MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I do hope you both get to see it in a theater one day, as it's magnificent that way. (I was lucky enough to see it at age 14 when it came out, as part of a 9th grade field trip to NYC specifically for that purpose, courtesy of our Earth Science teacher. Thank you, Mr. Young!)
You don't have to fully understand it on your first viewing, just simply experience it. Repeated viewings may reveal more to you, as will mulling over it afterward. I sometimes think of it as a great symphonic tone-poem, a sort of visual music that conveys meaning & complexity without words.
But it's also fun & worthwhile to think about it & discuss it with others, too. :)
Dylan said as much, and ever since has played it in Hendrix's style, not his own.
Agreed, he was quite good. Especially since he had such a thankless task in following (but never replacing, as he himself said) Alex Trebek.
Yes, I used to be there on occasion. :)
Apparently Wally & Andre sent the script to Malle, among several other directors, and he was not only interested, he was avid to direct it. I think he takes an unobtrusive but subtle approach, and it works well for this film. After many viewings, I can sit back at times & see how carefully he uses the camera in barely perceptible ways. Other directors might have been tempted to do more; he wisely chose to do as little as possible, or at least as little as could be obviously seen.
Of course, this is one of my favorite films, so I'm naturally prejudiced in its favor. :)
There are films that are highly acclaimed by many that I personally don't care for myself. In the end, it's whether a film speaks to us & resonates with us that really matters. I can recognize why some films are highly praised, understand the very good reasons that they are, and still I can't connect with them. Nothing wrong or stupid about that.
Fair enough! My opinion is just that, my opinion, nothing more.
It took a gifted, sensitive director to create that simplicity & make it feel natural & organic, to make it work without calling attention to it working.
A character arc? No & yes. It begins as more of a slice-of-life movie, engaging the viewer in thought & speculation. But it's also a midlife movie, in which two men reassess not only their lives thus far, but their hopes & fears for the future, and most importantly of all, their friendship. How they talk with one another is just as important as what they talk about.
The literary critic Lionel Trilling said that a classic is a work that grows as you grow, I've seen this film many times since it first came out, and I always take away something new from it. It grows as I grow, it changes as I change, over time.
I'm also reminded of Ingmar Bergman's quote about the human face being the most gripping image a film can offer. This film offers that in plenty, not just their faces, but the gradual unveiling of their innermost feelings, fears, and dreams. And so, of our own innermost feelings, fears, and dreams. At least, that's what I get from it. Just my own response, of course.
Hypnotic is the word. I find nothing slow or tedious or boring about it.
But I agree that it's not for every viewer.
That's my response as well. From the time I saw it as a 14-year old in 1968, right up to the present day, I find it just as beautifully poetic & mysterious as ever. In some ways, I think of it as a visual tone poem or symphony. Of course, the best way to see it is in a theater, on the biggest screen possible. Those whose only experience of it is from TV, no matter how big & state-of-the-art the set, can't really be expected to appreciate its immersive power & depth. And add to that what a previous poster said about declining attention spans. Personally, I feel that slow, majestic pace is what gives the film such power & depth, conveying as it does the immensity of both Time & Space in a visceral way, a touch of the Infinite. A masterpiece!
That IS a wonderful soundtrack, isn't it?
I agree, movies this daring & personal are a rare thing these days. Paul Mazursky was an under-appreciated writer-director who absolutely needs to be rediscovered.
Agreed! Just watched this again last night, and speaking as someone who was young when the film came out, it really does capture that easygoing anarchic vibe of the time better than most films from the same period. And I miss that "all over the map" quality as a matter of fact. Contemporary films could use more of it.
I have to admit, the specifics of that episode tend to get lost in the stunning beauty of both Anne Francis & Laura Devon ...
And all the better for it. McGoohan wanted even fewer episodes than were made, in fact. He would have preferred just 7 episodes. No matter, though, as he created a lasting masterpiece.
"Oh, you're a riot, Kowalski! A regular riot!"
I suspect they saw the writing on the wall. Also, their already slim budget was being cut more & more with each subsequent episode, so much so that they couldn't overcome it. Especially not if morale was plunging every day ...
Getting rid of so many people who gave the first season its shadow-shrouded look right out of German Expressionism didn't help either. The second season, while still featuring some really good stories, now looked more like every other show on TV. I've read that someone at ABC actively wanted it canceled, but I can't be absolutely sure of that just off the top of my head.
Agreed, it has chilling atmosphere & paranoia galore!