Classic cinema - thoughts and questions

Very cool

Netflix to finish final Orson Welles film
thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/movies/2017/03/15/netflix-orson-welles-the-other-side-of-the-wind/

After decades on the shelf, legendary filmmaker Orson Welles’ final work The Other Side of the Wind will finally be finished and released, courtesy of video streaming provider Netflix.

Netflix will acquire global rights to the film and finance its completion and restoration, the company said in a press release.

“I can’t quite believe it, but after 40 years of trying, I am so very grateful for the passion and perseverance from Netflix that has enabled us to, at long last, finally get into the cutting room to finish Orson’s last picture,” producer Frank Marshall said.

The roman-a-clef about a brilliant, ageing director, played by Welles’ friend and colleague John Huston, making a final film with no plot, no script and no money, has been the stuff of Hollywood legend for decades.

Welles began it in 1970, but never completed it due to a lack of funding for his unorthodox, unscripted production.

Since his death in 1985 the project has been entangled in legal and financial disputes.

Welles is considered one of the greatest directors of the 20th century, the mastermind behind classics including Citizen Kane (1941) The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) and Othello (1952).

But his legacy includes as many misfires as masterpieces.
Welles left more than a dozen films unfinished over his career.
 
I temporarily changed the topic title to draw some extra Maiden geeks. ;--)

Apparently there's a 1962 film called "The Iron Maiden" (also known as "The Swingin' Maiden)! Has any of you heard of it before? Or better: seen it?



The theme of the Bedford Steam Engine Preservation Society's (BSEPS) annual Steam & Country Fayre for 2011 was a celebration of the 1962 film 'The Iron Maiden', which was made in the local area. The display was a tribute to the Society's founder and President the late John Crawley, who was technical advisor to the film and 'starred' as a female double in many scenes. The display featured five of the 'star' engines form the film and many of the background 'extra' engines.

003c0d44.jpg



The Iron Maiden:
Mighty in strength and endurance!

iron_maiden_haddenham_2003.jpg
 
I thought of making a list of "Interesting Sci-Fi" films. Interesting should be seen as a very loose, broad term. Interesting from a historical or artistic point of view, or because it could be good or because it was good. Of course, a film can turn out to be shit. I'm making this list with a friend, and our main interest is space travel films. But fantasy/monster/robot kind of sci-fi will also appear, also when it's only on earth. Every film has the year and some (sub genre) keywords for later reference.

The first part is til 1924. Feel free to comment if you like. Any story content please in spoiler tags. :) From this first part, I have only seen The Hands of Orlac. If you wish to recommend a film that is omitted (especially in a period that is listed), also go ahead of course. Much appreciated!



1902 Le Voyage dans la Lune
Moon Space travel Alien
Georges Méliès / France

1916 Verdens Undergang
Meteor Disaster movie
August Blom / Denmark

1918 Himmelskibet
Mars Space travel
Ole Olson / Denmark

1919 The Master Mystery
Robot
Burton King / USA

1920 Algol
Alien
Hans Werckmeister / Germany

1920 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (with John Barrymore)
Monster
John S. Robertson / USA

1921 L'uomo meccanico
Robot
André Deed / Italy

1924 Aelita: Queen of Mars
Mars Space travel
Yakov Protazanov / USSR

1924 The Hands of Orlac
Monster Transplant
Robert Wiene / Austria
 
Last edited:
Cannot say I have seen any of those ... The earliest scifi entertainment I have seen that I really enjoy start with the 1936 Flash Gordon serials .. I like the Space Opera stuff
 
Still a while before I get there, but it's certainly in the back of my head!
I'm sure you've seen more pre-1936 sci-fi, bearfan, but perhaps not in space (travel) sense.
 
The only 2 I can think of that I have seen are Metropolis (1927) and and A Trip to the Moon (1902) ... it has probably been 20 years since I have watched either. But beyond the 1930/40s serials I am afraid I am not of much help in pre-1950s scifi.
 
Never heard of it, but I just saw some pics and I think I am not into that type of Anime(?)
Looks kinda dirty and cruel.
MV5BOGRhYTkyZDMtZGIzMC00NjA4LWEyYmMtNjZkYTM4MTFlZmJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzUxNjAwMTg@._V1_UY105_CR20,0,105,105_AL_.jpg
Good grade, though.

How did you like it?
 
@Perun have you seen this one?

One, Two, Three, a comedy directed by Billy Wilder, from 1961.

I liked it! Lots of silly jokes and interesting Berlin footage. I wonder if you recognize some streets. Recommended!

The film is primarily set in West Berlin during the Cold War, but before the construction of the Berlin Wall, and politics is predominant in the premise. The film is known for its quick pace.
Click to expand...
Wilder was filming in Berlin the morning the Berlin Wall went up, forcing the crew to move to Munich
Click to expand...
One, Two, Three was banned in Finland from 1962 to 1986 on "political" grounds — it was feared that the film would harm relations between Finland and the Soviet Union. United Pictures Finland tried to get the film released theatrically in 1962, 1966 and 1969 but it was only in 1986 that the Finnish Board of Film Classification allowed the film to be distributed.
Click to expand...
It was received enthusiastically in Germany upon its 1985 re-release in movie theaters. One, Two, Three was given a grand re-premier at a large outdoor showing in Berlin which was broadcast simultaneously over television. The film went on to spend a year in the Berlin theaters as it was rediscovered by West Berlin citizens.
Click to expand...

from a review I found:
One, Two, Three is from the fertile mind of Billy Wilder where Cold War politics gets reduced to the absurd. This film is so fast and so funny it's only a few steps from Monty Python.
Click to expand...
 
I heard a lot about it, but never got around to watching it...
 
One thing I want to do this year is watch more movies including “classics” that I’ve neglected for a long time. By this time next year, I’d like to have a better understanding of the medium. I’m looking at various lists (IMDB AFI, BFI etc) as a reference and trying to focus on as many different eras and genres as possible. I’ve watched two so far, both from the 40s. I thought I’d post some brief thoughts here:

Rope (1948) - Hitchcock
This was one I’d long looked forward to viewing and I’m still not really sure what to make of it. My immediate reaction was underwhelming, but after letting my thoughts marinate for a day I’m finding more to appreciate about it. I’ll start with the negatives:
The film’s greatest weakness is in the suspense department. Hitchcock is the master of suspense but I thought the suspenseful moments were somewhat dull. The direction of the story was pretty obvious early on, which lowered the amount of tension for me. Even when the house maid began to open the box, I did not feel a serious amount of nervousness for our protagonists.

I have mixed feelings on Hitchcock’s decision to show the murder at the start of the film. Not showing the murder may have added a layer of suspense and some much needed mystery. On the other hand, knowing that the characters definitely committed the murder and are hiding the body in a box gives the film many opportunities for humor and exploring the characters’ motivations.

Which brings me to the positive qualities. There are some really memorable moments and the characters are incredibly fleshed out. I love Brandon’s hubris. He’s a total sociopath and there’s no doubt that this character we would commit a murder for the reasons explored. It also pays off in a huge way when Rupert rebukes him. Brandon wants to be caught, but he expects Rupert to be impressed rather than disgusted. The discussion of The Art of Murder and Nietzsche is probably the best part.

It seems Rope is best known for the minimal editing and illusion of being a single shot (if I was to nitpick, I’m not sure what the point of the opening establishing shot was when it would’ve been just as effective to start with the strangling). It’s definitely an impressive film on a technical level, although I’m not sure how much it added to the plot. It worked but I can’t figure out why Hitchcock chose to do this other than because he could.

I see the film being compared to 12 Angry Men frequently and have to say I strongly prefer 12 Angry Men. I think that movie does nearly everything Rope sets out to do so much better. Better plot, better cinematography, and quite a bit of suspense and tension. Rope probably has more interesting characters though.

Brief Encounter (1945) - David Lean
This one really came as a pleasant surprise. Reading the synopsis I was expecting your average romance film, but its ranking as #2 on the BFI list had me curious. I can definitely understand the praise now as it was much more than an average romance film.

I loved the structure, how we essentially see the ending first before going backwards and eventually seeing the ending again with added context. I love stories with time jumps and it was done excellently here. Laura’s moment of realization that she’s never going to see the doctor again was a fantastic climax. The story plays out fairly predictably but the payoff at the end and the structure more than makes up for that. The use of Rachmaninoff was also very effective.

One aspect I struggled with was character motivation, particularly from the doctor. The film seemed to be framed as an innocent encounter turned into an affair between two married people, but the Doctor seems pretty forward from the start. It’s as if he is looking for an affair. Not much is known about his own family, whether or not he’s happily married and such. He seems much more eager to leave his wife and kids behind for Laura. It just didn’t seem very well thought out.
Laura is happily married though and clearly cares for her children. The affair makes sense on her end given the social and historic context as well as her established character, so that side of it was more believable.

As you can probably tell, I’m pretty bored at work :p
 
@Mosh


RE: Rope ... Hitchcock got into the one long shot deal on both Rope and Under Capricorn ... I think it is interesting, but in the end, I think it hurts the film .. not really sure anything could help Under Capricorn, easily my least favorite movie of his, but it just hurts the story IMO and as you mentioned, removes the suspense. That said, I think Rope is still a pretty solid movie, but was harmed by his technical direction.

There is a book https://www.amazon.com/Hitchcock-Revised-Francois-Truffaut/dp/0671604295

Where Tuffaut essentially interviews Hitchcock about all his movies and he gets into the "why" he did it .. I have a copy somewhere that I can dig out and quote if you want. But, if you are a fan of Hitchcock at all, the book is terrific to read and I think he (Hitchcock) was able to somewhat separate himself from the movies and be as objective as anyone can be about their own work.
 
Rope is one of my favourite movies. I love and have immense respect for the way it is made, James Stewart is a top 5 actor of all times for me and I do feel the suspense. I have trouble with understanding why this suspense would not work well for someone else. The film is -apart from the takes and the brilliant set (e.g. check how the light outside changes)- famous for its suspense. I guess it has to be the personal perspective. E.g. I really do not feel the film suffers from anything.

I liked this film a lot before I knew (and realized!) how it was made. Later that changed and I was more amazed about it in repeated views, enjoying it with renewed pleasure, focusing on various details. I agree with most in this review (third from above) from the imdb.
MatBrewster18 February 2005
8/10
More Than Just a Technical Achievement
This 1948 Hitchcock film is mostly noted for its technical achievements. Hitchcock filmed this story, about two well-to-do rich kids who decide to commit a murder for the fun of it, as a play. Which, it in fact, originally was, though based in London and not New York. Technical limitations did not enable his original vision of making the entire picture one continuous long shot. Instead it is made up of several 8 minute continuous shots. This was the length of film that fit into one reel. Using some very inventive cutting techniques the film appears as if it was filmed all in one take. This is more impressive when you see the actual size that color film cameras were during this time period. They were absolutely enormous, bigger than a man standing. To move the camera in and around the small stage space, many of the set pieces were set on casters and rolled about to keep out of the way of the camera. Some of the actors were noted in saying that they worried every time they sat down, that there might not be a chair for them to fall into. Another achievement of the film is in terms of lighting. The apartment that the entire film is set in has several large windows overlooking the city. As the movie is more or less uninterrupted from start to finish we see the lighting change as the sun begins to set and night falls. It is a testament to this achievement that upon first viewing you don't really notice the effect. Yet, the filmmakers took great pains to get it to look realistic, staging numerous re-shoots for the final few scenes.

Though the technical achievements are quite wonderful, it is a shame that they have overshadowed what it really a very good bit of suspense. It seems the two high society murderers have planned a dinner party just after the murder. They store the corpse in a wood box that is featured prominently in the midst of the dinner. This creates an excellent mix of suspense and the macabre. Throughout the party the murderers become more unraveled even as they are enjoying their little game.

All of the acting is quite good. The two murderer (John Dall and Farley Granger) do a fine job of playing intellectual, society playboys, with a desire for excitement. It is slightly annoying watching their excited, nervous mannerisms (especially some stuttering by Jon Dall) but it is fitting with the characters. Their former instructor, Rupert Cadell, is played magnificently by the impeccable James Stewart. This is a bit of departure from Stewarts typical roles. Here he is a tough, cynical intellectual. This was his first of four collaborations between Stewart and Hitchock and it is hard to imagine his role as Scottie in Vertigo without having first played in this movie.

The story unravels in typical Hitchock fashion. The suspense is built, then lessoned by some well timed comedy, and then built again to a final crescendo. Hitchcock was excellent as a technical director and allowed his actors the breathing room they needed for fine performances. In the end I left the picture feeling more excited about the superb storytelling than any particular technical achievement. It is a testament to his craft, that Hitchock allows you to leave a picture being enamored with his story over his technical achievements. Some of the greatest effects are those you don't notice because they seem so natural and real.

Alfred Hitchock manages a triumph of technical brilliance and suspense in Rope. It's influence in the technical realm of cinema far outshines any effect the story has on future movies. This is a shame, for the story being told is one of suspense, macabre and excitement.

Last week I saw Brief Encounter for the first time. Nice coincidence! Liked it a lot but a very, very different film.
 
Last edited:
bearfan said:
Where Tuffaut essentially interviews Hitchcock about all his movies and he gets into the "why" he did it .. I have a copy somewhere that I can dig out and quote if you want. But, if you are a fan of Hitchcock at all, the book is terrific to read and I think he (Hitchcock) was able to somewhat separate himself from the movies and be as objective as anyone can be about their own work.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in seeing that. Will definitely keep an eye out for the book at the library or used book store.

Forostar said:
I have trouble with understanding why this suspense would not work well for someone else.
Click to expand...
Well maybe it's just me, but as soon as one of the characters pointed out that James Stewart's character would be the most likely one to uncover their crime, I assumed that was where the story was going. Rupert would be solving the mystery and would find the body at the end. For some reason I never had the feeling that they were going to be caught until they were alone with Rupert.

That being said, I did really like watching the film knowing that the murder victim was inside the box being used as a dinner table. I guess from that angle, it worked better for me as a black comedy than it did a thriller/suspense film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top