Grandest 'Film Folly' Of All

Hell of a choice. In terms of sheer 'you are high and fuck you forever,' Kolberg probably takes the cake but god knows who'd want to sit through any of it.

I will always have a fondness for Cleopatra. Drunk on its own post-World War II 'America rules the cultural world and rewrites it in its image' grandeur.

Playtime would probably always be my fallback one to watch, though.

If I really did have an S&S ballot for real, I'd be tempted to stuff the entire ballot with movies from this list.

xpost you got it, Ned. This is all about movies that are drunk on themselves.

I've only seen four of these--if I'm correctly interpreting "magnificently off the rails" to mean which one's the best, I'll abstain, because of the four I'd pick Apocalypse Now, and I'm not that big a fan. Surprised he didn't list Heaven's Gate. My own choice might be Magnolia.

Heaven's Gate is mentioned briefly in the company of Apocalypse Now. He differentiates:

(Apocalypse Now's) faults are the spillover of its virtues: a feverish rush of ideas about the war, the characters, the sources and implications of its story, the formal possibilities of filmmaking. The picture begins and ends with the screen bursting into flames, and the events in between play like a rolling conflagration.

Heaven's Gate, on the other hand, is merely a long, expensive flop, whose most striking characteristic is an air of utter literal-mindedness. ... Heaven's Gate was the result not of extravagance but of a plodding discipline.

So it's not really just about budgets. Magnolia's not really even in the conversation here, tbh.

By the way, I really recommend this book, despite it's own (probably inevitable) hoity-toity tone.

To me, Magnolia does belong. It's wildly ambitious, completely nuts, sometimes brilliant, sometimes stupefying, etc. Disagree with regards to Heaven's Gate, too--I mean, he clearly doesn't like the film, and that's fine, but I think a lot of people would argue it practically defines what he's talking about.

No, it doesn't. This is about movies that compare to Wagner, not Pluto Nash.

i don't really think cleopatra is "feverish" tbh, closer to the description of heaven's gate than not

(In reference to Magnolia, I mean, not Heaven's Gate, which he does include, fleetingly.)

That's a good line about Magnolia, but you're essentially saying "Here are the criteria, and this film doesn't belong because...I don't like it." It does fit the criteria.

Read the book and then we'll discuss why it doesn't belong.

Okay--you stay where you are, and I'll be back in three days...Not that I know anything about Wagner, but having seen Duel in the Sun, I'm guessing it's closer to Ed Wood.

Um, not really. Again, this isn't even an issue of quality or effectiveness on normal movie terms. This is a stricter sort of taxonomy I'm talking about here.

You know, if I hadn't seen Duel in the Sun, I might actually fall under the spell of "stricter sort of taxonomy"...

Can we just say we disagree and leave it at that?

No.

Okay, let's fight. I think the category's great. But I don't feel any need to take his picks as gospel. (And no--oh no!--I haven't read the book.) "This is all about movies that are drunk on themselves." That's Heaven's Gate, and that's Magnolia--totally, and completely.

I appreciate you abstaining from voting, if you're really going to compare PTA's experience making Magnolia to Lang and Von Stroheim making Metropolis and Greed.

Well, now you're bringing in something new altogether. Are we talking about the finished film, or what went into the making of that film? If I look back at the original post, there's really no indication that process had anything to do with it, unless I missed something.

It's sort of right there in these movies' gestalt. I didn't think I really had to explain that because, especially in cases like Apocalypse Now and Fitzcarraldo, it's sorta self-evident. Extravagance/exertion as both journey and destination. (So, yes, you can definitely argue that Heaven's Gate at least merits discussion, and is part of it in Klawans' book, even if he decides that it's a different sort of money-sucking beast.)

Okay--I was asleep at the switch and missed the gestalt. (For dummies like me, explanations are helpful.) Seems to me the category is now widened to any number of infamous follies from Peckinpah, Gilliam, Spielberg, etc.

Please, don't.

Or at least not until you have read the book.

Homework thus assigned, I bid you good night.

Happy reading.

Based on the criteria outlined above, shouldn't Waterworld be on the list? (High-on-his-own-ego actor/producer/director with a megalomaniac vision, went way over its budget, etc.)

Do not--I repeat, do not--question the list. The list is good. The list abides.

I'd have thought a "magnif off-the-rails" movie would be the original "Casino Royale"

A James Bond film, rights to which were up for grabs, obtained and actioned. Should have been an easy. but: Hey, let's get Orson Welles and Peter Sellers. That'll make it easy to make! And so on, etc...

xpost not questioning the list, just adding another.

Good luck to the both of you; may peace be with you as you embark on this difficult journey.

Kolberg, easily. They pulled a bunch, i think several thousand soldiers off the eastern front - in 1945! - to star as extras in it. No folly on the list can come close to that. I don't think Goebbels actually directed it though?

That said, maybe it made the 39-45 war shorter by a few days, who knows?

Les Amants du Pont-Neuf - Classic or Dud?

Thanks for the list btw - I have a feeling some of these are available on Mubi!

Apparently reading this book makes you act like a real dickweed

Unless I missed that Eric H is the kind of guy who trumpets a 'strict taxonomy' for 'movies that are drunk on themselves' before this

apparently not reading this book and finding the idea of reading a book ludicrous makes you awesome and insightful. very 2010.

oh wtf, dude

I'm talking about eric h giving another ilxor shit for not understanding his criteria for a pretty nebulous concept, not for being literate

For what it's worth; last night, I suggested a couple of films that I thought could go on this list. I'm not at all opposed to the idea of reading the book. Reading is good--I do it all the time. But I didn't think that reading the book would be a precondition of suggesting ammendments to the list; the concept for the list seemed fairly clear to me, although apparently I did slightly misunderstand.

does Gregory Pecks sport a 'stache in Duel in the Sun? Man, I've wanted to rent for years but I've burned so many times by Peck and his facial hair.

I always expect the movie will be terrific camp and it's usually, er, not.

*Peck

no need to understand or familiarize yrself w/ an idea to have as valid a take on it as anyone else right?

no need to explain your criteria coherently before starting an ilx thread on the subject and bitching out those who dare to contribute, right?

defending ignorance as more valid than expertise is one daring contribution

defending ignorance as more valid than expertise

are you for real?

no need to understand or familiarize yrself w/ an idea to have as valid a take on it as anyone else right?

Well...(sighs)...I thought I did understand the idea; that's why I commented in the first place.

there is almost no such thing as terrific camp.

(victimized by too many smug NYC theater chortlers)

Greatest "ILE Thread Folly" of All.

balls you are awful at this

I like Lola Montes just fine.

Wow @ "The Conqueror"...I never heard that story. Crazy...

Inspired the Mekons song "The Flame That Killed John Wayne."

I had heard the Conqueror stories, had never seen any clips. That looks wretched.

But not as wretched as Song Of Norway!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKHKQ1p4HZk&feature=related

I do think Cleopatra is sort of the odd one out among these choices in that it really does seem to be a pretty irredeemable misfire, as opposed to glorious. (Never managed to get through it, myself.)

that's probably because it's an huge epic made by a guy who was essentially a screenwriter.

^^^

That would explain a couple things.

Watch it as Liz and Richard's first vacation films and it's a treat. (Legendary line from Mankiewicz during one of their love scenes: "Cut...CUT!...I feel like I'm intruding!")

Also it's just weird to be watching and see all these familiar people in different contexts. "Oh hey, Carroll O'Connor."

I made it through it (pan-and-scan) on TV in the '70s. The 4:30 Movie on WABC would show it in a 90-minute slot, all week, in 4 or 5 parts.

Uncut it's something like four hours -- allegedly the original cut was *six* hours. There's a couple of ridiculously rough edits where you can tell they chopped out something after Mankiewicz lost control of the cut.

Filmed in Super Panavision 70 by Davis Boulton and presented in single-camera Cinerama in some countries, it was a clear attempt to capitalise on the success of The Sound of Music but suffered from a weak script, poor editing (by the director's wife), unappealing animation and an ill-advised stunt sequence (directed by Yakima Canutt) which appeared to portray Grieg as an action hero.

yakima canutt? im fucking sold!

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Still think you cocked this one up, Clemenza.

My own window of interest is the '70s.

Posts so in character they didn't even need to be posted.

LOL this thread, memories

No Ludwig (Visconti, 1973), no credibility.

I liked L'Inhumaine, but as a precursor of the more epic lol-80s music videos. (Which I suspect were made by film students who had been trained on whatever version of Metropolis was in circulation.)

Foolish Wives is almost restrained compared to The Merry Widow (1925) or The Wedding March (1928). I haven't seen Queen Kelly, but all accounts suggest it's in the same vein.

Classic ILX right here.

That's for sure!

xp Clyde Fitch and this thread, thought you may not know it, were well before my time.

What makes a man walk into a lion cage with nothing but a chair?

clem, did you ever read Klawans?

Helluva book!

Don't know what the total death toll was for those who worked on Stalker compared to The Conqueror, mentioned above, but it's likely that the industrial location shooting near poisoned waterways was when Tarkovsky contracted cancer.

The only copy of this book is in a non-circulating reference library downtown, otherwise I'd like to read it.

One possible inclusion I thought of that I think fits the criteria as I now understand it is Hopper's Last Movie.

I actually like it a lot, but unlike all the other choices on the list, The Last Movie is barely coherent as a movie, thus losing a lot of potential grandeur in the eyes of most viewers.

This thread is the classic example of the insular, cock-tugging male critics worldview ILX is sometimes so terrible for.

Eric: I remember this thread. Of the many arguments I've had on here, this'd be one where I think back and--without even scrolling back--regret being needlessly difficult. Sorry.

I certainly didn’t do myself any favors either, obviously, and am fine (retroactively) haveing gotten called out on it

This thread is the classic example of the insular, cock-tugging male critics worldview ILX is sometimes so terrible for.

Hey, I was trying to be charitable :)

I haven't seen Queen Kelly, but all accounts suggest it's in the same vein.

And now I have seen Queen Kelly in the new Milestone edition. It definitely aspired to von Stroheim's previous achievements in excess, only stopped by Swanson and Kennedy shutting off the funding. And did von Sternberg consciously or unconsciously rip it off in The Scarlet Empress?

^Just saw this evening.

Erich von Stroheim’s Spectacular Art Is Back https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/erich-von-stroheims-spectacular-art-is-back

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/aug/11/director-madman-gloria-swansons-film-queen-kelly-von-stroheim-venice

What did you think of Queen Kelly?

It just seems to me this was going to be a trainwreck no matter what, once von Stroheim was fired. Some wonderful stuff in it, but I feel as if these glowing reviews have oversold it a bit.

I was pretty happy with it, thought the direction and central performance were both aces. Maybe I managed my expectations properly I dunno. The introduction was good too. I ended up buying the guys book and getting it signed.

The only Stroheim I've watched is a restored Greed on TCM years ago.

I've seen that too but can't remember much of it. Now I want to watch some of the others

I saw The Cranes Are Flying recently and it was a stunning achievement (if you discount the propaganda bits), now I want to see I Am Cuba to find out if the earlier film was a one-off.

The Wedding March and Blind Husbands are on ... tubı

(xp)
It's not. I Am Cuba is good.

on YouTube too. TWM looks great.

Looks great is in it is a nice transfer or it seems like it might be good.

Going to see another silent that was chopped up and restored more than once tonight at MoMA, although don't know if it was every considered a folly.

I haven't gotten around to I Am Cuba yet, but Letter Never Sent is incredible imo. if what you liked about Cranes were the insane action-movie-like set pieces, you'll love it

"Restored," this is the word I have a problem with. Restored to what? Not to anything that anyone wanted originally, in the case of Queen Kelly. I'll stop carping now. Yes, it's still something worth seeing.

No worries, it's all good. We've established some points of view at different spots on the spectrum, hopefully others will go and see and come here to weigh in as well.

Supposedly Criterion signaled their interest--more than a decade ago--in releasing The Wedding March. I do wish they, or another boutique label, would act. Flicker Alley recently put out Merry-Go-Round (1923), but they move so slowly they make Criterion look fast and reckless.

"Restored," this is the word I have a problem with.

"Restored," in film preservation, means whatever the person using the word wants it to mean.

There was no spoken introduction at the QK screening I attended, but the film opens with text outlining the production history. Then it described how Milestone took von Stroheim's script and other materials, dug into the world's film archives, assembled the material to match the director's original screenplay, and filled in missing passages with stills and plot summaries.

I hope Milestone's new management lives up to Dennis and Amy's standards for film restoration and curation.

Amen to that.

This restoration was pretty clear about what it was and what it wasn't, how the originally released Swanson version left out all the Africa stuff, ending with a double suicide! - and how they were filling in whatever they had to fill out the second part. I never felt like they were overselling or overreaching.