Sight & Sound

[Ishmael]

I was beyond horrified when I saw Hukkle (2002). No warning in the program about animal cruelty which included a very graphic scene of a cat being poisoned to death. I had no idea that the film contained that content and when watching that scene I was at first unsure what was happening to the cat only to realise once the scene was well under way. I felt like throwing up.

I admit that had I known in advance I still would have seen the film given its prestige but as least I would have been prepared and could have closed my eyes and covered my ears.

I note that Hukkle received a UK release but was understandably cut. It never turned up in Australia beyond festival screenings and I really doubt any cuts would have been made had been submitted for classification.

That scene made me uncomfortable as well, but the director says on the DVD commentary that all they did was have a veterinarian temporarily anaesthetize the cat (same thing Tarr did in Satantango). They just let the cat loose in the grass so it stumbled around as it lost consciousness. That said, the cat looks scared to me, and I'll certainly look away from the screen if I ever watch the film again, but it wasn't physically hurt and certainly wasn't killed (unless the director is lying, which I have no reason to think is the case). Was Hukkle actually cut in the UK? If I understand how the law works, it sounds like that scene would be OK since it was faked.

[Aunt Peg]

That's good to know that it wasn't poisoned but it certainly did look very distressed.

Hukkle was cut according to the BBFC website: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/hukkle-h ... c0zmzawnza

I was only aware of the UK cut(s) because the Sight & Sound details of the film tech specs sometimes include cuts made.

[Ishmael]

Interesting, I wonder if they cut the whole scene or just part of it. Maybe the director couldn't prove his story about the cat not really being harmed, so the BBC had no choice but to err on the side of legal caution. But legal issues aside, I feel like the earlier scenes of the cat licking the food (which we don't know yet is poisoned) wouldn't make much sense if the cat just disappeared from the film--or rather, those scenes would just show a cat behaving like a cat and wouldn't have any other point, which undermines the subtle way the film reveals what it's actually about.

[Lemmy Caution]

I've had over two dozen cats neutered over the past decade, and when coming out of the anesthesia they are groggy and confused and will try to do too much, so wind up staggering around or crashing into things. I've learned to just keep them in the carrier for an extended period of time, like 6-8 hours, to restrict their movement, until they've become fully woke.

[MichaelB]

I've had over two dozen cats neutered over the past decade, and when coming out of the anesthesia they are groggy and confused and will try to do too much, so wind up staggering around or crashing into things. I've learned to just keep them in the carrier for an extended period of time, like 6-8 hours, to restrict their movement, until they've become fully woke.

Now there's hardcore indoctrination.

[kubelkind]

Regarding S'en Fout La Mort, this is the original post from "jeromezone" that I referred to:

I worked on this film as an extra and it was a pleasure to meet the fantastic talent in the film. Isaach was a delight and it was great to meet the late, great Jean-Claude Brialy, who had us often in stitches during the breaks. But the sheer brilliance of watching Ms. Denis at work was unforgettable. I would also like to point out that the cockfights in the film look very real but in filming them it was executed so well that no harm was ever done to any animals. It took many, many hours of shooting and many takes to make it look real - and lots of fake blood. Of course they were put into the ring and they hopped around on each other and began to get aggressive but then it would be stopped. Thus the words "no animals were harmed during the making of this film" is true. It was important to show that this type of thing was going on at the time (many people didn't believe it), and how brutal it was.

[zedz]

I was just looking at Sight & Sound's 10 Best Discs of 2023 list in the Winter issue, and how weird is it that one of the releases is from 2019? * And another one from 2013? **

Spoiler

* Wanda
** Wheel of Ashes

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I have no idea why Wheels of Ashes is there, but Wanda got a UK edition last April.

[TechnicolorAcid]

I’m looking over the S&S online list and unless someone put Wheels of Ashes in the issue after it’s online publication I’m not seeing it. Wanda is very much there though at number 10 and some of the people who put recommendations did bring up other Re:Voir titles but not Wheels of Ashes, again though I’m just looking at the online version so it could have been added in with other suggestions or even in the actual top 10 in the official Winter printed article. Just something I’d bring up though.

[zedz]

The printed version isn't numbered / ranked. The titles are:
Foolish Wives (Flicker Alley)
Twilight (Second Run)
Wanda (Criterion)
2 x Kira Muratova titles (Studio Canal)
Magic Myth and Mutilation (Indicator)
Western Approaches (BFI)
Everything Everywhere Again Alive (Black Zero)
Moment of Romance (Radiance)
Cinematic Sorceress (Arbelos)
Wheel of Ashes (Re:Voir)

i.e. It's an almost completely different list from the one posted online. [Shrug]

[TechnicolorAcid]

Bit odd but I assume it that someone mistakenly put it down and S&S put it on the list not knowing it was a 2019 release to change it up from the online list. That’s the only possible explanation I can think of unless somehow multiple people mistakenly put down a 2019 release under the belief it was a 2023 one.

[zedz]

Bit odd but I assume it that someone mistakenly put it down and S&S put it on the list not knowing it was a 2019 release to change it up from the online list. That’s the only possible explanation I can think of unless somehow multiple people mistakenly put down a 2019 release under the belief it was a 2023 one.

Wheel of Ashes came out in 2013. It's ten years old! The only explanation I can think of is that somebody stuck it in there to test whether or not anybody read the article.

[domino harvey]

Louisiana Story was #6 in 1952 and is no longer in the 100. I don't think much of a backlash has been involved, just that it's slipped into obscurity. I'm in the UK and not only have I not seen it, I don't know anyone who has.

I have (though to be fair I guess we don't know each other IRL). It's definitely less accessible these days - IIRC I saw a 35mm screening at Lincoln Center several years ago, and I think it's really the only time I've been able to see it in excellent quality. Loved it, I think it's a great and wonderful film - Terrence Malick fans should definitely see it - but even if it was more widely available, I can't say I'd expect it to remain in the poll's top 100. All the merits (and for that matter, its few drawbacks - it was commissioned by an oil company) have not diminished, but a lot of great films have been released in the 70 years since the 1952 poll.

I caught up to Louisiana Story recently and now its disappearance from the cultural landscape is even crazier. Often when I finally see a once internationally popular art film that no longer has any cultural cachet (such as the Lady With the Dog), it's not hard to see it was just a flash in the pan. But I thought this was a film of hypnotic beauty, and as you say, with the current popularity of Malick, this kind of thing is an even easier sell than it was in the past. I think there's a real through-line from Louisiana Story to Delvaux's the Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short (Also once-popular but now mostly forgotten) to Malick and ASMR YouTube videos - all variations on the same approach of almost trance-like audio-visual approaches to the medium. A true masterpiece worthy of being listed so highly, even if it wouldn't make my ballot (not that that's a fair distinction anyways)

One thing that I haven't seen discussed as much as it should be with the new list that is touched on above is how dependent the new movers and shakers are on being available to stream. If Jeanne Dielman wasn't on Max (and before that, Hulu), then it would not be anywhere near the current position, period. Criterion's curation and availability has always had an impact on modern-day art film popularity, but streaming priorities are clearly driving what people see, and what they've licensed for other streamers beyond their own service is reinforcing the canon right now, so a movie like Flaherty's might as well not exist.

[Mr. Deltoid]

Talking of S&S, has anyone had problems with retailers in the UK not getting stock of the latest issue (the David Lynch cover)? Anyone outside of London, particularly the regions, had any similar problems of late?

[MichaelB]

One thing that I haven't seen discussed as much as it should be with the new list that is touched on above is how dependent the new movers and shakers are on being available to stream. If Jeanne Dielman wasn't on Max (and before that, Hulu), then it would not be anywhere near the current position, period. Criterion's curation and availability has always had an impact on modern-day art film popularity, but streaming priorities are clearly driving what people see, and what they've licensed for other streamers beyond their own service is reinforcing the canon right now, so a movie like Flaherty's might as well not exist.

But that's always been the case in some form or other. Would Tokyo Story have been singled out again and again as the supreme Ozu masterpiece if it wasn't for the fact that for many decades it was by far the easiest of his films to see?

What's also undoubtedly had a huge impact on the last two polls is that they're no longer so overwhelmingly weighted towards the tastes of middle-aged Anglophone men based either in north America or western Europe. Only 63 people were canvassed for the first poll, which isn't too surprising - but I was really quite startled to see that that number had only increased to 145 by 2002 (at least for the critics' poll).

[Drucker]

One thing that I haven't seen discussed as much as it should be with the new list that is touched on above is how dependent the new movers and shakers are on being available to stream. If Jeanne Dielman wasn't on Max (and before that, Hulu), then it would not be anywhere near the current position, period. Criterion's curation and availability has always had an impact on modern-day art film popularity, but streaming priorities are clearly driving what people see, and what they've licensed for other streamers beyond their own service is reinforcing the canon right now, so a movie like Flaherty's might as well not exist.

Well maybe it wasn't discussed much here, but I certainly saw that sentiment making the rounds on Twitter. I know I had never heard of Wanda before the Criterion release/restoration, and then it shoots into the top 100 (and I used to digest the They Shoot Pictures list, end to end, almost every year for about a decade).

Your point about Flaherty is well taken, and it definitely feels like there has been a meaningful shift in what counts as the canon in recent years, to the point where I also feel like it's having a negative impact on repertory programming (and I've called this out in the NYC Repertory Cinema thread). The films being showcased seem to be the ones already deemed cool, with less room being made to discover (or re-discover in the case of Flaherty) other classics.

[MichaelB]

It's probably worth remembering that Jeanne Dielman came in at 35th in the 2012 poll, so it's not as if it suddenly came out of nowhere for the 2022 one.

Also, who outside the US even has access to Hulu? Max has wider coverage, but it's not available in many of the larger European countries like Germany, Italy or the UK.

[TechnicolorAcid]

Also a lot of Flaherty’s work is overshadowed by the popularity/notoriety of Nanook of the North and because it’s been the easiest film of his to find (similar to Michael’s point about Tokyo Story), that’s the only one of his to gain prominent discussion though to be fair, Louisiana Story is still watched from time to time largely because of it’s critical success and inclusion in the wildly popular 1001 Movies series of books.

[hearthesilence]

From what I can tell, Dielman gradually became more and more known between 2012 and 2022, and as it was happening, it felt like the two main drivers were:

1) recent efforts to bring more attention to female filmmakers by both film publications and even more mainstream news outlets, an outgrowth of the building criticism on gender inequality in various forms,

and 2) Akerman's own death, which was all the more startling because it coincided with the premiere of her great, final film, not to mention what was more or less the launch of a comprehensive restoration of her entire body of work. (I think I posted about this as it happened, but I already had my ticket to the NYFF screening of No Home Movie when she died just before it happened - not surprisingly, demand spiked as what was supposed to be its sole screening hadn't even sold out the day before. This was also when MoMA's restoration festival was still taking place on the heels of the NYFF - it's since been pushed back a few months - and she had been expected to present restorations of her first films there, and IIRC they were the initial showings of that comprehensive restoration effort. EDIT: a quick google search shows that following Akerman's death, the festival added two screenings of No Home Movie as well as free screenings of her 1997 autobiographical portrait Chantal Akerman by Chantal Akerman and Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.)

A note about #1, I remember in the beginning being pretty irritated that some outlets like IndieWire were focused on Hollywood filmmakers who, quite honestly, weren't making films of great merit while overlooking the first person that came to my mind, Claire Denis, someone who was a genuine contender for the greatest active filmmaker.

Re: Nanook, it probably benefits from being "the first feature-length documentary" as well, so some voters may feel it deserves a vote over others due to historical importance.

[domino harvey]

Are you saying those two factors had a bigger impact than it being made extremely easy to see online via Criterion? The drive to highlight female voices certainly played and plays a role, but if it were only out on disc only from Severin or something, I don’t think it’d be anywhere near as high. Availability isn’t necessarily a moral or value judgment, just an observation

[MichaelB]

I suspect its placing in 2012 helped because it was then the highest-placed film directed by a woman, and was therefore the obvious one to vote for in 2022 if you wanted to propel such a thing into the top ten. So it's not too hard to imagine that, if an individual voter was faced with a toss-up between Jeanne Dielman and, say, something by Claire Denis, Jeanne Dielman would win, if only because a vote for it is more likely to register.

(Mind you, Beau Travail didn't do too badly either!)

[domino harvey]

Yeah, fair point, I can def see that

[zedz]

I caught up to Louisiana Story recently and now its disappearance from the cultural landscape is even crazier. Often when I finally see a once internationally popular art film that no longer has any cultural cachet (such as the Lady With the Dog), it's not hard to see it was just a flash in the pan. But I thought this was a film of hypnotic beauty, and as you say, with the current popularity of Malick, this kind of thing is an even easier sell than it was in the past. I think there's a real through-line from Louisiana Story to Delvaux's the Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short (Also once-popular but now mostly forgotten) to Malick and ASMR YouTube videos - all variations on the same approach of almost trance-like audio-visual approaches to the medium. A true masterpiece worthy of being listed so highly, even if it wouldn't make my ballot (not that that's a fair distinction anyways)

I'm glad you caught up with it. It really is an extremely beautiful film, and one that has a very unusual vibe for its time. I think Flaherty in general has fallen out of currency. When these lists began, he was very high in the pantheon, despite his small output, but the context of documentary has changed radically since then, and a lot of the elements that characterize his work (and which initially were just a natural part of the genre) have been problematized: ethnography, staged recreation, corporate / government sponsorship. So it's become very easy to talk about Flaherty and his work without even seeing it, and the formal qualities of something like Louisiana Story get neglected.

Availability on physical media / streaming is always an issue, but it's also a chicken / egg situation to some extent. Without cultural currency or general popularity there's much less incentive to invest in both the restoration and contextualization that would allow a film like this to re-emerge. Instead, wouldn't you really rather buy some schlocky 80s horror movie for the ninth time?

if anybody ever does want to put together a scholarly edition of this film, Frances Flaherty assembled fourteen hours of rushes from the film in 1964!

[pianocrash]

Also, who outside the US even has access to Hulu? Max has wider coverage, but it's not available in many of the larger European countries like Germany, Italy or the UK.

Not to sound like a shill, but I was made aware via several comedian's podcasts I listen to that Hulu is expanding the outer-USA in 2025 to vie with Netflix (at least in regard to stand-up comedy specials), but I cannot confirm nor deny Robert Flaherty had anything to do with that decision. However, I also found out that stand-up comedy is more widely bootlegged than I imagined outside of the USA, but still not as much as How I Met Your Mother, or, let's face it, Louisiana Story.

Hulu's active slate has always been a mixed bag, with most of their core viewership (at least around my small sphere) using it exclusively for streaming television series current and gone, with a few movies held exclusively for a few months at a time, as the rotisserie goes nowadays.

[GaryC]

Louisiana Story was #6 in 1952 and is no longer in the 100. I don't think much of a backlash has been involved, just that it's slipped into obscurity. I'm in the UK and not only have I not seen it, I don't know anyone who has.

I have (though to be fair I guess we don't know each other IRL). It's definitely less accessible these days - IIRC I saw a 35mm screening at Lincoln Center several years ago, and I think it's really the only time I've been able to see it in excellent quality. Loved it, I think it's a great and wonderful film - Terrence Malick fans should definitely see it - but even if it was more widely available, I can't say I'd expect it to remain in the poll's top 100. All the merits (and for that matter, its few drawbacks - it was commissioned by an oil company) have not diminished, but a lot of great films have been released in the 70 years since the 1952 poll.

I caught up to Louisiana Story recently and now its disappearance from the cultural landscape is even crazier. Often when I finally see a once internationally popular art film that no longer has any cultural cachet (such as the Lady With the Dog), it's not hard to see it was just a flash in the pan. But I thought this was a film of hypnotic beauty, and as you say, with the current popularity of Malick, this kind of thing is an even easier sell than it was in the past. I think there's a real through-line from Louisiana Story to Delvaux's the Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short (Also once-popular but now mostly forgotten) to Malick and ASMR YouTube videos - all variations on the same approach of almost trance-like audio-visual approaches to the medium. A true masterpiece worthy of being listed so highly, even if it wouldn't make my ballot (not that that's a fair distinction anyways)

I also finally caught up with Louisiana Story - a 35mm print was shown during the Film on Film festival at the BFI Southbank in June last year, and yes I could certainly see why it had been in the S & S poll seventy-two years ago.