up terrible. I'd love to put together a solid 60-minute edit, no intertitles, no explanations. So I'm basically looking forward to Man With A Movie Camera.

Oh and Brigitte Helm is an absolute genius.

Does the version you linked have an intermission, Camaraderie? Would like to tick this one off but I don't think I can do a single setting.

there's a note at the start of this that it includes a lot of once-lost material which has been recovered, tbh I would have preferred to see the cut-down version, but some of the deleted parts are worth including. I'll have a look for a shorter cut.

Just checked and no intermission, not even chapter breaks! Damn Fritz.

I did find a shorter cut, but the quality is terrible.

there's no intermission, but the version of the film Camaraderie linked to is divided into three parts - 'prelude', 'intermezzo' (beginning at 1:06:25) and 'furioso' (beginning at 1:34:49).

I think the full length version is by far the best, but maybe you need to see it on a big screen with the soundtrack blaring to really appreciate it? It's not a film that really suits being watched on youtube, with all the extravagant gestures and balletic elements.

the villain of the film is a grotesque personification of communist revolution, and the ending where the heroic son-of-the-billionaire makes his dad shake hands with the union leader is straight-up terrible.

The politics of the film are definitely crypto-fascist (society is on the verge of being torn apart by the division between workers and bosses, what is needed is a charismatic populist figure who can unite the whole city/nation in common purpose) and the screenwriter (and Lang's wife at the time) apparently became a supporter of the Nazi party. Goebbels apparently admired Metropolis enough he asked Lang to become head of UFA.

The plot is nonsensical

this is true, but I don't think it matters because it's not a realist film, it's more like a ballet or opera.

I love Metropolis and I love Moroder, but the 1984 Moroder soundtracked version is just dire. The soundtrack is ok to listen to as an album in itself, but as a soundtrack to the film it's dreadful. One thing that makes more a difference than I'd have expected (for the worse) is the replacement of intertitles with subtitles.

Intertitles are a silent film tradition that I've never liked, despite being a Godard fan. The only film I can think of where they really work to punctuate the images is Dreyer's Joan of Arc. Surely the technology existed to superimpose titles on images before 1930?

If you think Metropolis is nonsensical, try Sunrise.

the intertitles on Metropolis are more impressionistic though, you don't get the impression that you're supposed to be seeing every single line of dialogue the characters are saying. And they express things physically rather than via dialogue.

xxp it did (you make another film with just the subtitles and everything else black, project one over the other and film the result) but it's fiddly and messy - audiences expected intertitles at this point in any case.

xxp I will, this weekend!

another thing wrong with the Moroder version - in the original the score is constant, only stopping between the three chapters, the Moroder soundtrack is divided into individual tracks

ideally I would cut all the intertitles. just let the viewer either work out what's going on or just enjoy the experience without understanding the plot

have to keep this one though

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CrazyTatteredBlackfish-size_restricted.gif

also the titles that go from the bottom to the top of the screen as the elevator is descending

ok, keep that one. the elevator ones were poorly re-made in the version I linked, just looked too shiny and computer-generated.

I thought there was another animated intertitle later on in the film (maybe during the whore of babylon part), but I can't seem to find it, maybe it's not in this version

projected metropolis a few weeks ago, silent w live accompaniment from our pipe organ: otm about its politics but if i couldn't let sentimental corporatism slide (even at a time like this) i wouldn't have any liberal friends, and this is metropolis. audience was thrilled.

subtitled dialogue (in anything) makes you look away from the image: bad imo.

(audience also didn't seem to mind the length; in 2023 being two and a half hours long makes you a brisk, zippy family entertainment)

(i minded it lol)

I am Grot

subtitled dialogue (in anything) makes you look away from the image: bad imo.

You always prefer dubbed dialogue in foreign movies?

Speech not synced to mouth movements is way more distracting imo. Why you’d want to replace Toshiro Mifune or Alain Delon with a second rate anglophone beats me.

Dubbed is the worst.

Ok I finished it.

Above all else I think the city is still a total marvel, can totally understand why so many subsequent creators wanted to play within that sandbox.

I don't know if I think of the story as nonsensical - perhaps I am more fond of pulp than most on this thread. Much of it was fun adventure stuff to me, lots of cool conceits (did Hammett take the title of The Thin Man from this???). It is def bloated but I can't say I was bored often - actually the closest I came was parts of the climax, which reminded me of modern disaster movies in a bad way.

The politics of the film are definitely crypto-fascist (society is on the verge of being torn apart by the division between workers and bosses, what is needed is a charismatic populist figure who can unite the whole city/nation in common purpose) and the screenwriter (and Lang's wife at the time) apparently became a supporter of the Nazi party. Goebbels apparently admired Metropolis enough he asked Lang to become head of UFA.

Add to this the subversive intellectual element which ruins the upper classes with Decadent Art and the lower classes with violent rabble rousing; the star on Rotwang's door I'm sure is supposed to signal sorcery but it's a bit too close to a star of David for comfort.

But at the same time, as per difficult listening hour's post, I think you can easily cast it as a liberal (pejorative) work instead: the mediator, after all, is not a military strongman, but an effete bleeding heart rich kid with a passion for social reform. Class conflict is cast as being fundamentally about miscommunication. The workers have indeed been given a hard lot in life and are right to protest, but for God's sake they should never resort to violence, and trying to wreck the system can only end in catastrophe - don't you see it's there to protect you, as well? In the end if we all just have a bit more heart things will turn out ok. Won't somebody please think of the children??

Brigitte Helm's later life is uh interesting too

Helm was involved in several traffic accidents, and was briefly imprisoned. According to the Nazi Party's Press Chief Obergruppenführer Otto Dietrich's book, The Hitler I Knew, Adolf Hitler saw that manslaughter charges against her from an automobile accident were dropped.

Helm married her second husband, Dr. Hugo Kunheim, an industrialist, after her film contract expired in 1935. Helm stated that she retired from films because she was "...disgusted with the Nazi takeover of the film industry..." In 1935, she moved to Switzerland, where she had four children with Kunheim. In her later years, she refused to grant any interviews concerning her film career.

Sunrise next week, eh? Murnau I find very hard going, unless there's a vampire or a demon to liven things up.

of course i use subtitles to watch movies in languages i don’t speak. that doesn’t make them good for the movie.

Add to this the subversive intellectual element which ruins the upper classes with Decadent Art and the lower classes with violent rabble rousing; the star on Rotwang's door I'm sure is supposed to signal sorcery but it's a bit too close to a star of David for comfort.

i wondered about this too.

But at the same time, as per difficult listening hour's post, I think you can easily cast it as a liberal (pejorative) work instead: the mediator, after all, is not a military strongman, but an effete bleeding heart rich kid with a passion for social reform. Class conflict is cast as being fundamentally about miscommunication. The workers have indeed been given a hard lot in life and are right to protest, but for God's sake they should never resort to violence, and trying to wreck the system can only end in catastrophe - don't you see it's there to protect you, as well? In the end if we all just have a bit more heart things will turn out ok. Won't somebody please think of the children??

I think apart from 'effete' most of this could apply to fascism as much as liberalism, but there's not always a clear distinction between liberal/progressive corporatism and the fascist kind, particularly in this era (e.g. Mosley's New Party). There's an argument that fascism is not right-wing per se (or left-wing) but centrist, both fascism and liberalism promise an alternative to class conflict by appealing to a greater authority that supposedly transcends it, the nation for the fascism and abstract principles that are above/beyond politics for liberalism.

and even if he's a an effete bleeding heart rich kid rather than a military strongman, having the class reconciliation be embodied in a single chiasmatic person with a populist following pushes it more towards the fascist side (but this is probably just the nature of cinema, an individual hero obviously more cinematic than abstract humanist principles)

Does he have a populist following tho? At rhe very very end maybe, mostly he's ignored.

Metropolis also exists pretty much in isolation - there is no evidence of other cities, other cultures. The subversive within is there and as I said coded in an anti-semitic manner, but he is also in the end just a dude grieving for his dead wife. Can fascism truly exist without the threat of an Other?

I think he has a populist following in that he turns out to be the mediator, the figure of destiny that all the workers are explicitly waiting for even when they don't know who exactly who it's going to be.

of course i use subtitles to watch movies in languages i don’t speak. that doesn’t make them good for the movie.

Sometimes I think that subtitles have a negative effect, not because they disturb the purity of the image itself, but because they draw on a different, verbal part of the mind than the image and distract from it. So I wonder, "do I like this subtitled film because in fact I prefer reading"?

some of us have ears that don’t work good!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sunrise_-_A_Song_of_Two_Humans.jpg

Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans, F.W. Murnau, 1927
Morbsies #60
Sight & Sound Critics #11
Sight & Sound Directors #33

Malevolent Arugula (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn) at 3:32 10 Mar 23

If you think Metropolis is nonsensical, try Sunrise.

Daniel_Rf at 6:42 11 Mar 23

Sunrise next week, eh? Murnau I find very hard going, unless there's a vampire or a demon to liven things up.

I mean, I'd let him choke me at least once ...

https://i.redd.it/x74u3p1kv6h51.jpg

He is a bit too much into choking women and throwing them off boats, not really acceptable character traits even in a beefcake.

The sexual politics of Sunrise are bat shit even for the period.

otoh he was quite kind to the drunken piglet

Sunrise screened yesterday at a local arts theatre: about 25 people, no walkouts. The presenter did adequately but didn't prepare the uninitiated for Murnau's marriage of late 19th century tropes about city vs country, the infantilzation of a certain kind of feminine object of desire. This is a movie whose male lead chokes his lover, walks out on his wife, tries drowning her, returns to her, and tries choking the lover again; and at the same time Murnau, refreshingly, objectifies O'Brien, arranging him in one scene to look like a Harlequin romance model reversed.

I'd forgotten the comedic bits, i.e. dude obsessed with woman's shoulder strap.

the tone was just wildly all over the place, the whole fairground sequence was so out of place, and then "I know I tried to drown you this morning but let's go sailing at night!" think I could easily write pages about how bad it was and how much I hated it, but in truth it was wonderful and I absolutely loved it.

otm

I had the good luck for my first viewing of Sunrise to be on a big screen, and I went in not knowing much except it was supposed to be great. Thought it was pretty amazing visually, and yes also crazy.

I've seen Sunrise maybe 3 or 4 times through the years and it never fails to amaze me how much its pieces shouldn't work together but, ultimately, absolutely do. Best movie to ever win a best picture Oscar outside of All About Eve.

finally saw SHERLOCK JR yesterday and loved it. the film within a film conceit, culminating in proposing to the girl at the end after seeing it done on the screen, so well executed and I imaging it felt especially fresh 100 years ago. the stunts were awesome and mostly didn’t detract from the story. only major issue I had was the female lead who was kind of a zero

Enjoyed sunrise, my favourite part was the photographers face when he saw his remade statue

yeah, total reversal of expectations, like many other touches a complete joy.

I was thinking Sunrise reminds me a little of Before Sunrise, not just the name, both films we're mainly just hanging out with a couple as they spend time together.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Passion_of_Joan_of_Arc_%281928%29_English_Poster.png

The Passion of Joan of Arc, Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928

Morbsies # 40
Sight & Sound Critics # 21
Sight & Sound Directors # 30

This was the first one I've seen already (shocking) so I just put on my DVD, but here is a youtube link for easy viewing.

So yes, I voted for this in the morbsies poll, love it, now not sure I would put it above everything else from the 20s. her performance is outstanding, what utter devotion to a role, and not only does it look absolutely incredible, but the use of dolly shots seems revolutionary. but, do I care about it beyond the performance and the cinematography? not sure. there is a lot of theology here that goes over my head, cannot pretend I understand everything that's happening. feel like critic-wise this might be the new battleship potemkin, and there will be another in 20 years.

This one never doesn’t work on me. Watched it fresh after the S&S results and, unlike with POTEMKIN, I was engrossed the whole time and wet-cheeked by the end.

Falconetti is riveting, just one of the all-time great performances. And Dreyer basing the script on the actual trial records was a smart choice — the film is adulatory in a way but not hagiographic, imo, and I think the trial transcripts keep it grounded.

I've only seen it once, live accompaniment, definitely unforgettable (as is the quotation in My Life to Live, as is the "Nothing Compares 2 U" video).

And just in case all that’s not enough for you, Dreyer threw in Antonin Artaud to sweeten the deal.

as far as films from this era go, I loved Chaplin’s The Kid with Jackie Coogan (1921) and Safety Last! from Newmeyer/Taylor (1923) starring Harold Lloyd.

Sunrise and The Passion of Joan of Arc are two of my favorite films of all time, but I hated Metropolis

The Kid and Safety Last are both good, but a bit too basic for my tastes, I thought these two Keaton films were a nice step up from that.

I considered adding the best-rated film for every missing year, on the plus side that would have meant not just Harold Lloyd and even Méliès, but unfortunately on the negative would also have meant sitting through many hours of D.W.Griffith.

I'm hardly the person to advocate for Griffith--I've never voluntarily seen a film of his, just what I saw in film class; maybe j.lu would want to--but there are at least two films of his that are highly regarded (Way Down East and Broken Blossoms; I've seen the former) and I'm pretty sure have zero to do with the film that destroyed his stature or the follow-up that was supposed to excuse that one. But if you can't get past the fact that it was him who made them, I can appreciate that.

Yes, omitting all of Griffith, as good as it might feel, is not an accurate portrait of film history

sorry, didn't want to get into the griffith debate again, will just say that I don't agree and leave it at that

I mean, it's empirical but whatev

(Intolerance and Broken Blossoms aside, I don't even particularly enjoy Griffith that much.)

I'm doubtful there's any such thing as "an accurate portrait of film history" but even if there was I don't see that that is what we're supposed to be doing on this thread?

Been having a look through and these are the films which would be added if I followed the "one for every year" rule

Voyage dans la lune, Le Méliès, Georges 1902
After Death Bauer, Yevgeni 1915
Intolerance Griffith, D.W. 1916
Outlaw and His Wife, The Sjöström, Victor 1918
One Week Keaton, Buster & Edward F. Cline 1920
High Sign, The Cline, Edward F. and Buster Keaton 1921
Nosferatu Murnau, F.W. 1922
Safety Last Newmeyer, Fred C./Sam Taylor 1923
Unholy Three, The Conway, Jack 1930
Shanghai Express von Sternberg, Josef 1932
39 Steps, The Hitchcock, Alfred 1935
Make Way for Tomorrow McCarey, Leo 1937
Holiday Cukor, George 1938
His Girl Friday Hawks, Howard 1940
Double Indemnity Wilder, Billy 1944
Enfants du paradis, Les Carné, Marcel 1945
Victims of Sin Fernández, Emilio 1951
Kes Loach, Ken 1969
Goodbye, Dragon Inn Tsai Ming-liang 2003
Transporter 2, The Leterrier, Louis 2005
Clock, The Marclay, Christian 2010
Field in England, A Wheatley, Ben 2013
First Cow Reichardt, Kelly 2020

Love Holiday, love Kes. Simple as.

Oh god, THE CLOCK needs to be added and mandatory

and Goodbye, Dragon Inn

Victims of Sin Fernández

One of my favourite screenings over the last few years.

One Week Keaton, Buster & Edward F. Cline 1920
High Sign, The Cline, Edward F. and Buster Keaton 1921
Nosferatu Murnau, F.W. 1922
Safety Last Newmeyer, Fred C./Sam Taylor 1923
Unholy Three, The Conway, Jack 1930
Shanghai Express von Sternberg, Josef 1932

All highly recommended by me.

I'm not inclined to defend D.W. Griffith, although he definitely helped create the feature film as we now know it.

ok, I've done it.
not sure if a good idea, but I've done it.
(check link at top of thread for confusing new details)

would advise anyone about to watch Man With A Movie Camera to check the updated list.

downloaded the whole of jeanne d'arc without noticing the inter titles were in French. i might be able to scrape by with my cse grade 2.

Youtube link above has english subs, I think

Such a counter-intuitive move for a film in the pre-sound era, a court proceeding. Yet Dreyer makes it work squeezing every last drop of emotion from those faces. And of course the ending becomes plenty cinematic.

Agreed that Falconetti is superb.

The gender dynamics are so front and centre now, perhaps more than they were to people when it came out - this woman being gaslit and humiliated by a procession of grotesque men.

Failed to recognize Michel Simon, holy shit!

My own cultural context makes me read the situation as "these guys are horrible sadistic pricks, Jeanne is troubled and in need of the kind of psychological existence that didn't exist back then", but Dreyer himself was a believer, so I don't think that's how he'd read it?

Philistine alert: 80 min did still have my attention wandering, might not on the big screen tho.

the few seconds i saw when ffwding through it to check last night had some odd framing in it, shots of characters from their knees to their chins, made me wonder if i had a bad version. it also had fake red curtains added at the sides to pad it out to 16:9. :puke:

One of my most philistine takes is that Passion, though extremely great, is even better with the now-standard Einhorn accompaniment.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Voyage_dans_la_lune_title_card.png

Le voyage dans la lune, Georges Méliès, 1902
Morbsies #562

Youtube link here - loads of versions on Youtube but this seems to be the best quality non-colourized, non-50fps one, if you prefer that then there are plenty of options. This version has a brass band backing which I don't care for, you can just mute it though.

Update! I had thought that the hand-colour version was lost, apparently it was found and restored. This seems to be the best version I can find - it claims to be 50fps but I can see no evidence of this.

Unlike most of the other films so far, I've watched this quite a few times. It's hard to judge by later film standards as Méliès doesn't really fit in the lineage, and if this were a history of the grammar of film-making, something like The Great Train Robbery (1903) would be more interesting, but it isn't, so it isn't. Obviously it's just a series of theatrical tableaux, but what tableaux!

https://i.postimg.cc/d012c5xZ/MV5-BZj-Jk-Mm-Ji-Ym-Mt-YTg4-My00-OWVi-LThh-ODIt-ZGM4-NGMy-M2-M5-Yj-Az-L2lt-YWdl-L2lt-YWdl-Xk-Ey-Xk-Fqc-Gde-QXVy-MDI3-OTIz-OA-V1.jpg

After Death, Yevgeni Bauer, 1915
Morbsies #1133

Youtube link

* A film which is likely too goth even for goths, it's essentially an advertisement for suicide.
* So, so beautiful though, all of the apparitions and that tracking shot at the party at the start is wonderful
* Male lead and director both dead within the next few years. Vera Karalli OTOH was one of two women present on the night of Rasputin's murder. Then she lived until the 70s.

More or less co-sign on all of that. This and Twilight of a Woman's Soul reached me at the right moment in my life to leave an indelible imprint.

Late to give my thinking on the Mélies: the version on Amazon has a dude narrating over it, was this perhaps common practice at some point in the silent era, pre introduction of intertitles? Anyway, it's great fun, reminded me a lot of Terry Gilliam (with the bonus that I know nothing about whether Mélies was an asshole).

fav letterboxd review, from user Allan:

Pretty realistic in the sense that if you did send a bunch of old guys into space, they probably would take a nap then try to kill some aliens and then expect a medal for it when they got back

After Death - This is the first thing discussed itt that I'd never even heard of! I think I never considered that pre-revolutionary Russia would have a film industry, Eisenstein and co cast such a large shadow.

Anyway, enjoyed this a lot! A lot more plot focused than most of what we've watched so far, could easily imagine it as a short story. Very Russian, of course. Do think the ending could have been pulled off more economically, I suppose they're trying to build towards a crescendo but it doesn't really escalate so much as maintain the same level imo.

that dinner party long shot was beautiful

watch my french jeanne d'arc. very strange framing at times as i've probably said before. and the burning at the end (spoilers) lingered on the corpse to an uncomfortable degree.

also recognised one shot of the cover of that adorable cd i have

https://www.discogs.com/master/20907-Adorable-Sunshine-Smile

the other startling thing, towards the end, is when he tracks people moving from in front of the camera to behind it - he rotates the camera in an axis such that the shot ends up upside down.

https://i.postimg.cc/7LpQnB7Y/517px-Intolerance-film.jpg

Intolerance, D.W. Griffith, 1916
Morbsies #956

Youtube link

I have 50 minutes left on my rewatch of this, so will save my thoughts for a bit.

Yeah, sitting this one out.

Remove Bookmark from this Thread

I'm actually curious what Camaraderie has to say!

I am compelled to drop Morbs' own review of the movie here:

https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/intolerance/

I'm glad he settled on "influential" rather than "innovative"

Also, I'll do clem's work here and link up Kael's review too (which, very much a product of its time, does not stop short of calling Birth of a Nation a great film):

https://letterboxd.com/notpaulinekael/film/intolerance-loves-struggle-throughout-the-ages/1/

I think it’s fair to say that Movies Silently isn’t a fan of Griffiths or Intolerance.

One pervasive myth is that DW Griffith apologized for the racism of THE BIRTH OF A NATION by making INTOLERANCE, which examined the ways prejudice caused suffering throughout history.

So let's just cut down that argument at the knees, shall we? pic.twitter.com/xfwuvEceib

— Movies Silently 🐀 (@MoviesSilently) October 13, 2022

Yes, I have been very tempted to post her threads on DWG.

Very fair game

I agree that the idea that Intolerance was any kind of mea culpa is basically bunk

I mostly agree with the review; I saw the film long ago, bug-eyed over its bat shit insanity. But, yeah, it's not a mea culpa so much as a chance to do TBOAN again but more bat shit.

I will say I had a lot of fun traipsing around the collapsing sets of Intolerance in the video game LA Noir.

OK, finished it! The second time I've seen the film and it was a lot easier to follow each of the four plots this time. I would say I have softened on it slightly, there are certainly some parts I liked, but overall I still feel its importance is wildly overstated and much of it is bad or dull.

Ancient Babylon - this was by far the strongest section, in fact if this were the film I'd probably be singing its praises. The cinematography, the set design, the sheer scale of the thing are incredibly striking and impressive. Constance Talmadge puts in a brilliant performance too. But what is the story? under the spectacle it's a load of nothing, just a few bible verses padded out.

Jesus - this story is barely there, less than ten minutes of screen time, but still manages to be heavy-handed incoherent antisemitic guff.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre - Presumably here as a concrete example of intolerance? But what do we have, an evil woman plans a massacre, the massacre takes place, that's pretty much it, not even interestingly staged, though the killings are surprisingly graphic.

Modern day - This is the core of the film really, everything else is presumably here to illustrate it. There is some good cinematography here, some shots are stunning, some editing is fairly good, the chase scene with the car and the train is great (but very much bolted on to the story without any justification) But also what the fuck is any of this? A factory owner massacres his workers for striking, a man is unjustly convicted of murder, but somehow this is not the focus. Instead the moral is that social services and welfare charities are the greatest evil of our times because they take money from honest capitalists and are also ugly jealous old women who take babies away? I mean, what exactly the fuck is that? That's your takeaway, DWG?

Also there is a good deal of poor editing and direction in this section, I know it's 1916 but if we are crediting DWG with innovations then I have to say his tricks are not original and others have done better.

Overall I also feel like such a long film covering four separate time periods should have a central story or concept uniting the threads, but it's completely missing. I can understand how the French story is about intolerance, but the other three have nothing to do with it by any sane definition. So I'm left trying to imagine what DWG's point is beyond "baddies do bad stuff" and I can't see what it is at all. "The baddies should tolerate the goodies and then get out of their way, the goodies are under no obligation to tolerate the baddies"? I feel stupid even trying to figure it out, it's just his feeling that he has a right to his prejudices and nobody should dare challenge him, presented with a massive budget over several hours.

The cases I see for why this film is important are innovation and influence, I would question the first of these as above, the second I'm not sure where to go with - yes there later were some epic dramas which attempted a similar scale. Would they have existed without Intolerance? No idea, it seems perfectly possible, but could concede that - and then what? Why does that make this worth watching?

ugly jealous old women who take babies away?

a menace of our times imo

fwiw there is absolutely a terrible history of govt social services being paternalistic-to-outright-hateful to the working class in general and marginalised groups within it in particular, and adoption in particular is a huge can of worms within that context. griffith def not the guy to tackle that tho.

I mean he specifically says they are motivated by being too old & unattractive to attract men any more, right at the start of the film.

Those old caption writers sure did go hard back in the day

Anita Loos wrote the intertitles, so god only knows what DWG would have put there if unfiltered.

All else aside, I appreciate you giving it a fresh shot, caal

no worries, I need something to do while my wife sticks needles in me every weekend.

anyone else have a few hours to spare to see if you agree? fine if not.

It was good of you to take one for the team.

One Way or Another (Gomez, 1974)

This is simply excellent, it's in the top 250 of the S&S poll and a great example of how the poll has improved and isn't shit anymore as you get to see this strange documentary/normie narrative/agitprop hybrid from Cuba.

I think it's still on MUBI UK for a little while.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Berg-Ejvind_och_hans_hustru_1918_film_poster.jpg

The Outlaw and His Wife, Victor Sjöström, 1918

Morbsies #1133

Youtube link

That's a good one!

Sjöström! I've only watched The Wind.

I've just got about half an hour left of this one, should have some thoughts tomorrow.

For UK readers, this is on Netflix, as part of that weird deal between Netflix and the Swedish Cinematheque.

does the one on Netflix have a soundtrack? the criterion dvd rips on YouTube are completely silent, this is the only one with sound and it seems to have been tacked on

No soundtrack, no. Nice looking copy tho.

Some good tunes on that YouTube one tho

For UK readers, this is on Netflix, as part of that weird deal between Netflix and the Swedish Cinematheque.

― Daniel_Rf, Monday, 17 April 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Good stuff lol, always wanted to check Sjostrom..

Well that was relentlessly grim.

I mean, it was still good. I think. but really not what I needed to see when I'm worrying about how to support my family over the next year, that's for sure.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Buster_keaton_one_week_poster.jpg

One Week, Buster Keaton & Edward F. Cline, 1920

Morbsies #947

I went through the Keaton shorts a while ago and this was really a big jump in quality when you watch 'em chronologically, one of his best imo.

Here's the youtube link

Yeah, a very enjoyable 25 minutes, every joke felt extremely well-crafted. Not really as ambitious as his longer films, obviously, but for what it is, it couldn't be much better.

It's been

you know I don't think I've ever heard that song. and yet I got the reference somehow.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/The_High_Sign_%281921%29_-_Ad_1.jpg

The High Sign, Buster Keaton & Edward F. Cline, 1921

Morbsies #630

I found this one to be a bit of a step back from One Week, which makes sense as it was actually filmed earlier and held back for some reason. A boilerplate silent comedy short plot - Buster is hired to protect a man from the mob and also hired by the mob to kill him, but of course there are plenty of brilliant stunts and set pieces to keep you entertained, and as it's less than 20 minutes there's no danger of boredom. Still nothing here as inspired as Sherlock Jr, The General or even One Week.

here's a youtube link

Tantalised by the 101 films on @SightSoundmag’s Hidden Gems list? @_edb’s pick, Claudia von Alemann’s ‘Blind Spot’ (1981), is now on @mubiuk. Here’s what Erika had to say about it: https://t.co/b59rDtKdqV pic.twitter.com/ql1eU1TTlc

— Arjun Sajip (@ArjSaj) May 2, 2023

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Nosferatuposter.jpg

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, F. W. Murnau, 1922

Morbsies #833
Sight & Sound Critics #196

Youtube link

Would anyone be interested in some kind of watch-along stream for the public domain movies?

how would that work? like a twitch stream?

i don't know, to be honest.

Ok, so Nosferatu then. I had already seen this, a few times I think, but in memory it is much less absorbing than I found it this time. Think the restoration job and the soundtrack on the link above really make a lot of difference here. It succeeds where other Dracula adaptations fail because Murnau wisely cuts the interminable gentlemen's meetings, in fact the much weaker second half of the story is cut to less than 30 minutes, and that includes the famous bedroom scene. I don't think it's at all scary, think perhaps due to overfamiliarity.

What I have noticed this time around is the antisemitism, and am not sure how I missed it before. it's not just Orlok who's uncomfortably like a hideous Jewish caricature, the estate manager Knock (who doubles as Renfield) is also obviously coded as Jewish. so yeah, that's not great.

still there's a lot if great art here, most scenes are intricately set up and lit. shocked to find out that the restoration was needed because a court ordered every print destroyed, and it's a miracle it survived that when the majority of films from this era are gone forever. is this the first ever victim of a copyright troll (in the form of Stoker's estate)? probably someone can think of an earlier one.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Safety_last_poster.jpg

Safety Last, Fred C Newmeyer & Sam Taylor, 1923

Morbsies #1133

Youtube link

I have a blu-ray of this! But for some reason my allegedly region-free Chinese DVD/blu-ray player is insisting that it's the wrong region, so here I am watching it on youtube with the plebs, present company excluded of course.

Whole film is apparently embedded on the Wikipedia page as a webm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Safety_Last_(1923).webm

Heard something along the lines of Harold Lloyd's work was exhibited on TV less (I think due to rights issues?) and this accounts for his lower profile when compared to Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel & Hardy.

i do remember harold lloyd on tv in the uk, specifically watching it around my gran's. seemed to be always on. "hooray for harold lloyd"... possibly a clip show.

yeah, these, from 1977 - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2yaO_4_FwpkWNviqJsyrKIw16fVFT9YO

Yes, I believe that came up in the convo as well, the UK being an exception.

can't believe it took me so long to watch this in full.

the building climbing scene, of course this is just fantastic, just the sheer planning and imagination needed, nothing is wasted. enjoyed it as a thriller more than as a comedy.

the rest of the film is fine, if a bit weak. I know I've been spoiled a bit with all this Keaton & Chaplin, but Lloyd just doesn't quite have the same charisma, or the same quality of writing.

I dispute the notion of Lloyd lacking charisma

oh he has it, just not quite as much

ok, back to the main plot

https://i.postimg.cc/HL8sYCqW/18574.jpg

Man With A Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, 1929

Morbsies #193
Sight & Sound Critics #9
Sight & Sound Directors #30

Should really post a youtube link. Very nice post-rock/jazz soundtrack from The Cinematic Orchestra.
Should also post some thoughts as I've now watched it three times, but that can wait for tomorrow.

I was looking forward to this as I've already used Dziga Vertov's sound collages in my mixes (in fact I structured my 1925 mix entirely around one) but was not ready for how deeply and immediately I would fall for it. I could say it's the way he frames the film with the audience / the orchestra / filming himself filming / his eye / stopping the action and showing the editing of the film we're watching / the intercuts of birth & death - but all of these I'm sure have been talked about a lot already, and are enough to make me admire the work. What I absolutely love about it though is the feel he has for editing at pace, the way the cuts build up and crash down like a symphony. So many shots feel so wildly ahead of their time too, every few minutes there's something I could swear I've seen referenced in 50s/60s/70s cinema.

Started watching The Unholy Three (1930), and think I will substitute this for All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) which will surely be a bit less shit.

This short can represent 90% of Hollywood films in 1930.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH7XlG9j0xs

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front_%281930_film%29_poster.jpg

All Quiet on the Western Front, Lewis Milestone, 1930

Apologies to ILX user J.Lu, whose vote got The Unholy Three to #434 in the Morbsies, I couldn't sit through it.
No votes for All Quiet on the Western front in Morbsies or Sight & Sound polls, but it's the top rated film of 1930 in a number of places, and I haven't seen it before.

Gave this one a spin.

It's certainly visually impressive for a sound feature from 1930. Obviously showy are those tracking shots following the boys as they run through the field, explosions around them, but often it's also just a matter of making the blocking and general visual information onscreen aesthetic and interesting enough that you don't mind the static camera. Lots of smart editing as well.

I've read a couple of Remarque novels but not this one, still feel I can say the film mostly does a good job of capturing his mix of cynicism and romanticism. I'd like to think the corniest moments from this read different in the novel but tbh Remarque wasn't above a cheap tear jerker moment or two.

A big problem is none of the lads we follow have much charisma, they all seem basically interchangeable and none of the actors exude much star power. The semi-comedic grizzled veterans are much better, and much closer to how we think of grunts now.

A scene featuring extensive dialogues in French, spoken by native speakers! Classic Hollywood was so much more cosmopolitan than modern Hollywood. Helps to have a couple world wars provide a torrent of talent from all over I guess.

I'll also admit that on a shallow level, I don't find modern warfare scenes exciting. My hippie parents never encouraged me to play with toy soldiers or watch military-related stuff. I did read fantasy though, so give me some orcs and a dragon or two and suddenly it's a different story. I can't get enough of those LOTR battles.

There's certainly a lot of cheese here, though obv allowances have to be made, a lot of the stuff that registers as total cliché wasn't so much so when this came out.

How crap must the recent version be? I don't think the current scene has much of a way with hard boiled gallow's humour, which I think is the best part of the story.

Just finished watching and yes! agreed with you on almost all of that. These early sound films are all so hokey, they haven't figured out how to do dialogue on screen, so you get these looooong two-shots of actors unconvincingly going through this stagey dialogue which also sounds muffled and hard to make out - honestly feels like film has stepped back a decade in terms of artisty. It also doesn't help that Lew Ayres (and the rest of the young cast to be fair) are clearly not up to the job of portraying the horrors of war.

The best thing here is definitely the battle scenes, which are as beautiful as they are terrifying. Some of those tracking shots are absolute works of art. Just a shame the majority of the film is so deeply average.

Dunno if I would extend this to early talkies as a whole - checking my letterboxd for 1930, this came out the same year as Lubitsch's "Monte Carlo" and the Marx Bros movie "Animal Crackers", both of which do fine on dialogue. Slightly more comparable to "All Quiet..." from this year is Hawk's "The Criminal Code", which has its fair share of corny moments but manages much better due to the star power of Walter Huston and Boris Karloff. The technical limitations you mention def play a part but I think it's also to do with the specific brand of oscarbait-y drama that this film is.

Well yes, I might have been a little hyperbolic there, but I think it holds up as a general rule for most of the 1928-1931 talkies I've seen. Even Animal Crackers and Monkey Business suffer from these problems, though both still great, the jump in quality when you get to Horse Feathers is huge (let's not even talk of The Cocoanuts). Haven't seen Monte Carlo or The Criminal Code, may take a look. The "Tomatos Another Day" video I posted upthread is a brilliant parody of early talkies, and sums all of this up really well.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/City_Lights_%281931_theatrical_poster_-_retouched%29.jpg

City Lights, Charles Chaplin, 1931

Morbsies #160
Sight & Sound critics #36
Sight & Sound directors #46

youtube link

afraid I have a bit of a challops on this one

so this was, what, fine? OK? a bigger budget version of the longer silent comedies from the late 20s, and I enjoyed watching it well enough, but that's kind of it. the cinematography was nothing special, the comedy scenes were neither funny nor spectacular (apart from the first one where he was sleeping on the statue) - the story with the rich drunk could have been developed a little. most importantly I'm afraid i found the central love story just kind of mawkish and basic, and the famous last scene just left me cold. think I have to conclude that I am Just Not Into Chaplin.

Think Keaton works better for a modern audience than Chaplin does, the latter often gets mawkish.

I don't like how transactional the romance feels. she loves him because he paid for the operation which restored her sight, but there's very little to show she really knows who he is. what if, having found out he's a penniless tramp and the money was stolen, she finds she isn't really into him? Kindness towards people you pity isn't romance, surely. of course this is entirely my reading and she may actually be really into him, but it was a surprise that I didn't feel completely on-board at the end.

https://i.postimg.cc/hGCj1LB8/lf.jpg

M, Fritz Lang, 1931

Morbsies #70
Sight & Sound Critics #36

youtube link, English subs

I have yet to meet the person who doesn't love or at least really, really like this movie. Prove me wrong, ILX!

Melancholia (von Trier, 2011)
The Earrings of Madame de...(Ophuls, 1953)

Finally got to watch it on MUBI. Just perfect. Silly people make it hard for themselves.

I was reminded this evening that I watched the von Trier a couple of months ago. It's kinda unique how Von Trier got into making really good films by the end of his career.

fair but so uncool beliefs here (Eric H.) at 10:38 12 Jun 23

I have yet to meet the person who doesn't love or at least really, really like this movie. Prove me wrong, ILX!

https://i.imgur.com/mrQz5lH.jpg

Shanghai Express, Josef von Sternberg, 1932
Morbsies #229

Flaming, goddamn masterpiece this one is

it's here because it's somebody's number one pick.

I thought I had it downloaded, but I didn't, so just resolved that.

it isn't on youtube

The only one of the six-film run from Morocco to The Devil is a Woman that has never been in the “first among equals” position in my personal rankings is Devil, but lately I am settling on Shanghai being the true best, tho Empress outdoes it in sheer gall

this was an odd one, for the first half an hour or more I wasn't getting into it at all, despite those amazing shots of the train going through the market, I think maybe the lack of restoration on the copy I was watching hobbled it somewhat.

then suddenly it all clicked, and I was gripped. Marlene Dietrich's performance is straight up astounding, and the way close ups are used! it just feels like a breakthrough, very much pre-code in the way the characters are free to be themselves, even Chang is well-drawn and in no way a cartoon villain. (Did find it bizarre that this warlord and his army in Northern China were speaking in Cantonese throughout, but makes sense in terms of actors available in Hollywood in 1932)

Oh and quite chuffed to have picked up that it was a loose adaptation of Boule de Suif, I was a bit obsessed with Maupassant after doing some of his short stories for GSCE English literature, and don't see him referenced nearly enough.

Going to try to find a restoration for a better re-watch.

think I'm too cishet to fully "get" Sternberg/Dietrich :(

not really sure what you mean, I don't really like camp or kitsch and I didn't see any of that here

Yeah I'm not sure what is meant by that.

---

The Earrings of Madame de...(Ophuls, 1953)

Sorry lol already posted about that.

Yeah, only parts of Scarlet Empress and maybe Devil is a Woman are, to my eyes, tipped over into genuine camp

I dunno about camp, but I bought that Criterion box and watched up to and including Blonde Venus - there seemed to be a big thematic preoccupation with obsessive passion arising from often forbidden or impossible love, and a focus on female pain (that last shot of Morocco!), portrayed with solidarity as opposed to sadism. Is it controversial to say those are traditionally queer themes? Anyway while I admired the visuals and emotional commitment of those films there was something about them that kept me at arm's length regarding them, thus my initial post, which was meant half-jokingly and self-deprecatingly if that didn't come through.

Is it controversial to say those are traditionally queer themes?

No, but also, y'know, feminist themes as well

I like Sternberg (aka the fake "von") but I'd rather discuss Ophuls.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Kingkongposter.jpg

King Kong, Merian C Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1933

Morbsies #546

Saw someone in a discord the other day arguing that sfx age but good storytelling does not so we still like King Kong because it's a great story, despite the aged effects. Wrong! Special effects can have aesthetic value that goes beyond their state-of-the-artness and the reason we like King Kong is because big munhkee looks great, despite the story being mostly bullshit.

"Twas beauty killed the beast" - nah dude pretty sure it was you taking this poor animal out of his habitat and flogging him as a circus attraction that's to blame here.

Not sure if I've seen this in full before, if I have then it was in the early 90s and I wasn't paying attention.

This is not on youtube in full, there is a hacked down one-hour version but I won't bother sharing it.

It's on iplayer for brits and those with a VPN.

they used to show an extract from this on the Granada Studios Tour (before the MotionMaster "experience", which was a bit disappointing in comparison), it was definitely the best part after getting to walk round the real Coronation Street

Finally watched this last night, all very familiar, but interesting to see it in the context of the year. The editing & direction for the non-monster scenes is interesting after watching Shanghai Express, there is still this slight disconnect between lines of dialogue, but it's at least getting there. Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong were fine, other actors were pretty bad, including Bruce Cabot, who seems to have made the best career out of it anyway.

Agreed that Kong himself looks magnificent, just really ground-breaking animation, really feels like a living, breathing character, this is the main (if not only) reason the film works so well. The dinosaurs on the other hand were a bit shit.

So yeah, not by any means the best film I've ever seen, and the racism is inexcusable, but I can understand why this would be someone's favourite.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Duck_Soup_%281933_poster%2C_Style_B_half_sheet%29.jpeg

Duck Soup, Leo McCarey, 1933

Morbsies #31
Sight & Sound Critics #211

I have seen this looooads of time already, so I'm going to spend the week bingeing the 30s Marx Brothers films and see if I can work out why this is The One.

Is there a Marx brothers box set out there in region 2?

Arrow has a box of the 4 paramount features.

there is a comprehensive torrent out there too

I'm going to spend the week bingeing the 30s Marx Brothers films and see if I can work out why this is The One.

My theory (and worth less than what you paid for it): a combination of a better director of comedy, the Marx Bros' growing experience and confidence in film performing, and little or no enforcement of the Hays Code.

'Duck Soup' and 'Everything Everywhere all at Once' are the only two films I simply could not finish in the last six months.

I can imagine if you aren't into their humour then any Marx Brothers film would be challenging to watch.

But I am very much into their humour.

Not finishing an 80-minute film takes some effort!

Sorry -- 70 minutes.

Horse Feathers is 63 minutes!

actually, now I'm inspired: xyzzz, have you seen much Hollywood comedy and what are your favorites?

xyzz surprisingly not a fan of Marx!

I got very uncomfortable with it tbh. Wasn't doing anything for me and had nothing to hang onto. It's really rare when that happens.

xp: I've seen a Chaplin film as part of this. Several Buster Keaton films. I find lots of things funny.

xxp: 😂

I found Duck Soup more theoretically amusing than actually laugh-inducing, though I enjoyed the "mirror" scene a lot.

Oh, I meant if you've watched any Sturges, Hawks, etc.

yeah I like Duck Soup and will likely show it in class but it has as many misses as hits. The brio of the thing gets it by.

My discovery this week is how solid Animal Crackers and Monkey Business are. I'd kind of written them both off as unpolished and patchy but there's loads of great stuff in both.

Oh, I meant if you've watched any Sturges, Hawks, etc.

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 3 July 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Like Bringing up Baby. Not seen anything like enough though.

Today was Duck Soup day, think I have worked out why this one seems like a step up. Previously I considered it basically on a par with Horse Feathers, but with a weaker ending. But while I still loved Horse Feathers yesterday I have to admit there's a 20-minute stretch (the piano lesson / scene on the boat / failed kidnapping / start of the football game) which is a bit sub-par, especially the bit on the boat, Thelma Todd is mostly excellent, but in that scene she and Groucho are tonally completely off. Whereas in Duck Soup you've got Margaret Dumont, who is never anything short of perfect as a foil.

But Generally Duck Soup just doesn't have any of those weaker sequences, in fact the mirror scene (I think my favourite) is placed at the same point in the story as the sagging section of Horse Feathers. In the previous four films they vacillate between having no real plot at all and having a plot acted out by Serious Actors with the brothers intruding. In Duck Soup they are central to the plot, and people don't ignore them, someone even starts a war because Groucho has been so rude to him, and that just feels right.

Also should note that Zeppo is barely in this one, you can already feel he's halfway out of the door. While I do feel sorry for him, it's never really worked out, and just inserting him as the romantic lead was never going to work.

The ending, then. Last watch I felt it was too rushed, this time it felt just right, I just wanted more! less than 70 minutes is not enough.

Watched A Night At The Opera last night, have seen many times before and was wondering whether it would be worse in context. the MGM pictures (I've just discovered) have this reputation for getting away from the core Marx Brothers product and wasting time on extravagant musical numbers, etc. And yes, several huge musical numbers (including the titular opera of course) and proper actors doing a proper plot, and the spirit of chaos has definitely been dialed down several notches. But it turns out I still love it. The musical numbers are spectacular, the atmosphere of the song on the boat and Chico & Harpo vamping after is an incredible bit of cinema. Then there are so many brilliant scenes - the contract, all the people in the cabin, moving the beds in the hotel, just all the mad things that happen during the opera - the bigger budget only makes these better. The only thing I would say is a step down is the pace of some of the dialogue, Groucho keeps pausing between lines, or saying things that aren't jokes, "I was looking forward to this breakfast" for example. But it's only a minor gripe, I still think it's as good as Duck Soup.

https://www.originalposter.co.uk/uploads/366726100444794_mainphotos.jpg

L'Atalante, Jean Vigo, 1934
Sight & Sound Critics #34
Sight & Sound Directors #46

I had given up checking, but the whole thing is available on youtube it seems.

Still regard the moment 9:10 into the movie where Dita walks the length of the barge at dusk, her white bridal gown gleaming against the dark, industrial backdrop, as one of the great magical moments in early cinema

Man, was Michel Simon ever young??

Towards the beginning of this it felt so idyllic - ppl building their own happiness outside of the strictures of polite society, it reminded me of the movie Holiday and also of the Moomins. But at the same time, lord, so much bickering! I was left uncertain whether to take the final scenes as a happy ending or the continuation of a vicious circle.

A friend brought this film up yesterday, unrelated to this project, and he had misremembered it as a silent film. Which is weird in one way because it is very chatty but there are def a few sequences that feel like silent cinema.

The underwater sequence!

Yeah, it's beautiful. Also a film stuffed with sexuality and sensuality in a way that Hollywood, even Pre-Code, would never have gone for.

It's a fantastic film.

Loved this

Don't we get a new one? And Camaraderie's thoughts on L'Atalante?

No - keeping us at arms length.

nearly finished with it! hold yr hosses!

yeah this was lovely, just re-watching as had missed a lot of the cinematography due to the lousy rip I posted above. it was an odd one as everything seemed kind of inconsequential at first, but as it built up and I became invested in their lives everything clicked. such rich, believable characters and such insight into their lives. it felt like I was watching the first french new wave film, so many parallels not just in filmmaking, but in the way it feels, the way it just immerses you in a world, that mix of social realism and fantasy.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Scarlet_empress.jpeg

The Scarlet Empress, Josef von Sternberg,1934

Morbsies #605

Good one, though Sam Jaffe's performance needs adjusting to.

this one also is on youtube and looks to be in reasonable quality this time

Man, was Michel Simon ever young??

I watched Deux Heures A Tuer, a middling French murder mystery from the 60's, and he's in it basically still playing the same kind of role.

The first five minutes of this one alone, my god ... the dissolve from a suspended man serving as the unwilling clapper to a gigantic bell to Marlene's guileless ingenue enjoying a spring swing

There's not many pre-1940 movies where I get insistant about seeing it projected onto a giant screen, but this is prob #1

I enjoyed this a great deal, but also it was quite the cheese-fest, and really stagey, I never once forgot that this was a film set with professional actors doing their thing. Not exactly a disqualifying factor, but I just didn't find any of this with Shanghai Express. Some of the shots were of course terrific, that one long tracking shot of the wedding feast for example. But there were also some odd editing mistakes, especially towards the end, and the use of intertitles was a bit of an unexpected throwback.

What this all oddly reminded me of was early-to-mid-70s gothic horror Doctor Who serials, like The Monster of Peladon. Just something about the way it felt, and the non-theatening cartoon villain.

None of those things are negatives in my experience

Fair enough! Will stress that I did like it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/The_39_Steps_%281935%29_-_poster.jpg

The 39 Steps, Alfred Hitchcock, 1935
Morbsies #374

Perfect in its way.

this one is also on youtube, albeit in non-restored quality, if anyone has any tipoffs about a better quality stream then please share.

This is, I think, my 4th viewing of The 39 Steps, will try my best to have some new things to say about it!

I generally don't have much to say about Hitchcock's British stuff except that The Lady Vanishes is by a fair distance my favorite

Lucky to have seen L’Atalante in 35mm once. I believe it was at the Cinefamily in Los Angeles

Agree Lady Vanishes is best, but 39 Steps is a good 'un too. Love that final shot of them holding hands.

John Buchan in general a rather dull writer, aside from all the bigotry - safe to jump straight to Ambler imo.

Watched this again last night, it is kind of throwaway nonsense, but done so perfectly, not a moment is wasted. I love how Hitchcock doesn't hesitate in throwing out all of the dodgy or nonsensical stuff from Buchan's book and cutting it down to the essentials, then adding the brilliant "Mr Memory" plot and of course Pamela. Everything works so well that it's no wonder he recycled the film twice (Saboteur and North By Northwest)

Just been given a much better-quality upload by the youtube algorithm, in case anyone wants to watch this.

This is the film that makes certain purists think he should never have crossed the pond.

What a weird opinion, especially considering how much, as Camaraderie mentioned, this is a blueprint for NBNW. What do these people dislike in the American work, not enough location shooting?

the level of sexiness in 39 Steps is off the chart for a Brit flick of its era

What a weird opinion, especially considering how much, as Camaraderie mentioned, this is a blueprint for NBNW. What do these people dislike in the American work, not enough location shooting?

― Daniel_Rf,

Residual snobbery for Hitch's crossing the pond.

Well the egg's certainly on his face leaving the powerhouse of creativity that was the British film industry of the 1930's.

Why do some people like Buñuel’s Mexican films more than his French films?

Have you seen Simon of the Desert? There's your answer

Simon is the best

It really is. I like a lot of his Mexican films but I love neo-realism so..

Wouldn't say I prefer them to his French stuff though.

Why do some people like Buñuel’s Mexican films more than his French films?

― Live and Left Eye (James Redd and the Blecchs)

I'm not seeing this? He made more Mexican than French films, of variable quality.

Add another "some" if that works for you.

My question was kind of just really trying to make some kind of anology between Mexican Buñuel and British Hitchock, what was done with less gloss on a more limited budget in the native tongue.

Next you're going to point out that British and American English are the same language and Buñuel was Spanish, not Mexican.

I think my position that 80-90% of the best stuff of Hitchcock's career came from his American period is probably a minority one

I dunno, took a quick glance at the s&s 250 and all 4 Hitchocks I saw are US productions.

I think The Lady Vanishes, 39 Steps and The Lodger are highly rated but pitting the whole of the UK work vs the US stuff saying UK is superior feels like contrarianism.

Aside from anything else the UK stuff doesn't have Cary Grant or James Srewart!

I think my position that 80-90% of the best stuff of Hitchcock's career came from his American period is probably a minority one

― fair but so uncool beliefs here (Eric H.)

An opinion.

When Robin Wood published Hitchcock's Films in 1965, he was working against what he saw as the elevation of the UK films over the American. Of course, he was in the UK at the time, where that opinion may have been more prevalent. Nowadays, I'd say the US films are much more widely acclaimed (as is Hitchcock's work in general).

39 Steps and the o.g. Man Who Knew Too Much are maybe the only two of his pre-US films i love as much as the later stuff

Add The Lodger.

haven't watched that in an age and i probably should

I think my position that 80-90% of the best stuff of Hitchcock's career came from his American period is probably a minority one

To repeat what a couple of others point out, I think that's been far and away the common view for at least a couple of decades. To the point that his best British films probably get overlooked. I loved The Lady Vanishes the one time I saw it, probably as much as anything except Rear Window and Psycho.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Modern_Times_poster.jpg

Modern Times, Charles Chaplin, 1936
Morbsies #239
Sight & Sound Critics #78
Sight & Sound Directors #72

only clips available on youtube, open to suggestions about where it's available to watch, apart from torrents

Criterion do a UK regioned blu-ray of Modern Times.

xpost

The proposition that American Hitchcock was superior to English Hitchcock first pushed by French critics in the 1950s? Wood's first piece of film criticism, an essay on Psycho, rejected by Penelope Houston for Sight and Sound (because Wood hadn't acknowledged that Psycho was a 'comedy') but accepted by Cahiers du Cinema.

For at least the last thirty years, certain British critics - led by Charles Barr - have argued in favour of the English films, and it's quite an industry now. A former ILXOR published a good book-length study of The Lodger a year or so ago.

That former ilxor was often pushing against the notion that Brit cinema was bad when posting here. I guess being told Godard was god when you think it's juvenalia gets old.

I am not as negative as some (though I started like that), but I am not fully sold on the glories of it either. Saying the UK channeled a lot of those energies on making often excellent TV is hardly a disaster for culture.

Well, not in the 1930's tho!

I do remember a post by the poster who shall not be named saying Hitchcock was "miles ahead of everyone else in Britain" circa The Lodger.

I wanted to re-watch Goodbye, Dragon Inn (Tsai, 2003) after it topped the mini-poll we ran a couple of months ago...and as I watched the first five mins it turned out I had never seen it lol.

What a film though. Just about perfect.

Always with Tsai in this period is to talent to assemble the right composition to convey sadness and hilarity.

Very much a film that will make you laugh and cry.

So, Modern Times then.

Definitely a big step up from City Lights I'd say, mostly appreciate it for the set design and cinematography, both of which are all-time, to the extent that it felt like The Tramp just got in the way from time to time. Once again the plot is just an excuse for a series of set pieces, which must be amazing if you are a fan of Chaplin and find him hilarious and adorable, but I have to conclude at this point that I just don't, sorry. Paulette Goddard is just wonderful though, such a modern actor, and much better than the simpering Virginia Cherrill. Doesn't have a great deal of chemistry with Chaplin, which is odd considering they married this year. The shot of them walking away together at the end is perfectly done, couldn't have imagined better.

So I'm not in love with this, but it's such a beautiful film that I don't really care.

39 steps on tptv this afternoon for the Britishers

oh no, that was the 59 version with Kenneth More

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Make_Way_for_Tomorrow_%281937_poster%29.jpg

Make Way for Tomorrow, Leo McCarey, 1937
Morbsies #723

And devastating as any Ozu.

*as

Looks really good.

xyzzzz, am I wrong in remarking that you haven't seen much older Hollywood fare? (Not a dis at all, btw, just an observation).

No problem. I'd say that's correct, yes. Silents is a massive gap overall.

Only classic US mini-genre I've seen quite a lot of is noir.

it is curious that what I think of as the typical examples of the golden age of Hollywood (basically MGM musical extravaganzas) are so underrepresented in this list

fantastic film. rewatched it with my dad a while back and he loved it.

Welles was right about Make Way. Pretty sure that, outside of Only Angels Have Wings, this is my favorite golden era Hollywood movie

Saw it once ages ago, thought it was very good. Going My Way--the way it handles Barry Fitzgerald's character--is also an excellent film about getting old.

In case Eve -- sorry, Eric -- doesn't know to which Welles quote he refers:

Orson Welles said of the film, "It would make a stone cry,"

It would.

This is a good film, but I couldn’t help being frustrated by how useless the husband is and how his wife shelters him from the realities of their situation. In a way, it makes the film more potent, because we see her perspective and how she has to bear the burden of understanding the end of the relationship on her own. Still, it’s hard for me to embrace a film based around keeping someone ignorant of the truth of their prospects and fate.

Why not? The keeping up -- the shattering of -- illusions is in part what it's about. Many films have a similar theme.

It might make me heartless that I’d prefer to see the husband’s illusions broken.

Sure! But is that a reason to recoil? Sorry if I'm pressing.

I wouldn't say "recoil", just that the film didn't reach a potential level of dramatic tension; although I do feel for the wife having to protect a fool from the consequences of his actions. Maybe, in a way, it's cruel of her to allow him to keep his optimism, only for it to (presumably) be shattered, later, when he is alone?

I don't think it will be shattered, he'll keep on trying to find work, I think he knows too, deep down, but he just always tries to put a positive spin on things. Reminds me of my dad, and of me to a certain extent.

Anyway, finally watched this this evening, agreed with Orson that it's very affecting stuff, all the more so because the children aren't monsters, they're just dealing with their own shit.

It’s really close to Renoir, as Hollywood filmmaking goes

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Holiday_poster.jpg

Holiday, George Cukor, 1938
Morbsies #144

Maybe Hepburn's best early performance, close to Grant's best, period, and while the film's message is weird (i.e. we all need holidays) it's so damn un-American I'm surprised people weren't arrested.

Much prefer this to The Philadelphia Story

yep

It might be the most modern of all the screwball era comedies, in that it has a progressive message and none of the more manipulative/abrasive gender relations stuff.

It's certainly not the funniest of them. But it's so kind hearted and warm that I don't really mind that.

the kindheartedness is the key

https://archive.org/details/ld-4y-1938

it's odd how many of these films take ages to grab me but by the end I'm absolutely sold. loved Grant and Hepburn, in this, loved the leisurely pace and the way they were just fooling around, but at the same time making massive decisions that would affect their whole lives, a perfect match of feel and message. the scene with the two of them doing circus tricks in the attic, and the punch & Judy show were perfect, and the ending felt completely earned. really enjoyable hour and a half, and one I'll come back to.

I've said this before but Lew Ayres is my favorite screen alcoholic: sad, ironic, possibly gay.

yeah he was a lot more convincing here than in All Quiet On The Western Front.

Also: Julia isn't a villain. She loves her sister. You can see the sparks of their former camaraderie. No one's a villain in this picture except for Henry Daniell.

Yup, even Henry Kolker was far from being an ogre.

Anyway, here's a biggie...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/La_regle_du_jeu.jpg

The Rules of the Game, Jean Renoir, 1939
Morbsies #7
Sight & Sound Critics #13
Sight & Sound Directors #38

oh I've heard of this one

It's on youtube but without subtitles.

Of all the movies that regularly get called, more or less, the best of all time, Rules is the one where you just have to go "Yeah, of course it is."

I've had mediocre experiences teaching this one to college students the last five years.

I've seen it one (1) time, in my first month at film school, my script-writing tutor (this guy) showed it to us on a little TV before he let us write anything.

That was a quarter of a century ago and I remember very little

^Studied under Thorold Dickinson = UK film studies royalty (only a degree of separation from Raymond Durgnat would score you higher!)

Rules definitely one of those films that genuinely gets better every time you see it (wld say the same about Vertigo, and perhaps explains why they're often in GOAT competition).

Yeah he was easily one of the best tutors on the course (and I only had him the once) - he also showed us his debut feature, a relentlessly grim film about prostitutes in the old west called Painted Angels, I appreciated it but don't think many of my classmates agreed.

Loved this of course, how could I not? Nothing stood out as being spectacular in terms of script, acting or cinematography, it was all just perfectly pitched, not a moment wasted, every character seemed alive and full of contradictions. It was heavily stylised without ever seeming artificial or mannered. Feel like I want to go back and watch the whole thing again, but should probably move on as it's Monday.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/His_Girl_Friday_%281940_poster%29_crop.jpg

His Girl Friday, Howard Hawks, 1940
Morbsies #115
Sight & Sound Critics #129

This one is on youtube, but looks like a crappy rip. ANy other links would be welcome.

Every public library in the country carries a DVD if you can't find it online.

which country?

In Soviet Russia His Girl Friday rents you!

Not a fan of this film but I've discussed that on here semi recently.

God I run hot and cold on Hawks, even still ...

Cary Grant is so sexy as an unrepentant asshole, especially in that hat.

Thought I had seen this before but seemed entirely unfamiliar. Enjoyed parts of it a great deal and a lot to admire, but something about it just didn't sit right with me - the middle third (restaurant scene to criminal climbing in window) just didn't seem to work in terms of plot or characters. The scene where she's typing up the story and not listening to her fiancée was the highlight for me, something very relatable and not often seen on screen.

https://i.imgur.com/Qb9ILTr.jpg

The Maltese Falcon, John Huston, 1941
Morbsies #62

By gad, sir, you are a character, if you don't my saying so!

Bogart looks a bit weird in that poster?

I suspect it's a promo shot for High Sierra, for which I think he sported a crew cut.