Posts by hiddenbear4

Dennis Martin6 said:I haven't actually seen 'Il Posto,' but are you sure it really steps outside the typical neorealist mold? I mean, 'Jeanne Dielman' isn't exactly a neorealist film.

Now, look—I really should go back and rewatch them to compare based on the criteria you laid out, but to me, ''Il Posto'' feels like the absolute peak of documentary filmmaking disguised as a pure feature. Or, even better, take an Olmi example like ''time to stand still.'' If you were to stack that up against some classic neorealism—say, something like ''Bicycle Thieves''—you'd definitely notice the difference in how much more documentary-style it is, especially with that sense of de-dramatization. So, yeah, you could argue it’s a step above or moves away from the traditional pattern. Plus, there are clear differences in the thematic focus too. In my eyes, those are the boundaries of feature films—it's almost like they're testing the genre itself. I think when you push those limits like that, you're definitely moving beyond the realm of a standard narrative film.

By the way, where and how would you fit Bresson into this whole conversation?

Dennis Martin6 said:The Dardenne brothers make traditional realist films. Their whole goal is basically to convince you that what’s happening on screen is "reality."

But movies like 'Jeanne Dielman,' 'm/other,' or parts of 'Cafe Noir'—those are actually portraying something more like 'hyper-reality.' They use those ultra-realistic, documentary-style techniques to actually point back at their own artificiality.

Now, 'Jeanne Dielman' isn't a bad movie by any means, but when it comes to that specific realm of cinematic 'hyper-reality' and documentary-style pacing, I still think Olmi is the heavy hitter. Take 'Il Posto,' for example—it's half the length of Akerman's work, but in my eyes, it's twice as good.

Avoiding cuts and ellipses in these kinds of films feels like the logical path to take, but honestly, it's a pretty gutsy directorial move—especially when you consider how much power and utility editing usually provides. These directors are essentially playing with the audience's nerves on purpose. Both Akerman and Olmi really knew what they were doing there, though; they prepared us for that rhythm and then forced us right into it.

You explained that distinction really well, even if they all technically trace their roots back to neorealism.

Walter Grant5 said:—but those aren't really the "intended messages" from whoever wrote the soap opera. That’s just someone reading way too much into a backyard lighting commercial.

Ugh, let's not go down that road... how can you even claim to know what the "intended messages" of some soap opera writer are? At the end of the day, everything you're saying is just your own interpretation of some media text.

Walter Grant5 said:—and when Smuđ says that, given the style of a Dardenne film, they could probably shoot ten of them in ten weeks.

Anyway, I'm not saying anything negative about 12 Angry Men.

I get all five points, but I still don't see why that movie was brought up here. What does a Dardenne film have to do with 12 Angry Men?

Walter Grant5 said:Look, you can't do that. That soap opera analogy just doesn't hold water—soap operas rely on these totally surreal, over-the-top caricatures. Plus, even within those exaggerated setups, the execution is usually just plain banal and transparent; it feels like they’re just going through the motions to fulfill some low-budget contract. Soap operas don't actually have a message or any real depth derived from their plots—it's actually the opposite: the plots themselves *are* the only content. On the other hand, this movie actually has substance, a clear direction, and a relevant theme, all backed by convincing performances. To me, it perfectly captures that fragility found in average capitalist societies. Everything looks polished and comfortable on the surface, but the whole thing could fall apart if you just poked it the wrong way. A feature film doesn't need "special" scenarios to work; it can be built on perfectly mediocre situations.

And besides, you could always just film something like "12 Angry Men," right? Let's not go down that road.

Well, for some people, they do. My grandmother used to watch soap operas and swear out loud at the screen. Then she'd end up lamenting the state of human nature based on some random character.

And why did you bring up "12 Angry Men" now? What was the point of that?

Arthur Brown6 said:la Jetteée

A few years back, I saw this in a packed theater at the SC in Los Angeles. That same week, they were showing Buñuel's "Un Chien Andalou." Both were running on 35mm film.

Yeah, but so what? It's like how the USA-Germany game was broadcast on PBS on July 1st, 1998. Then, just four days later, PBS aired the USA-France match. Both were sent out via analog signal.

Nicholas Nguyen said:Long-form piece on Sweden over on Index

The myth of Scandinavian socialism success: why Sweden remains one of the wealthiest nations on Earth

Since I’m pretty sure the author of this piece is actually hanging out here on the forum, I just have one question—who exactly is poisoning the minds of the Swedes? Let me explain what I mean:

Usually, when domestic hardline capitalists make their arguments, they claim that people in America are being brainwashed by various leftist media outlets or "old-school bureaucratic parasites" into thinking capitalism is a failure—which supposedly makes them skeptical of free markets (though, granted, the trauma of massive industrial collapses in the 90s isn't irrelevant).

But now I'm genuinely curious—who or what is influencing the Swedes so that they've spent the last 80 years voting for Social Democrats? It seems like Sweden enjoyed a century-long golden era of essentially free-market conditions, which is exactly how they managed to become so incredibly wealthy. Yet, for some reason, from the 1930s onward, the people have stubbornly stuck with the Social Democrats, who have basically been in power ever since. So... what on earth is wrong with these people? Why won't they just enjoy the wealth they built?

The author mentions that back in 1950—a time when most of Europe was still busy picking up the pieces from WWII, though obviously, war doesn't always have a permanent impact on a specific country's economy—the nation was already one of the richest in the world. During those years, the Social Democrats were in charge (with Tage Erlander serving as Prime Minister from 1946 until 1969, when he was succeeded by Olof Palme). So, seriously, what is the deal with these Swedes? Who is misleading them? Who is pulling the strings?

bluenomad2 said:I have to correct you because that isn't accurate. You still have formulaic shows today, just like you did back then. But just as we have brilliantly directed shows like Boardwalk today, we had them before too. I'll point to the Twilight Zone again; we're talking about the 50s, yet most of the series takes place in the 60s.

If you watch the episode The Eye of the Beholder, you'll see camera angles you won't find in any modern series, not even in Boardwalk. The Eye of the Beholder is a classic, one of the best episodes.

Watch The X-Files, specifically the episodes Jose Chung's enough and triangle. The first is directed in a Rashomon style, while the second is shot like Hitchcockian Rop. Or take the episode Bad Blood; again, that Rashomon style.

Speaking of Hitchcock, he has an excellent series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You'll find top-tier direction in every single episode. And that series is over half a century old.

Do you remember the series homicide: Life on the Street? It's right up there with The Sopranos, featuring excellent direction without any of the usual formulas. So, there were brilliantly directed shows before, but we're mostly talking about the absolute best ones. Just like Boardwalk.

Fair enough, I'll take this post into consideration since I'm not familiar with most of what was mentioned. Maybe I went a bit overboard because I don't know these shows deeply enough—I was kind of generalizing based on the crime dramas I remember from the 90s and early 2000s—but still... I have to give credit to HBO... just like I'm sure millions of people did before me. Both for the content and the overall style.

analogpanther55 said:Look, HBO's shows are in a league of their own when it comes to quality, but let's be honest—they can get pretty tedious, just like most other series out there.
Take The Sopranos, for instance. I absolutely love mob movies and books; if it involves that kind of subject matter, I'm reading it or watching it. So, while The Sopranos is top-tier television for me, there were definitely moments where it felt a bit slow.

Sent from my ST27i with Tapatalk 2

True, The Sopranos definitely had its ups and downs... there were moments where the show felt like it was dragging... but overall, it's a massive plus.

Larry Thompson85 said:Especially those ones that seem to strip away both the directorial style and the actual substance. 🙂

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's just that Godard feels like a bit of an outlier to me in that regard...

analogpanther55 said:I’m not really a big fan of those kinds of series; honestly, I’ll almost always pick a movie over a TV show. But when it comes to comedies, I definitely lean toward series—whether they’re classics or newer stuff—and, of course, Sons of Anarchy. 🙏

If you're watching HBO's shows, you're basically just watching a movie that lasts several thousand minutes.

HBO has raised the bar incredibly high—I’d argue they’ve done it all the way up to the level of cinema itself. Take ''Boardwalk Empire'', which I’m currently working my way through.

Stylistically speaking, we're looking at pure cinematic direction here. TV shows used to feel so formulaic, sterile, and frankly monotonous, but this is a whole different beast. For instance, the way they use parallel editing—it pops up several times; you'll see Nucky Thompson holding a press conference to calm the public and announce an end to the violence, while simultaneously cutting to scenes of the D'Alessio brothers being taken out on his orders. Do I even need to mention how much that mirrors the approach in ''The Godfather''? Then there are the camera angles, the framing, the movement... I mean, just think back to that 70-minute pilot directed by Martin Scorsese. What a hurricane of an opening! If they hadn't kept the series going, that single episode would have stood alone as a masterpiece.

The cinematic inspiration is obvious, too, through symbolic nods and mentions of films from that era. In the first season, Margaret Schroeder goes to the movies to watch Chaplin's Kid with the kids; in season 3, Gina Lollobrigida describes ''Nosferatu'' to her boss Rosetti; someone brings up the comedies of Buster Keaton; Mickey Doyle talks about the ''Baghdad Thief'' in season 4; and by season 5, which is set in 1931, we've already had mentions of Lewis Milestone's ''Front Page'', along with gangster classics like ''Public Enemy'' and ''Little Caesar''. I have to say, I was actually hoping for those little touches before I started watching, and it’s been such a treat when they show up. You saw similar stuff in ''The Sopranos''.

The acting is top-tier as well, and I don't think I even need to bring up the perfectionism in the production design and costuming. In some scenes where the dialogue felt a bit slow to me, I didn't actually mind because I found myself just soaking in the interiors... studying the furniture... or checking out the clothing and hairstyles. The CGI used for the Atlantic City sets doesn't bother me, though in certain shots (mostly wide or medium shots), you can definitely tell it's digital. The characterization is also excellent. Sure, there are some clichés, but every character feels like a real person with a soul... flesh and blood people... everyone has their own weight to carry.

The content of the show, much like ''The Wire'', is uncompromising and hits you right in the gut. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't fly in Hollywood today—it just wouldn't be considered. Like ''The Wire'', the series portrays corruption and depravity at the highest levels, skillfully mapping out the web of graft connecting politicians, businessmen, and criminals. The script does tend to get a little bogged down in that classic American way (you know, the last-minute rescue trope), but overall, it's very well written.

It seems like that new "New Hollywood" generation we were all calling for has landed exactly where we least expected it—on television, which has become the ultimate sanctuary for creative freedom.

And if having their release of someone's debut film serves as an extra bit of motivation for a director to keep pushing forward—well, then let's say Yuval Adler's ''Bethlehem'' was just a great move!

Which Chinese films do you think deserve a spot in the Criterion Collection? Also, I'm looking for some solid recommendations for my own watchlist. 😁

I totally agree that Iranian cinema deserves more representation—it would be so cool to get some high-quality supplements that actually let us get to know the directors, the actors, and the whole backstory of the production. Majida definitely deserves an issue, any title really, and Farhadi too... those aren't just modern Iranian gems, they're world-class classics... then there's Panahi...

As for Kiarostami, I don't quite get why they only release his newer stuff (with "Certified Copy" being Blu-ray only and "like someone in Love" in a dual format)... honestly, it would be much better if they released the so-called Koker trilogy... that's where his inspiration really lived... nowadays his work can feel a bit exhausted, maybe even a little worn out...

India, I guess, though besides Raya, I don't have much of an interest there...

Regarding Taiwan, Hsien's coming-of-age trilogy from the 80s absolutely deserves a release—those are all such great films...

Maybe we should just write them a letter... maybe add a little threatening tone at the end, you know? Like, "if you don't release this or that, there will be consequences..."

Peter Ruiz2 said:We're just messing around here.

I wasn't talking about you—you actually took the time to write a sentence or two about every movie you listed... honestly, it would be great if everyone else would just share a quick thought on why they love certain films. Even looking at Larry Thompson85's list, you can see a really well-defined taste emerging. You can tell what a person is into; all those names together create this really interesting stylistic thread.

You're all mentioning this massive pile of incredible movies, but you're just listing them... I don't really see the point in doing that.

Michael Lopez2 said:I don't know about that—you've got two healthy people escaping a camp versus one person stumbling along while dragging a half-dead captive on their shoulders. I'd say option B is definitely the riskier bet. 😁

Well, the sister mentioned she’d keep the guard occupied. A half-dead captive wouldn't be able to pull that off... if they had escaped together, the guard probably would have sprinted back to the camp to report them missing. Instead, she told him her brother would handle the funeral arrangements and they just casually strolled back toward the camp—she even reassured him that he'd be back soon. That buys them quite a bit of time that way... but honestly, there's no point in us going back and forth on this now. I'm not really a fan of these debates over plot logic anyway... it doesn't make sense to you, it makes sense to me.

Michael Lopez2 said:Mizoguchi's Oharu is a similar tragedy, but unlike Sansh, it doesn't feel forced to me—it feels more realistic. Even Ugets feels much more natural, and that one is a ghost fantasy. So far, the three Mizoguchi films I've seen feel like folk tales, but Sansh's story is the only one that didn't quite click for me. I'll try my hand at street of shame and some of his later work; those look pretty interesting. 🙂

Then there's "Chikamatsu Monogatari"... another absolute masterpiece!

Michael Lopez2 said:It’s not that the whole movie lacks sense—it’s just certain scenes. Probably most notably the part where the brother, sister, and dying slave are prepping to escape captivity, and the sister tells her brother to just leave her behind in the woods since she'll only slow him down, but he should take the dying woman because she doesn't want to be a burden (even though he basically has to carry her the whole way). And then the sister goes off to drown herself in a lake. That scene really sticks in my craw, mostly because the sister's sacrifice should really be the emotional core of the film, but it feels pretty half-baked to me.

Plus, some of the characters just aren't particularly fleshed out. The brother, after spending years in the camp, turns into this cynical jerk who coldly brands slaves with a hot iron and wants to stay in the camp, yet one second later, he inexplicably wants to sneak out and becomes some kind of human rights activist.

Don't get me wrong—the film is touching, beautiful, and striking and all that—but I definitely don't agree that it's one of the greatest films ever made or anything like that.

SPOILERS!

When you wrote that the plot didn't make sense, it honestly sounded a little wild...

The sister's plan was to let the brother escape while she distracted the guards, which would give him more time than they would have had if they tried running together... she figured they'd both be caught immediately. And an exhausted slave isn't exactly a heavy load, right?

As for the brother's change of heart, it isn't exactly inexplicable, it's just simple storytelling. The brother grew up into a ruthless man in the camp, adapting to his surroundings and abandoning his father's lessons on mercy. But his sister calls him out on it and judges him, which hits him hard, and when they go to bury that slave, he remembers a similar moment from their childhood (that final night before the kidnapping), and his conscience finally kicks in.

The film is elliptical and doesn't try to be overly complex or demanding narratively; it's actually crafted as a folk tale. It's a story about cruelty and suffering... nothing more, nothing less. The characterization isn't operating at a deep psychological level, so there isn't much room for complex motivations regarding their shifts in behavior. This isn't meant to be a psychological drama.

Mizoguchi told that folk tale using his virtuosic cinematic language. In certain parts, he shows off his skill at creating a poetic atmosphere, while in others, he leans into a raw, naturalistic environment... the use of music is brilliant and evocative... the production design is also quite striking...

Michael Lopez2 said:Visually speaking, Sansho the Bailiff is one of the most stunning black-and-white films I've ever seen—but honestly, the plot just doesn't click for me. For me, Mizoguchi's best work has to be Ugetsu.

Okay, I’m actually at a loss for words here. If a family tragedy like that doesn't make sense to you, then I really have no idea what kind of movies you're into—or what even constitutes a coherent plot in your book. This is a new one for me, seriously.

Michael Lopez2 said:I think Star Wars is a fantastic, really charming movie. I actually haven't seen the original Star Wars yet—believe it or not, some people still exist who haven't 😬—so I'm curious how it stacks up against The Walt Disney Company's other classics.

As far as Japanese cinema goes, my absolute favorites from The Criterion Collection are:

House of Onibaba
Onibaba
Rashomon
Rashomon
Twenty-Four Eyes
Gate of Hell
Woman in the Dunes

And "Sansho the Bailiff"? Mizoguchi 🙏 That's easily one of the greatest films ever made!

Out of that list, "Rashomon" and "Woman in the Dunes" are just masterfully directed, and "Twenty-Four Eyes" is an undeniable gem of classic Japanese filmmaking... I'm glad you brought it up.

Dennis Martin6 said:Have you seen his latest one, 'The Past'?

I have—and honestly, I think Spielberg is still consistently hitting that high bar he set early on. To be fair, I wasn't totally sold at first, but as the plot started unfolding, I found myself getting more and more sucked in... he really has this knack for digging into those messy, complicated layers of human connection and emotion. That one worker character felt a little out of place, though—maybe a bit unnecessary? By the end, it felt slightly less impactful than some of his older stuff, but it's still a solid film.

I'm with you on Bong Joon-ho, even if I haven't sat down to watch his recent one, Snowpiercer, yet.

He’s easily one of the most powerful writers working globally right now.

You nailed the way Farhad handles his direction—it's honestly brilliant how he manages to squeeze such incredible performances out of his cast every single time.

I haven't actually sat down to watch his first film, "Dancing in the Dark," but I did catch his second one, "Beautiful City." It was fantastic. It feels very much in line with his later stuff—taking one specific situation and using it to pull back the curtain on those stubborn male ego issues and the deep-seated social norms within American institutions. Visually, it's a bit more "raw" than what he's done lately, but honestly, it doesn't take away from it at all.