It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:12 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:06 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Rayon Vert wrote:
Can't see North by Northwest in there.

It was reviewed at-length by Moullet and while well-received overall in the CDD in December 1959 (Three stars from all the Cahiers critics on the panel except from Douchet, who gave it four), Moullet's essay is defensive and suggests most of his colleagues saw it as minor. Henri Agel was the sole contributor to vote for it in the yearly round-up


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:25 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Oh my God, this Moullet review is ridiculous. My translation of some of the typically Moulletean nonsense:
Luc Moullet wrote:
North By Northwest is an entertainment, as opposed to Vertigo, which is a serious movie. What does that mean? That the characters have consistency in Vertigo, and no consistency in North By Northwest, or more exactly the parody of the parody of the consistency they possessed in Vertigo. [...] Everyone knows it, so it isn't necessary to speak of it: a criticism is not made to criticize.

And then there's this
Luc Moullet wrote:
The aesthetics of Hitchcock are the aesthetics of the punch


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
What does that even mean (also now I take your comparison less as a compliment :| ).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:26 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
It wasn't an insult!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village
They rated The Nutty Professor over 8 1/2. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Honestly I'd probably do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:52 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I wouldn't even vote for 8 1/2. As odd as some of these choices are, a List Project culled exclusively from these lists would prob end up better than our actual decade lists


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Spain
Why does Los olvidados appear in two years? Is that a mistake?

La casa del ángel is definitely the best Argentinian film I've seen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:16 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Whoops, the 1961 one is actually the Young One, I fixed it now-- thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Rayon Vert wrote:
Godard gets his 4 films of '67 in the top 11! And he nails the top spot four years in a row. (Can't understand that level of admiration for Bande à part, though.)

And I hear that the Trump family have voted Donald Trump the Best President Ever. He also took silver and bronze.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:18 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I get the joke, but the Cahiers critics were more than capable of panning their friends' movies and did it all the time. They just really liked what Godard was doing (and he wasn't a contributor to the journal in 1967 anyways)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
I always got the sense that they were very 'brand conscious', and rather dogged in promoting it at the expense of other French filmmakers - and I think this is borne out in these lists. Sure, a handful of New Wave-aligned films could be panned as a show of 'critical independence', but it would have been unthinkable for their coterie to be unrepresented in any best of the year list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:03 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
That's just not accurate. I think detractors look at the collective tastes of the Cahiers from the wrong perspective. It's not that they all fell in line with the prevalent reading of their peers, it's that the prevalent reading of their peers tended to be the one shared by those with similar tastes. They hung with the same groups, went to the same events, and water finds its own level. There is constant disagreement among the critics on most films, and not just in matters of degree, but broadly their tastes were pretty similar. The Cahiers critics were not Legion, otherwise we'd be talking about how they all loved sci-fi when really it was just Fereydoun Hoveyda ringing that bell, but there's no evidence of pressure to conform. Indeed, the contributors relish their individual buckings as much as their fawning shared praises. There's no need to praise a film that they didn't like for internal bolstering-- Le beau Serge wasn't greeted rapturously from within, and that alone should discredit the above argument...

Fundamentally, most of the arguments raised in favor or against many films by Cahiers critics were thinly-veiled justifications/obfuscations of moral, religious, and political concerns, which can be confusing or absent from consideration when just looking at the titles in lists like this (and this in part is why their writing is rarely well-considered, regardless of their impact at the time and on film history). I think their collective writing and approach is fascinating, obviously, but I think a lot of that is also my interest in how so much of what people know (or think they know) about the journal and its members is convenient fiction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Ha, lubitsch was just attacking them in the Lang thread, I was surprised that didn't draw this response. Honestly, I find a lot of the responses to the Cahiers group that are predicated on a world in which they represent the official canon misguided- the degree to which the canon has shifted to agree with them is a sign of how influential they were, but I think a lot of their more incoherent arguments and perverse opinions have to be seen in the light that they were outsiders who were constantly trying to start some shit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:20 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I believe it's more youthful arrogance and desire to be bold as opposed to posturing to stir shit up-- I don't doubt the sincerity of their unusual or passionately-argued opinions (which is the tiredest argument against the Cahiers group-- "They couldn't possibly mean it!"), though Matrix, your point is broadly correct in the sense that they knew what they were doing and how it looked. That Cahiers got popular and were associated with and produced so many world-famous filmmakers and had infinitely more hand in taste-making than Positif or other left-leaning cinema journals at the time drove the other side bonkers with a mixture of jealousy and legit befuddlement-- being anti-Cahiers is nothing new!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Sure, that's a fair distinction. I don't think they were insincere in their opinions, just that they were trying to create an entirely new way of watching and responding to movies- so it's unsurprising that this lead to a lot of terrible or confused, occasionally self contradictory takes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Neupert's chapter on Rivette is pretty amusing in this regard since he keeps bringing up how Positif like him, but mostly used that liking to bash Cahiers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
if I'm not mistaken, the temporary suspension of the "best of the year" lists after 1968 reflects a shift from a nominally apolitical, cinephilic approach to an overtly left-wing, more "theoretical" editorial policy at Cahiers. (it's not long after that they publish the infamous, turgid, Lacan- and Althusser-inspired piece on Young Mr. Lincoln.)

I don't know how quickly this shift occurred or how it was experienced by the journal's veteran critics; I should probably read the Antoine de Baecque volumes on the history of the journal. but it would seem to be reflected, already, in some of the 1968 choices: the formalist Huillet/Straub and New Left Robert Kramer picks, and possibly the Quebecois documentaries too. btw the Kramer film, The Edge, has been largely forgotten; anyone here seen it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:47 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Your question is perfectly timed, I actually watched the Edge earlier tonight! I haven't read through any of the critical appraisals from Cahiers yet, but I'm curious how much their fancy with it is related to the politics (it involves a young radical leftist who intends to assassinate President Johnson) and how much is the style of the film-- the movie employs that ol' crutch of many student films in which excessive narration replaces synchronized sound because it's easier to do so (maybe 20% of the film is synchronized). However, Kramer overlaps dialog onto scenes that rarely depict or show when/where/what the conversation is covering. I could see this appealing to a formalist or aesthetic reading, but honestly, it came across as just constant amateur hour. Most of the overlap looked to be a quick fix for not shooting necessary scenes and having too much coverage shot of other scenes. The dialog is also meandering, proto-mumblecore (but somehow worse and less interesting [!]), the film explores exactly zero actual moral or political quandaries inherent in the premise, and everything looks like it was made on the weekends by a friend-circle. It is a movie so poorly constructed that its flaws could be mistaken for art. Even if these techniques were intentional distancing/tone-muting tools on Kramer's part, it's still basically the A Night to Dismember of political films.

I also watched the Big Mouth, which is typical mid-range mediocre Jerry Lewis (and a slightly better than average Sea World commercial), no more, no less. Though for some reason Colonel Sanders is in it and he calls fake Max Showalter a "moron," so there's that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Sanders is in it because he helped with catering. This was common for independent films back in the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:59 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Source? A quick Google search turned up a national KFC ad with Lewis and Sanders that ran in conjunction with the film's release, suggesting this was just product (mascot?) placement


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
It can be both. I know this was the case with The Phynx and Hell's Bloody Devil. My understanding is that he would make deals with films to cater at a severely reduced rate in exchange for product placement. It was mentioned when i saw the film on TCM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
From the IMDb trivia for HGL's Blast-Off Girls:

According to director Herschell Gordon Lewis, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Colonel Harland Sanders, whose company supplied Lewis' production company and advertising firm with fried chicken during the filming of this and other movies, insisted on appearing in a cameo at a KFC restaurant located in Wilmette, Illinois. Lewis recalled that Colonel Sanders was very difficult to work with because Sanders made several unreasonable and self-serving demands for, among many things, multiple rehearsals, top-billing, and wanting to direct the scene himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:17 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Interesting, thanks guys!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
swo17 wrote:
From the IMDb trivia for HGL's Blast-Off Girls:

According to director Herschell Gordon Lewis, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Colonel Harland Sanders, whose company supplied Lewis' production company and advertising firm with fried chicken during the filming of this and other movies, insisted on appearing in a cameo at a KFC restaurant located in Wilmette, Illinois. Lewis recalled that Colonel Sanders was very difficult to work with because Sanders made several unreasonable and self-serving demands for, among many things, multiple rehearsals, top-billing, and wanting to direct the scene himself.

Lewis talks about this a couple of times in different places in the big Arrow box set (which i am presently dragging myself through by the hair). It seems that he set up a deal with a local KFC to provide catering (a semi-regular thing, it seems, as The Gruesome Twosome has a prominent finger-lickin' sequence as one of its several desperate filler attempts) and was surprised to hear that Sanders wanted to be in the film - having, presumably, never heard of Lewis or his work!

We should probably be glad that the two didn't hit it off or we might have ended up with a follow-up called "It Tastes Like Chicken".


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Marwood


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection