Henry Campbell5 said:The whole point of my rant in the title is that I just don't have the damn time to go hunting for good music anymore. Back in the day—like 20, 30, or 40 years ago—you could just skim the Billboard charts and stumble onto something actually decent. But now? It's impossible.
It’s not even about whether the artists are good or bad—it's about how we actually found out about them back then versus now. Guys like Dylan, the Beatles, or The Doors are considered legends today not necessarily because they were some unheard-of geniuses, but simply because *everyone* listened to them. Everyone heard them because there wasn't anything else to listen to. If you live in an era where the news hits your TV at a specific time and everyone is reading the same few newspapers, of course the media is going to create these massive rock legends.
Nowadays, with 24/7 news cycles and instant access to everything whenever you want, finding those "hidden gems" is basically impossible.
Plus, today's charts are totally overrun by pop stars, whereas through the 80s, rock still held the crown. Maybe you just straight-up hate pop? 😁
Mark Wood79 said:Even though Hitchcock isn't exactly a "director of static shots," I’m curious what you mean by that. It feels like you're treating it as some kind of qualitative judgment—as if a static shot is automatically a sign of being outdated, lacking directorial skill, or just generally poor filmmaking.
I mean, I definitely have a soft spot for dynamic camerawork—which is exactly why I was so drawn to *The Tree of Life*—and I love those sweeping pans and fluid, slalom-like movements. But just because a shot stays static doesn't mean the director lacks skill. Sometimes, staying still is a choice, not a limitation.
So, if you look at directors like Ozu, who leaned into those static shots, or even Mike Leigh, Hsiao-Hsien Hou, Radu Muntean, and Haneke... where does that leave us?
Look, I’m not trying to start any debates about these directors; I’m just bringing them up as examples.
Look, just because a shot is static doesn't mean the mise-en-scène has to be stagnant. Even within a fixed frame, the way actors are positioned and how they move can be incredibly dynamic. That kind of internal movement is exactly what gives a shot its sense of rhythm.
To me, *Mr. Arkadin* always stands out as a prime example of style over substance—something that, if I’m being honest, even happens in De Palma's work sometimes.
It’s just a style thing for me, honestly. When you pair it with the reactionary ideological baggage in most of Ford's stuff, I just can't get into it. 🤷 Like I said, I'm not denying his historical importance or whatever, but since I'm not some film historian, I don't feel the need to constantly sit through his movies.
I dig Ozu, not really feeling Mike Leigh, rarely watch Hsiao-Hsien Hou, and Haneke is hit or miss. Depends on a ton of other factors, obviously.
Mr. Arkadin definitely isn't a case of style over substance (even if the mainstream critics claim it is), because the story is actually one of Welles' most gripping and complex pieces. The real issue with Welles is that you have to watch everything he did after Citizen Kane through the lens of what he actually wanted to make versus what he was actually allowed to make.
Mark Wood79 said:Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...
I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.
If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.
Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.
As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on. Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.
Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.
Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.
General vibe on Ford’s stuff from the 40s and 50s—compared to someone like Welles? It's night and day. Ford is all about that raw, grounded energy, while Welles is out here playing with shadows and ego. One builds a world you can actually feel under your boots, the other builds a puzzle for you to solve. Different leagues entirely.
Mark Wood79 said:Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...
I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.
If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.
Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.
As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on. Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.
Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.
Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.
No surprise there—just another case where the students outdid the teacher. 🙂
Mark Wood79 said:Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...
I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.
If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.
Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.
As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on. Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.
Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.
Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.
Aside from 'Young Lincoln'—which I haven't seen—and 'Stagecoach', which is actually solid, everything else was just unbearable, banal, and dated. 'The Grapes of Wrath' holds some weight for me, but strictly because of Gregory Peck. It’s wild that in the same year Ford shot 'Valley,' Welles dropped 'Citizen Kane.' It's night and day.
I'm split on Hitchcock—he’s got absolute masterpieces, but man, he also makes some total garbage. Aside from a handful of films (most of which you already listed), the guy is basically just a director of static shots. Plus, all those experiments he messed around with throughout his career? They practically fit into a single Welles film—'Mr. Arkadin'. 🙂
Mark Wood79 Asks: Look, De Palma is easily one of the greatest stylists to ever pick up a camera—we’re talking about a guy who crafted some of the most iconic sequences in cinema history (that museum scene in Dressed to Kill? Pure genius). He’s been vocal about it plenty of times, too: he’s constantly citing Alfred Hitchcock as his ultimate inspiration and biggest influence.
It just comes down to sensibility—plain and simple. I could never get into De Palma; I couldn't even sit through Dressed to Kill without turning it off. 😁
For me, Still Life from 1974 is one of the absolute best. Beyond just Kiarostami and the rest of the Iranian Cinema crew, I honestly think it paved the way for this whole recent wave of "contemplative" movies—everything from Chinese cinema all the way through Europe. Fans of Italian Neorealism would probably dig it too.
Look, I get why people watch him—if they’re trying to check a box on film history class—but otherwise, I just don't see the draw. Especially when you compare him to what Welles or Kurosawa were pulling off back then; Ford's camera work feels sloppy and dated in that context. Same goes for a good chunk of Hitchcock's catalog—just another director who's been mythologized endlessly.
driftingangler11 said:I don't know much about Japanese movies—honestly, I stick more to Korean or Chinese cinema. There are actual gems over there that don't feel like a total waste of time. 🙂
Japan's got plenty of good stuff—you just won't find it in those massive, overhyped projects like 'Star Trek' or 'Death Note.' Honestly, Japanese mainstream media is probably the absolute worst on the planet. Just look at their pop or rock scene if you want proof. 😁
This movie is pure trash. The 3D is alright, I guess, but the sets look like they were shot on a shoestring budget for some low-rent local news station. The directing is just as bad—cuts don't even happen until every single actor finishes their entire line from start to finish. It’s unbearable. Since it's based on an anime series, you should've known what you were getting into—a brainless plot and even stupider characters. This is just generic Japanese mainstream garbage, featuring painfully uninspired design and terrible acting.
Overacting isn't some inherent trait of Japanese films; there are actually movies where people act normally, like 'It's Only Talk' or 'Ain't No Tomorrows,' for example.
I think Claude Chabrol is the one new director I’ve never actually given a fair shake. I tried watching 'Le Bucheur' twice—twice!—but couldn't even make it past the 20-minute mark both times. Honestly? Boring as hell. Then I checked out 'Merci pour le chocolat' and it was just totally bland—the kind of movie you forget the second the credits roll. If anyone's got better recs, lay them on me.
Since you guys are already talking about Philip Jecko, you seriously need to check out his 'Songs for Europe'—that collab with Schaefer. It’s basically built entirely out of samples from old Greek and Turkish records (plus some radio snippets, if I remember right) 👍
Fair enough, but what’s the actual point? It’s not like we gained any fresh perspective on a topic that's already been beaten to death. The two best shots are just two long zooms—one being a total zoom-fest. It kind of gives off 'The Brown Bunny' vibes, except that movie is way better. Honestly, 2010 has been a pretty shitty year for movies so far. I've only seen one truly great film worth watching (though I still have a few others on my watchlist).
Amanda Nguyen5 said:The big party in the movie "Golden Age" takes place in a villa garden, but that's just during the last 15 minutes. That's when I woke up, so honestly, you wouldn't even be able to tell if the whole movie actually happens in a garden or not.
By the way, there’s this scene at the end where the guy starts tossing everything he finds—and I mean *everything*—right out the window into a fire burning in the street. It's pure surrealism. He's throwing wardrobes, bishops, all sorts of stuff, and then suddenly he tosses a giraffe. Just when you think it might be an allusion to Dalí's "Giraffe in Flames"—since Dalí co-wrote it—the damn giraffe just falls into the water. Think about that.
The final scene in Golden Age is actually a nod to Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, not whatever you're thinking—you clearly drifted off again. Look, I wouldn't be nitpicking if it didn't matter. I haven't figured out if they're showing Los Olvidados yet. Total bummer if they don't, since that's easily one of his best—top 3 for me, right up there with Viridian and Angel of Destruction.
Hands down, the two best movies I’ve caught in theaters this year are Caché and The Beat That My Heart Skipped. On the flip side, the flicks I actually had high hopes for turned out to be total duds—specifically Babel and Black Dahlia. Honestly, I don't even care about Babel, but that attempt at an Ellroy adaptation... what a joke.😢
Worst movie of the year, and honestly one of the worst ever made: Color Me Kubrick.🤮 The only redeeming quality of that disaster was finding out that John Malkovich has a stronger grip than your average seventy-year-old grandma.😎