MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
Langella wasn't acting a cliched role, he was merely acting as the real judge acted. No wonder all the convictions were easily & rightfully overturned on appeal.
The official inquiry concluded that it was a police riot. Which it was. They were viciously clubbing anyone they encountered on the street, not just protesters but businessmen & secretaries coming home from work, reporters, shoppers ...
I agree. Even films that we enjoyed well enough when we were young yield so much more when we're older. An example: I loved Shane as a small boy, but then it was mainly about good guys & bad guys. When I was a little older, I began to see & appreciate the emotional & moral issues between the characters, the bonds & demands of friendship & love, and little Joey's inevitable growing up. As a young boy, I heard Joey's cry of "Mother wants you! I know she does!" simply as an additional plea to make his friend come back. When I was a little older, I saw Joey's face change as the full realization of exactly what "Mother wants you!" really meant & understood it for the first time myself.
Yes, Kubrick, and a powerful film. I envy you your experience of seeing it for the first time eventually!
Addressing your astute comment about WWI films not having a clearly defined villain, may I recommend both Joyeux Noel & Paths of Glory, each of which in its own way suggests that the villains were evenly distributed among the highest ranks of both the military & the politicians of all countries involved?
True. Lawrence of Arabia is for adults with actual attention spans & an appreciation for complexity & nuance.
No, Europeans cut deals with certain power-hungry Arab leaders & carved out countries in ways that benefitted those leaders & European interests, but did nothing for the actual people living there. None of which Lawrence wanted. It's why he left the Middle East in disgust & despair at the end of WWI.
And this movie is a masterpiece.
I'm tempted to simply say everything he did. :)
Raiders is a thoroughly enjoyable film, loads of fun & endlessly rewatchable. But it's not a cinematic masterpiece & is nowhere near the level of Chariots of Fire, Reds, or Ragtime. It's a spirited, high-budget update of 1940s adventure serials & films, which tended to be B-pictures.
In his first role, Hutton had to hold his own with such gifted actors as Sutherland, Moore, and Hirsch. He more than held his own with them & delivered a leading performance.
It's not just music that would be different. The Beatles had an immense cultural influence across the board: art, politics, spirituality, politics, philosophy, worldviews. Without them, a very different world in every way.
How & why are basically irrelevant here. All that's required is that Something Happened. The movie is about the power & beauty of the Beatles' music, nothing else.
Not only are there fans of the Beatles who weren't even born when the band was active ...
not only are there fans of the Beatles whose parents weren't even born when the band was active ...
but there are fans of the Beatles whose grandparents weren't even born when the band was active.
You don't get that sort of appeal & longevity for hype.
You get it for sheer quality & substance.
What's interesting about Dances With Wolves is that it isn't so much about Kevin Costner's character saving the Native Americans, it's much more about how the Native Americans & their view of life saves Kevin Costner's character.
Bergman is more of an acquired taste these days, as many younger viewers (not all, mind you) find his work too intellectual & slow. I disagree—it's more that many younger viewers (again, not all) tend to have shorter attention spans, simply because there's more of a demand for fast-paced films that are easier to sell to overseas audiences. If you're raised seeing faster-paced films with shorter shots, it's only natural to expect that. Reflective, measured, literate films just don't have as big an audience as they once did.
I think it's his single best film.
As someone who was a teenager in the late 60s, I can testify that a terrible weariness & feeling of being burned out filled the national psyche as the 70s began. People were looking for something more peaceful & innocent; that's when the introspective singer-songwriter became a major presence in popular music, and a lot of countercultural people were "getting back to the country" as an escape to a hoped-for Eden.
What's the point of life? That's what the point is. The film is about a moment in time, particular to the era, but one that every generation faces upon leaving high school. They're not kids any more, but not yet quite adults, either; they have many possibilities ahead of them, but few certainties about which to pursue; they feel as if they have all the time in the world, but know on some level that the choices they make right now will shape the rest of their lives. This last night is when they run through all the silliness & seriousness of high school days for the last time as active participants. But after that, high school will always be memories & nostalgia, not current life.
It's a contradiction which is none the less true.
Such a fascinating & thoughtful discussion! This in itself is a testament to the continuing power & beauty of this film, isn't it?
The question of intelligence ... yes, is our definition the sole definition, or only one of many possibilities?
And in a similar vein, when science speaks of advanced alien civilizations, it's taken for granted that "advanced" = "technologically advanced" by everyone. But what if that's not the measure of the word by a truly advanced civilization? What if it's empathy, or harmony, or simplicity? What if the technological phase of a civilization is simply its adolescent phase, one to be lived through & learned from, but not the truly mature stage? Technology might even turn out to be an evolutionary dead end in the long run, who knows? What if the stars are littered with civilizations that destroyed themselves in their technological adolescence, and that it's the most dangerous period in the lifespan of an intelligent species?
A film like 2001 makes me wonder about such things.