Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Knock yourself out. Make sure to report back if you come up with anything interesting.
Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread II
- Thread starter kihei
- Start date
- Status
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
The Nun’s Story
Zinnemann (1959)
“It’s not an easy life, being a nun.”
Gabrielle decides to leave her wealthy Belgian family to become a nun with the ultimate goal of being a nurse in the Congo. There she endures a rigorous training regimen meant to mold her into a dedicated servant of god. The trouble is she’s also a brilliant medical mind which gives her a streak of individuality frowned upon in those hallowed halls. She isn’t a troublemaker. Her desire to serve both god and man is sincere, but there is a hard-headedness lurking behind that subservient facade that she can never quite shake. She makes it and becomes Sister Luke. Her desire to go to the Congo is fulfilled. She’s assigned to a hospital there as a nurse, but it isn’t the one she wants. She hopes to help the natives, but is instead directed to the hospital for Europeans. It’s here she comes into her own, working first under and then alongside Dr. Fortunati, the charming and cynical rake every story like this calls for. Right as her skills are finally appreciated however, she’s struck ill. This gets her sent back to Belgium where she’s asked to focus on renewing her spiritual life. WWII is now rolling though and her desire to act overwhelms her desire to reconnect with god. She’s told not to take sides. It’s the final straw in her move away from her old life. She quits and walks off to a future in the underground, doing what she truly believes she is called to.
One of my bigger takeaways was learning more about Fred Zinnemann. I knew the name and most associated him with High Noon and From Here to Eternity. Checking his filmography though, he racked up a sneaky impressive 10 Oscar nominations in his career including seven for directing. He won four — two for directing, one for picture, one for short doc. I would stop short of labeling myself a movie expert, but I’ve ingested and retained copious amounts of movie knowledge of my decades (much of the more trivial kind especially as it pertains to the Oscars) but here’s a fairly accomplished fellow with whom I’m realizing I have very little familiarity with. Not that the Oscars are the end-all be-all of film recognition (there is another thread around these parts for that dead horse ...), but it is a measure of something. Seven nominations is the same as David Lean, Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg and trails only Scorsese (8), Billy Wilder (8) and William Wyler (12!). And yet, while Zinnemann certainly isn’t an unknown, you don’t hear his name bandied about among the all-time masters. Is this a blind spot for just me? My question to you — is he a somewhat forgotten great or is he more of a beloved-in-his-time-by-his-peers craftsman?
I was particularly taken by the first part of the movie as Gabreille trains to become Sister Luke. The military-like standards and practices on display made me recall Full Metal Jacket of all things. The time and setting obviously don’t have the exact brutality of Kubrick’s boot camp, but the same cruel rigidity is there. Physical punishment, restrictive speech, denial of basic sustenance. One for country, one for god, but all the same brainwashing in the end. It buttresses the strong and washes out the weak.
What I truly appreciated was that it didn’t turn into the hot-house repression tale I sorta expected. There’s clear feelings between Luke and Dr. Fortunati, but it never boils into a lusty thang. Dr. Fortunati (whose name sounds like a rejected Bond villain) isn’t the only thing Luke is denied, but rather just one thing. In the end it’s the totality of her beliefs — in herself, in need for action — that severs her from the church. The decision is met with some sympathy, though not understanding. I don’t know that the church is evil, but it is willfully inert and seems to be fighting the wrong fight. Ooh boy, times haven’t changed much have they? This is a film that criticizes religion not with a lecture, but with a sad nod. I wonder how its stance was taken at the time?
That said, the Congo section is heavy with a bit of White Christians Know Best judgement when it comes to the natives and their beliefs. So though probably accurate, things like that always are a bit of an awkward watch.
Hepburn keeps much of her struggle below the surface. There aren’t any blow-ups or fights. Her conflict is inside for the most part. Part of me wants to criticize the casting (not the performance) since Hepburn is such a strikingly beautiful woman it is a times a stretch to see her in this somewhat gritty role (for the time). But I think her inherent Audrey Hepburnness is ultimately key. She’s underestimated throughout, consistently seen more as a cog in god’s machine than an individual of great worth. Her final scene, divesting herself of the trappings of nundom, is some top notch quiet acting and her prolonged, silent walk away from the convent into a new future is a moving, memorable touch from Zinnemann.
Brief backstory - I was inspired to pick this because of a recent trip to Bruges, where some of the exteriors of the film were shot. And since we already covered the other well known movie shot in Bruges, I went with this. And man did I end up writing waaaaayyyy more about this movie than expected.
Zinnemann (1959)
“It’s not an easy life, being a nun.”
Gabrielle decides to leave her wealthy Belgian family to become a nun with the ultimate goal of being a nurse in the Congo. There she endures a rigorous training regimen meant to mold her into a dedicated servant of god. The trouble is she’s also a brilliant medical mind which gives her a streak of individuality frowned upon in those hallowed halls. She isn’t a troublemaker. Her desire to serve both god and man is sincere, but there is a hard-headedness lurking behind that subservient facade that she can never quite shake. She makes it and becomes Sister Luke. Her desire to go to the Congo is fulfilled. She’s assigned to a hospital there as a nurse, but it isn’t the one she wants. She hopes to help the natives, but is instead directed to the hospital for Europeans. It’s here she comes into her own, working first under and then alongside Dr. Fortunati, the charming and cynical rake every story like this calls for. Right as her skills are finally appreciated however, she’s struck ill. This gets her sent back to Belgium where she’s asked to focus on renewing her spiritual life. WWII is now rolling though and her desire to act overwhelms her desire to reconnect with god. She’s told not to take sides. It’s the final straw in her move away from her old life. She quits and walks off to a future in the underground, doing what she truly believes she is called to.
One of my bigger takeaways was learning more about Fred Zinnemann. I knew the name and most associated him with High Noon and From Here to Eternity. Checking his filmography though, he racked up a sneaky impressive 10 Oscar nominations in his career including seven for directing. He won four — two for directing, one for picture, one for short doc. I would stop short of labeling myself a movie expert, but I’ve ingested and retained copious amounts of movie knowledge of my decades (much of the more trivial kind especially as it pertains to the Oscars) but here’s a fairly accomplished fellow with whom I’m realizing I have very little familiarity with. Not that the Oscars are the end-all be-all of film recognition (there is another thread around these parts for that dead horse ...), but it is a measure of something. Seven nominations is the same as David Lean, Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg and trails only Scorsese (8), Billy Wilder (8) and William Wyler (12!). And yet, while Zinnemann certainly isn’t an unknown, you don’t hear his name bandied about among the all-time masters. Is this a blind spot for just me? My question to you — is he a somewhat forgotten great or is he more of a beloved-in-his-time-by-his-peers craftsman?
I was particularly taken by the first part of the movie as Gabreille trains to become Sister Luke. The military-like standards and practices on display made me recall Full Metal Jacket of all things. The time and setting obviously don’t have the exact brutality of Kubrick’s boot camp, but the same cruel rigidity is there. Physical punishment, restrictive speech, denial of basic sustenance. One for country, one for god, but all the same brainwashing in the end. It buttresses the strong and washes out the weak.
What I truly appreciated was that it didn’t turn into the hot-house repression tale I sorta expected. There’s clear feelings between Luke and Dr. Fortunati, but it never boils into a lusty thang. Dr. Fortunati (whose name sounds like a rejected Bond villain) isn’t the only thing Luke is denied, but rather just one thing. In the end it’s the totality of her beliefs — in herself, in need for action — that severs her from the church. The decision is met with some sympathy, though not understanding. I don’t know that the church is evil, but it is willfully inert and seems to be fighting the wrong fight. Ooh boy, times haven’t changed much have they? This is a film that criticizes religion not with a lecture, but with a sad nod. I wonder how its stance was taken at the time?
That said, the Congo section is heavy with a bit of White Christians Know Best judgement when it comes to the natives and their beliefs. So though probably accurate, things like that always are a bit of an awkward watch.
Hepburn keeps much of her struggle below the surface. There aren’t any blow-ups or fights. Her conflict is inside for the most part. Part of me wants to criticize the casting (not the performance) since Hepburn is such a strikingly beautiful woman it is a times a stretch to see her in this somewhat gritty role (for the time). But I think her inherent Audrey Hepburnness is ultimately key. She’s underestimated throughout, consistently seen more as a cog in god’s machine than an individual of great worth. Her final scene, divesting herself of the trappings of nundom, is some top notch quiet acting and her prolonged, silent walk away from the convent into a new future is a moving, memorable touch from Zinnemann.
Brief backstory - I was inspired to pick this because of a recent trip to Bruges, where some of the exteriors of the film were shot. And since we already covered the other well known movie shot in Bruges, I went with this. And man did I end up writing waaaaayyyy more about this movie than expected.
The Nun's Story (1959) Directed by Fred Zinnemann
I saw The Nun's Story when I was a kid, but didn't remember much about it. If anything, I remember it being far more schlockier than it actually is. Watching it again a few nights ago, I kept waiting for the goo to arrive and it never really does. The movie is a plausible story of a girl's commitment to Christ only to realize that she is far more committed to helping people than in being a good, which is to say utterly self-sacrificing, nun. A lot of things about this movie surprised me. The story is a serious one, not played for melodrama. Further more, in a quiet way, The Nun's Story is a much more revealing inside look at the limitations placed upon the young women who have decided to become "the brides of Christ," an idea that the movie treats with respect without somehow shying away from its inherent creepiness. In fact director Fred Zinnemann does a fine balancing act here. This is a movie that, as I remember it, was applauded by Catholics at the time, but which can also be read as a serious critique of what women who choose to become nuns must accept as part of the their deal with the Church. Subservience, silence and obedience go with the job--how many mentally healthy women are going to make that bargain.
My adopted mentor, Dwight Macdonald, writing in Esquire magazine, once strongly suggested that Audrey Hepburn, along with several other "stars," should find a different occupation. I never understood that position at the time, and I don't understand it now, even though I don't usually think of her as an "actress," but more as a "star" myself. She is certainly unique. Superficially she is the embodiment of the perfect pixie, but there have been a lot of pixie actresses and they almost all have been vapid. Hepburn often played innocents, but she usually communicated a certain intelligence as well--an airhead she wasn't. She also managed to be slightly sexy without even trying, charming, funny (a very underrated comic actress), classy, and playful. Name a role that she wasn't good in--it's not an easy task. From Roman Holiday to Sabrina to The Nun's Story to Charade to Two for the Road to Wait Until Dark to Robin and Marian, she often made the most out of not very much at all. In many ways, The Nun's Story is among her most difficult roles because she can't always rely on dialogue to get her emotions across. We have to see her grow from a mere school girl to a dedicated care giver who must make a life-altering decision and her Sister Luke does so with a minimum of fuss and bother. I can imagine an intelligent nun in this period confronting similar contradictions and behaving exactly like she does. I was thoroughly convinced by her performance which was absolutely necessary because for long stretches she is the movie. She is seldom off screen, and she has to carry the movie and its often subtle themes. She gives a flawlessly understated performance in Zinnemann's gracefully understated movie. Deborah Kerr may have been able to pull this role off, too, but no other Hollywood actress at the time could have even come close.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Great pick.
Just a note of caution: Everybody make sure that they get the 1988 Dutch original, not the awful, terrible, rotten, inexcusable, Pejorative Slured, imbecilic, craven, vile, disastrous, putrid, incompetent, grossly disrespectful 1993 remake, also entitled The Vanishing and also directed by George Sluizer, unquestionably the worst remake of a fine movie ever made on this or any other planet.
so remember: 1988
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
The Nun's story (1959) dir. Fred Zimmerman
Gaby Van Der Mal (Audrey Hepburn), the daughter of a famous surgeon, wishes to become a nun and work as missionary nursing in the Congo. At the start of the movie she is ready to depart for the covenant, and her father takes her there. From here on, her life will be completely different. From the start she struggles with obedience of her elders, even though she goes into everything with the best intentions. She none the less gets through her trial period, and gets into the school of tropical medicine, and due to her fathers tutelage earlier in life, is a natural. But her struggles with complete obedience means she doesn't go to the Congo right away. She gets send to a mental hospital instead, filled with dangerous patients. After a prolonged stay there, again a troubled one. She is eventually allowed to go to the Congo. Upon getting there, she is disappointed that she won't be nursing the natives as she had hoped. She is instead to be an operating nurse for Dr. Fortunati (Peter Finch), an atheist, a drinker, and a charmer. The two over time develop a relationship that might even be called a friendship. There's a big professional respect between them, one that also permeates their personal relation. When Gaby catches TB, something which requires returning to Europe for proper treatment, Fortunati engineers a cure for Gaby which heals her. Eventually however Gaby is forced to return to Europe, and with WWII fast approaching, she is not allowed to return to her bellowed Congo.
Most of my experiences until this point with Audrey Hepburn has been with her in more comedic roles, where she really excels. Her comedic timing is impeccable. That has made it somewhat easy to underestimate her as a dramatic actor. But she is probably just as good a dramatic actor as she is a comedic one. She basically does the same thing either way. She's always understated and never does more than is required to get the right reaction. She can do so much with just a little look. Her reputation is very much deserved.
Without her I would probably have found this movie a bit dull. I am not the biggest fan as is. I found it dragged a bit until we get to the Congo and Dr. Fortunati gets into the movie. Before him everything is so straight. Gaby has her troubles for sure, but everyone around her is more or less the same straight edged nuns. And Fortunati was just something different from that and it felt refreshing, as it probably did to Gaby as well, who event though she tried a lot, probably never felt like she quite fit in with the other nuns. She was perhaps too curious to just keep quiet and obey without asking questions. So meeting a man who was the opposite of what she was usually around was interesting for her. I'm not sure she was outright intrigued by his lifestyle, but it opened her to up the idea that the nun life was perhaps not the only way to live and still be righteous. Without meeting him, I doubt she would have ever left the covenant. I can really related to the Gaby's struggles with faith, but I think there's still an interesting story about how she deals with a society that goes to extreme lengths to limit her personal expression. Something she never really comes to terms with.
I'm not sure this movie is a direct indictment of orthodox religious practices like the ones we see in covenant. But I can't see it as an approval either. Personally my reaction to a lot of the stuff that Gaby and her fellows are told to do and exposed to, was 'isn't that a bit extreme?' But maybe that is just the background that I come with. Maybe someone catholic would say that it might be a bit extreme, but that the goal justifies the means. And maybe it is, after all there's some catholic monks in Belgium who makes some damned good beer.
Gaby Van Der Mal (Audrey Hepburn), the daughter of a famous surgeon, wishes to become a nun and work as missionary nursing in the Congo. At the start of the movie she is ready to depart for the covenant, and her father takes her there. From here on, her life will be completely different. From the start she struggles with obedience of her elders, even though she goes into everything with the best intentions. She none the less gets through her trial period, and gets into the school of tropical medicine, and due to her fathers tutelage earlier in life, is a natural. But her struggles with complete obedience means she doesn't go to the Congo right away. She gets send to a mental hospital instead, filled with dangerous patients. After a prolonged stay there, again a troubled one. She is eventually allowed to go to the Congo. Upon getting there, she is disappointed that she won't be nursing the natives as she had hoped. She is instead to be an operating nurse for Dr. Fortunati (Peter Finch), an atheist, a drinker, and a charmer. The two over time develop a relationship that might even be called a friendship. There's a big professional respect between them, one that also permeates their personal relation. When Gaby catches TB, something which requires returning to Europe for proper treatment, Fortunati engineers a cure for Gaby which heals her. Eventually however Gaby is forced to return to Europe, and with WWII fast approaching, she is not allowed to return to her bellowed Congo.
Most of my experiences until this point with Audrey Hepburn has been with her in more comedic roles, where she really excels. Her comedic timing is impeccable. That has made it somewhat easy to underestimate her as a dramatic actor. But she is probably just as good a dramatic actor as she is a comedic one. She basically does the same thing either way. She's always understated and never does more than is required to get the right reaction. She can do so much with just a little look. Her reputation is very much deserved.
Without her I would probably have found this movie a bit dull. I am not the biggest fan as is. I found it dragged a bit until we get to the Congo and Dr. Fortunati gets into the movie. Before him everything is so straight. Gaby has her troubles for sure, but everyone around her is more or less the same straight edged nuns. And Fortunati was just something different from that and it felt refreshing, as it probably did to Gaby as well, who event though she tried a lot, probably never felt like she quite fit in with the other nuns. She was perhaps too curious to just keep quiet and obey without asking questions. So meeting a man who was the opposite of what she was usually around was interesting for her. I'm not sure she was outright intrigued by his lifestyle, but it opened her to up the idea that the nun life was perhaps not the only way to live and still be righteous. Without meeting him, I doubt she would have ever left the covenant. I can really related to the Gaby's struggles with faith, but I think there's still an interesting story about how she deals with a society that goes to extreme lengths to limit her personal expression. Something she never really comes to terms with.
I'm not sure this movie is a direct indictment of orthodox religious practices like the ones we see in covenant. But I can't see it as an approval either. Personally my reaction to a lot of the stuff that Gaby and her fellows are told to do and exposed to, was 'isn't that a bit extreme?' But maybe that is just the background that I come with. Maybe someone catholic would say that it might be a bit extreme, but that the goal justifies the means. And maybe it is, after all there's some catholic monks in Belgium who makes some damned good beer.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Sorry fo the delay. Since watching The Nun's Story I've read about 150 reviews on TIFF's website in prep for this year's festival. Reading their succint and tantalizing reviews makes my muddled attempts at insight seem unworthy in comparison, so I've been putting this off.
But I enjoyed The Nun's Story, it's a movie I would probably have never chosen to watch myself, so thanks Kal for the pick.
The Nun's Story takes us into some dark and mysterious worlds which we ordinarily would never visit: first the convent, next the Congo. It's great escapist entertainment in that regard, but it's not a fantasy--there are no happy endings. The budding love story between Gabby and Fortunati--the stuff of Harlequin romance-- is never consummated and the showdown between Gabby and the church heirarchy that I was expecting never comes either. Her career within the church ends with more of a whimper than a bang. Nothing overly dramatic, just piercing realism. We can relate to Gabby. She's not a religious fanatic nor a recluse seeking to withdraw from society. She's proud, ambitious, in fact she's not a very good nun. She's like us.
This understated drama is backed up by a documentary-like feel which gives weight to its sense of realism. It's not a cinema-verite you-are-there type of realism but one that seeks to carefully and gracefully record the day to day reality of the environment in which the story is set. Often The Nun's Story will look away from the main storyline just to observe and capture the details of the nun's ceremonial rituals or the daily routines of the Congolese. This adds something to the film--I don't know--anthropological credibility?--which makes Gabby's story seem all the more genuine and affecting. Could be anyone's story, we all have to find that balance between our sense of self and our place in society.
But I enjoyed The Nun's Story, it's a movie I would probably have never chosen to watch myself, so thanks Kal for the pick.
The Nun's Story takes us into some dark and mysterious worlds which we ordinarily would never visit: first the convent, next the Congo. It's great escapist entertainment in that regard, but it's not a fantasy--there are no happy endings. The budding love story between Gabby and Fortunati--the stuff of Harlequin romance-- is never consummated and the showdown between Gabby and the church heirarchy that I was expecting never comes either. Her career within the church ends with more of a whimper than a bang. Nothing overly dramatic, just piercing realism. We can relate to Gabby. She's not a religious fanatic nor a recluse seeking to withdraw from society. She's proud, ambitious, in fact she's not a very good nun. She's like us.
This understated drama is backed up by a documentary-like feel which gives weight to its sense of realism. It's not a cinema-verite you-are-there type of realism but one that seeks to carefully and gracefully record the day to day reality of the environment in which the story is set. Often The Nun's Story will look away from the main storyline just to observe and capture the details of the nun's ceremonial rituals or the daily routines of the Congolese. This adds something to the film--I don't know--anthropological credibility?--which makes Gabby's story seem all the more genuine and affecting. Could be anyone's story, we all have to find that balance between our sense of self and our place in society.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Reminded me of Full Metal Jacket too.
Full Metal Habit?
Full Metal Habit?
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Band of Outsiders (1964) dir. Jean-Luc Godard
Odile (Anna Karina) lives with her aunt and Mr. Stolz in a big house in parisian suburb. One day she finds a big pile of cash hidden in the house. She attends an English class where she meets Franz. She tells Franz about her discovery. Franz then tells his friend Arthur. Together the two start planning to steal the money with Odile's help.
Band of Outsiders has a great energy to it, and that is probably it's biggest asset. The leading threesome is a big part of this, as they really adopt the pace set by the editing. That makes it quite a fun movie to watch. In that way it reminds me a bit of Jules and Jim, and A Hard Day's Night. The problem with Band of Outsiders is that for me it lands it a weird in between place. It doesn't have the comedy of A Hard Day's Night, nor does it have great characters like Jules and Jim. That ends up being bit of a problem for me, as I don't really get into the characters, and I don't care that much about them. The characters is probably the best thing about Jules and Jim and a big reason why it's one of my favourite movies. Of course movies don't have to rely on characters to be great, but they something else then. A Hard Day's Night doesn't really rely on it's characters a whole lot, at least not in terms of character development and emotional weight. But the movie has great energy and is darned fun to watch because it has a lot of great comedic moments in it. And that comedy really helps bring the energy to life. But I don't get that comedy in Band of Outsiders, at least it doesn't work as well, and that means the movie falls a bit flat in a lot of places for me. I don't dislike the movie, it's a good movie. But I don't think there's anything in it that will make me remember it in a week.
Odile (Anna Karina) lives with her aunt and Mr. Stolz in a big house in parisian suburb. One day she finds a big pile of cash hidden in the house. She attends an English class where she meets Franz. She tells Franz about her discovery. Franz then tells his friend Arthur. Together the two start planning to steal the money with Odile's help.
Band of Outsiders has a great energy to it, and that is probably it's biggest asset. The leading threesome is a big part of this, as they really adopt the pace set by the editing. That makes it quite a fun movie to watch. In that way it reminds me a bit of Jules and Jim, and A Hard Day's Night. The problem with Band of Outsiders is that for me it lands it a weird in between place. It doesn't have the comedy of A Hard Day's Night, nor does it have great characters like Jules and Jim. That ends up being bit of a problem for me, as I don't really get into the characters, and I don't care that much about them. The characters is probably the best thing about Jules and Jim and a big reason why it's one of my favourite movies. Of course movies don't have to rely on characters to be great, but they something else then. A Hard Day's Night doesn't really rely on it's characters a whole lot, at least not in terms of character development and emotional weight. But the movie has great energy and is darned fun to watch because it has a lot of great comedic moments in it. And that comedy really helps bring the energy to life. But I don't get that comedy in Band of Outsiders, at least it doesn't work as well, and that means the movie falls a bit flat in a lot of places for me. I don't dislike the movie, it's a good movie. But I don't think there's anything in it that will make me remember it in a week.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Band of Outsiders is a heist movie combined with a love triangle, so it sets up two questions: will they get away with it, and who gets the girl? My money was on "yes" and "neither", figuring the boys were obviously using Odile and would leave her high and dry as soon as the job was finished. So I was wrong. But it was a fun ride all the same.
Writing about Band of Outsiders Pauline Kael said that Godard never lets you forget you're watching a movie. Rather than provide an immersive experience, drawing the viewer into the world of the film and its characters, and thereby getting close to the characters emotionally, Godard continually breaks that spell, like a magician performing his tricks while at the same time showing how his tricks are done. Still you have to marvel at the technique, the audacity and the imagination that inspires him to break so many rules of filmmaking. Does this help or hurt the story and its characters? Probably hurts in the conventional sense, if you're looking for a story with an emotional connection. To be honest, I didn't care who got the girl. But the upside is worth it. Godard thumbs his nose at staid convention, which must be the point of that sprint through the Louvre. At times Band of Outsiders just seems to be showing off, such as the opening credits with its montage a trois. But the café scene is a marvel. The ordering of the drinks and re-shuffling of seating arrangements illustrates the trio's internal pecking order. The minute of silence (it isn't, I timed it) seems gimmicky, but sets up the whimsical dance scene, where the three characters are all in sync (for once--this gang is never on the same page otherwise) dancing to music that they can't hear (but we can) while the narrator provides a play-by-play of their inner thoughts. In moments like this Band of Outsiders forges a new kind of realism, one that is comfortably fictional and uniquely cinematic.
Writing about Band of Outsiders Pauline Kael said that Godard never lets you forget you're watching a movie. Rather than provide an immersive experience, drawing the viewer into the world of the film and its characters, and thereby getting close to the characters emotionally, Godard continually breaks that spell, like a magician performing his tricks while at the same time showing how his tricks are done. Still you have to marvel at the technique, the audacity and the imagination that inspires him to break so many rules of filmmaking. Does this help or hurt the story and its characters? Probably hurts in the conventional sense, if you're looking for a story with an emotional connection. To be honest, I didn't care who got the girl. But the upside is worth it. Godard thumbs his nose at staid convention, which must be the point of that sprint through the Louvre. At times Band of Outsiders just seems to be showing off, such as the opening credits with its montage a trois. But the café scene is a marvel. The ordering of the drinks and re-shuffling of seating arrangements illustrates the trio's internal pecking order. The minute of silence (it isn't, I timed it) seems gimmicky, but sets up the whimsical dance scene, where the three characters are all in sync (for once--this gang is never on the same page otherwise) dancing to music that they can't hear (but we can) while the narrator provides a play-by-play of their inner thoughts. In moments like this Band of Outsiders forges a new kind of realism, one that is comfortably fictional and uniquely cinematic.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Band of Outsiders
Godard (1964)
“A pile of money. An English class. A house by the river. A romantic girl.”
Franz and Arthur are a pair of young men with aspirations. Men by any definition at least, though really more boys in execution. They seem to do nothing more than a bit of play acting of cowboys and gangsters and bumming about. They know Odile through an English language class. She lives with her rich uncle (who also may have stolen the stack of money he keeps in a closet). The boys want to rob the man. Why? Sounds like fun, I guess. The products of too many cops-and-robbers flicks. A lot of time is killed. Romance flitters about between the woman and the two men. Arthur’s much more seriously bad dude uncle learns of the plot. The moment arrives and things, predictably, go wrong. Franz and Arthur believe they accidentally killed Odile’s aunt. The money isn’t where it should be. They split. But here comes the uncle. Arthur heads back, finds the money and he and his uncle proceed to shoot each other dead on the lawn. Franz and Odile opt to run to South America.
I appreciate Band of Outsiders more in pieces than the whole. It’s a movie led by characters who watch movies who on occasion point out the very movieness of the movie they’re in. No doubt innovative at the time and influential to many who would follow. The digressions are charming — the famed speed run through the Louvre, the probably even more referenced dance sequence in the cafe. Those work. And will probably always work. Gold stars.
But the overall experience of watching Band of Outsiders is a bit of a tedious one for me if I’m being honest. The introduction of Odile in the class and its very, very plodding read of Shakespeare (a very on-the-nose Romeo & Juliet) is an outright slog. Just get to the dance scene! Wait, why did that person just have a tiger on a leash? Godard definitely takes us for a ride. Is that car spinning doughnuts in a field littered with junk a metaphor or am I just grafting that reading on?
It’s an interesting film in the sense that it’s interesting to watch Godard play. Sometimes that’s enough. Not quite here for me though. Odile is a cipher. Franz and, especially, Arthur aren’t particularly likable or charming. Their shoddy plan blows up in a predictable way. The happy ending, however, feels cheap and a little out-of-place. So again we go back to Godard. Is this film criticism? Of Hollywood gangsters and Hollywood endings? I’m not sure I believe it works that way either, but I’d entertain the argument. Similarly, is this a shot at Truffaut and Jules & Jim? The triangle at the heart of it and the contentious relationship with Truffaut makes it hard for me not to draw that connection. Fair or unfair. In any case, I prefer the former, which manages to be innovative and entertaining. Band of Outsiders always just feels to me like Godard is kinda mucking around. At times it comes across more academic than fun. Not that something like that can’t also make a worthwhile viewing experience. This one just sorta feels like homework to me though with a few fun distractions worked in.
Godard (1964)
“A pile of money. An English class. A house by the river. A romantic girl.”
Franz and Arthur are a pair of young men with aspirations. Men by any definition at least, though really more boys in execution. They seem to do nothing more than a bit of play acting of cowboys and gangsters and bumming about. They know Odile through an English language class. She lives with her rich uncle (who also may have stolen the stack of money he keeps in a closet). The boys want to rob the man. Why? Sounds like fun, I guess. The products of too many cops-and-robbers flicks. A lot of time is killed. Romance flitters about between the woman and the two men. Arthur’s much more seriously bad dude uncle learns of the plot. The moment arrives and things, predictably, go wrong. Franz and Arthur believe they accidentally killed Odile’s aunt. The money isn’t where it should be. They split. But here comes the uncle. Arthur heads back, finds the money and he and his uncle proceed to shoot each other dead on the lawn. Franz and Odile opt to run to South America.
I appreciate Band of Outsiders more in pieces than the whole. It’s a movie led by characters who watch movies who on occasion point out the very movieness of the movie they’re in. No doubt innovative at the time and influential to many who would follow. The digressions are charming — the famed speed run through the Louvre, the probably even more referenced dance sequence in the cafe. Those work. And will probably always work. Gold stars.
But the overall experience of watching Band of Outsiders is a bit of a tedious one for me if I’m being honest. The introduction of Odile in the class and its very, very plodding read of Shakespeare (a very on-the-nose Romeo & Juliet) is an outright slog. Just get to the dance scene! Wait, why did that person just have a tiger on a leash? Godard definitely takes us for a ride. Is that car spinning doughnuts in a field littered with junk a metaphor or am I just grafting that reading on?
It’s an interesting film in the sense that it’s interesting to watch Godard play. Sometimes that’s enough. Not quite here for me though. Odile is a cipher. Franz and, especially, Arthur aren’t particularly likable or charming. Their shoddy plan blows up in a predictable way. The happy ending, however, feels cheap and a little out-of-place. So again we go back to Godard. Is this film criticism? Of Hollywood gangsters and Hollywood endings? I’m not sure I believe it works that way either, but I’d entertain the argument. Similarly, is this a shot at Truffaut and Jules & Jim? The triangle at the heart of it and the contentious relationship with Truffaut makes it hard for me not to draw that connection. Fair or unfair. In any case, I prefer the former, which manages to be innovative and entertaining. Band of Outsiders always just feels to me like Godard is kinda mucking around. At times it comes across more academic than fun. Not that something like that can’t also make a worthwhile viewing experience. This one just sorta feels like homework to me though with a few fun distractions worked in.
Band of Outsiders (1964) Directed by Jean Luc Godard
On paper, Band of Outsiders is a "B" movie genre piece (something which the narrator even makes fun of in the film). In reality the film is just an excuse for Godard to have fun with the medium and simultaneously deconstruct (before there was a word for it) and redefine the possibilities of cinema. Superficially similar in many ways to Godard's earlier Breathless, Band of Outsiders covers similar territory (small time hoods and the girls who love them). But the real focal point here is style. Both films can be described by a list of adjectives that would seem hopelessly quixotic if it weren't for the fact that thy are describing a Godard film: breezy (the convertible helps--the fact the canvas top mechanism doesn't work any more is slyly witty), insouciant (the banal story is just an excuse to have fun with its various elements, conventions be damned), semi-realistic (the crooks are amoral, the chick is young, inexperienced and vapid, none of which are deal breaker for Godard), spontaneous (the marvelous little dance that the three do in the bistro; the record breaking rush through the Louvre), unexpected (demonstrating with silence how long a minute is); and visually appealing (everything from Raoul Coutard's amazing cinematography, to playing musical chairs with the characters as they plot their crime, to the scenes with the little skiff and the tiny distance it must travel from shore to shore, to shenanigans in the English class which they are all taking for some reason). The whole vibe that Godard creates reinforces the notion that none of this should be taken too seriously, that the movie is just a "fast read" like a pulp novel. The fluid camera movement, the (characteristically) unexpected commencement of music in the middle of scenes, the visual and verbal references to language, the offhand causal nature of it all, create a film that is full of youthful energy, intellectual and visual playfulness and aimless amorality. Band of Outsiders and many other examples of French New Wave films of this general period made the entertainment movies of the day seem old, leaden, plodding, impersonal, and conservative. Down through the years, Godard has used film more diversely and more intuitively than several generations of his contemporaries. To this day, 54 years after the release of Band of Outsider, he still retains the most fertile imagination in the history of cinema.
On the Beach Alone at Night (2017) Directed by Hong Sang-soo
The movie starts out in Munich where Young-hee (Kim Min-hee), an actress is visiting a friend and trying to sort out some issues, foremost of which is a relationship that she has or, maybe, had with a film director who may or may not visit her in Munich, a fact that initially she seems rather indifferent about. The rest of the movie follows her around as she has conversations with friends and acquaintances in Germany and, later in South Korea. One critic (whose name I can't locate) called this movie a "leisurely" character study, and indeed it is. As the movie develops and we listen to Young-hee talk things through with various people it becomes clear that this failed romantic relationship isn't something that she is so blase about after all. In fact, the end of the affair has hurt her deeply, a fact that is revealed to her and to us gradually but devastatingly. As we go from people's apartments to parks to cafes and bistros to finally a chilly beach in South Korea, as we go from casual perceptions to deeply felt psychological anguish, we realize ever more fully just how badly she has been scarred and just how far from being over it she is.
On the Beach Alone at Night is seemingly casual in its approach to narrative development, and it took me some time to realize just how complex the underlying structure is and just just how sophisticated is director Hong Sang-soo's grasp of the medium. He finds drama, even truth, in the everyday and the ordinary. This is a movie that depends on words, not action, to develop its story in a realistic, almost informal way. The result is very convincing and very revealing of character as we come to know Young-hee's feelings extremely well. Hong is fortunate in the extreme to have an actress as gifted as Kim Min-hee playing his charming, impulsive, sometimes unnecessarily frank, emotionally struggling young actress. She is captivating, vulnerable and angry and over the course of the movie her character acquires remarkable depth.
Obviously Hong's deceptively offhand, patient approach is not for everyone and someone will see it as too much aimless talk and not enough action. His films remind me a little of John Cassavetes' best works, another director who often find truth in ordinary speech and mundane situations. If anything, Hong has a delicacy of touch that might even be superior to Cassavetes', though both manage to get at the sort of feelings that shape and alter lives. In Hong's case, the approach seems very personal which is one of the reasons why his film possesses its understated power. On the Beach Alone at Night, it turns out, is a cinematic retrospective of an actual affair between Hong and Kim. We are seeing art copy life in an intimately personal way, a sort or working out of their feelings about their relationship after the fact. While the line between film reality and reality itself becomes ever more indistinct, the end result is both subtle but hard-edged, one of the best movies about a failed relationship and its emotional aftermath that I have ever seen. Thank goodness that Hong and Kim plan to continue to work together.
subtitles
Apologies in that I think I only listed On the Beach Alone at Night on the first page "coming attractions" and forgot to mention it in the thread proper. Hope this doesn't cause unnecessary grief for anyone.
My next pick will be another recent film November, a film virtually no one has seen, recently out on DVD.
My next pick will be another recent film November, a film virtually no one has seen, recently out on DVD.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
On the Beach at Night Alone
Hong (2017)
“What I want is to live in a way that suits me.”
Young-hee is an actress. She’s in Germany, hanging out, visiting a friend. She’s had an affair. They talk about it. Is her lover thinking of her? What are her obligations? They visit a composer who owns a book shop. The pair meet some friends for an awkward dinner, then it’s off to a beach where she is ... kidnapped? Now we’re in a movie theater. Young-hee is fine. She runs into an old acquaintance. They talk about her travels and the affair. We’re off to another dinner where the discussion is love and its challenges. She’s angry. A little drunk too. The third act puts her across the table from the man, the director, the lover. It boils over into a confrontation and the director tearfully admits his regrets.
Well this was an intriguing venture. I wasn’t familiar with Hong’s work and certainly wasn’t familiar with the real life backstory between and he and Min-he Kim, which I read about afterwards. Gives another level to the almost documentary feel at times as the camera does these occasional small zooms closer to character faces that reminded me of the non-fiction form. I though Kim’s performance was stunning. I can certainly praise her playfulness in the lighter moments and her boiling over in the tenser ones, but the thing that really struck me was the way she used her body — she’d coil in at times, eyes downcast and she’d do this thing where she fiddles with her hands. There was this discernible physical change in her as her mood shifted. Noticeable, though not showy. Very effective. Very real. Of course that’s because she is...
So this brings me to my struggle. Not a bad struggle, but an interesting one given the real-life roots of the film. The film alone without the outside noise is a pretty compelling little character piece. Knowing the backstory though can’t help but color my thoughts a little. I suppose these are unanswerable (maybe even irrelevant) questions but I couldn’t help but wonder how much of this is actual depiction and how much is interpretative or invented. My gut says it’s more the latter than the former. I’m still pondering the confrontation at the end as it feels like she’s sorta cast off and martyred while the director gets a tearful catharsis. It’s a testament to Kim’s performance that thinking about this kinda makes me mad. The real life backstory changed my feelings about that scene because it suddenly felt like the real life man was letting his fictional counterpart off the hook while the woman was left to bear the brunt of it all.
This may be a dumb question, but is this movie chronological? I wasn’t thinking about in the course of watching, but thinking about it now, it almost feels like that first segment was the actual end of the story. And if so, then what does that say?
Questions though I may have, I have to admit it’s an effective watch.
Hong (2017)
“What I want is to live in a way that suits me.”
Young-hee is an actress. She’s in Germany, hanging out, visiting a friend. She’s had an affair. They talk about it. Is her lover thinking of her? What are her obligations? They visit a composer who owns a book shop. The pair meet some friends for an awkward dinner, then it’s off to a beach where she is ... kidnapped? Now we’re in a movie theater. Young-hee is fine. She runs into an old acquaintance. They talk about her travels and the affair. We’re off to another dinner where the discussion is love and its challenges. She’s angry. A little drunk too. The third act puts her across the table from the man, the director, the lover. It boils over into a confrontation and the director tearfully admits his regrets.
Well this was an intriguing venture. I wasn’t familiar with Hong’s work and certainly wasn’t familiar with the real life backstory between and he and Min-he Kim, which I read about afterwards. Gives another level to the almost documentary feel at times as the camera does these occasional small zooms closer to character faces that reminded me of the non-fiction form. I though Kim’s performance was stunning. I can certainly praise her playfulness in the lighter moments and her boiling over in the tenser ones, but the thing that really struck me was the way she used her body — she’d coil in at times, eyes downcast and she’d do this thing where she fiddles with her hands. There was this discernible physical change in her as her mood shifted. Noticeable, though not showy. Very effective. Very real. Of course that’s because she is...
So this brings me to my struggle. Not a bad struggle, but an interesting one given the real-life roots of the film. The film alone without the outside noise is a pretty compelling little character piece. Knowing the backstory though can’t help but color my thoughts a little. I suppose these are unanswerable (maybe even irrelevant) questions but I couldn’t help but wonder how much of this is actual depiction and how much is interpretative or invented. My gut says it’s more the latter than the former. I’m still pondering the confrontation at the end as it feels like she’s sorta cast off and martyred while the director gets a tearful catharsis. It’s a testament to Kim’s performance that thinking about this kinda makes me mad. The real life backstory changed my feelings about that scene because it suddenly felt like the real life man was letting his fictional counterpart off the hook while the woman was left to bear the brunt of it all.
This may be a dumb question, but is this movie chronological? I wasn’t thinking about in the course of watching, but thinking about it now, it almost feels like that first segment was the actual end of the story. And if so, then what does that say?
Questions though I may have, I have to admit it’s an effective watch.
I'm just getting to know this guy. If Nameless1, who is very familiar with Hong, reads our reviews, hopefully he/she will chime in. Here's my two cents. I think a lot of Hong's films have this autobiographical edge. His next film, Claire's Camera, about a school teacher who visits Cannes for the first time (playful performance by Isabelle Huppert) also has a philandering director who has a one-night stand with Kim Min-hee in it. The film is lighter and much more fictiony. So I surmise Hong does this type a thing frequently but there is a sliding scale from very autobiographical to slightly autobiographical,
To me, concerning that scene which you refer to, it doesn't make a difference either way. The fact we don't know whether these are "real" feelings or "acted" feelings or somewhere in between, the scene is still absolutely true to the character and the movie whichever way you want to cut it. Does the director let himself off the hook? Who knows for sure? Nonetheless his reaction in the movie is a plausible one, and to top it off, it's a dream sequence anyway which Kim is having while she is sleeping on the beach. Add all of that up, and I love how Hong uses cinema to smear the nature of reality to the point that we don't know what is real and what is movie. In my opinion, that's a signature innovation.
I love your last point about the chronology of the movie, which I never thought of. And, again, doesn't it work either way? This could be the young woman on the rebound or it could be chronological--i.e., she gets away from it all to Munich before going back to South Korea and confronting reality or at least confronting reality in her dreams. I like it either way but better chronological because it gives the movie a more poignant arc--she starts off not really acknowledging how hurt she is and that reality slowly imposes itself on her as the film progresses.
I am seeing Hong's latest at TIFF in a couple of days. I will, of course, write a review on the movie page. Maybe, we will get more clues.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
It's a funny movie like that. I agree that my questions ultimately don't matter. But I can't help but be dogged a bit by them. Great choice. I like it when a film sticks with me.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
So, I'm slagging off quite a bit at work today, which means I've put some time into going through the wonderful spreadsheet provided by Jevo a page ago. I'm going to post my findings in the next day, but in advance at that, anyone want to make any guesses on a few items?
Most popular decade?
Most popular year?
Most popular filmmaker?
2nd most popular country? (US is first -- spoiler alert).
Most popular decade?
Most popular year?
Most popular filmmaker?
2nd most popular country? (US is first -- spoiler alert).
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Most popular decade: 60s. I think 70s and 00s are in the top 3 as well, but I think 60s has the edge.
Most popular year: Impossible to guess. 2000?
Most popular filmmaker: Can I have use a handful of guesses? Because that's how many names I'm going back and forth between here. I'm gonna go with Bunuel, but I can't actually recall how many times he's been picked. I'm pretty sure Godard and Truffaut are on four each, and I can't see who outside of Bunuel might have more. Maybe Hitchcock or Kurosawa?
2nd most popular country: France. I'm 99% sure of this.
Most popular year: Impossible to guess. 2000?
Most popular filmmaker: Can I have use a handful of guesses? Because that's how many names I'm going back and forth between here. I'm gonna go with Bunuel, but I can't actually recall how many times he's been picked. I'm pretty sure Godard and Truffaut are on four each, and I can't see who outside of Bunuel might have more. Maybe Hitchcock or Kurosawa?
2nd most popular country: France. I'm 99% sure of this.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
For filmmaker, I will tell you there is a five way tie and that it's a diverse group.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
So here is the updated of Jevo’s spreadshseet. A few notes: I added director, country of movie and country of director. I also went up through The Vanishing for no other reason than to have a nice, round 300 entries. I used the first country listed on IMDB as country of origin, though several films have multiples. For director birthplaces, I opted for the current country so I tried to place those former USSR directors in the current geography (Georgia, Ukraine). There could be a few mistakes here. I tried to respect Asian naming conventions with surnames, but I very well might have screwed a few up. If I did, I at least screwed them up consistently. I thought director origin might be slightly interesting because of the number of foreign directors who did pictures in other countries, the U.S., in particular. Movies with multiple non-related directors I admit I punted on in most cases and just used one name.
The other catch to this whole thing is that while I envisioned making wonderful charts that would make nice visuals, I lack the Excel skills/know how. I don’t think it’s a complicated thing to do, but I haven’t yet figured out how to do so. The sheets have some of my hand tallying. Also, I need to figure out how to insert the updated spreadsheet itself.
That means you get my learnings in text form. So ... here ... we ... go ....
Years
By decade, the 1960s are the most represented (by a good margin) with 53 movies from those years followed by 46 in the 2000s and 44 in the 1970s.
The 1920s, to no surprise, is the least represented (7), followed by the 1940s (14).
I set a completely arbitrary figure of 5 movies meaning a “busy” year for us. A whopping 27 years have at least five picks. There are 10 years with six films, five years with seven films and just one year with eight. The most popular year among this little cabal of film fans is ... 1966. That really proves to be a wonderfully representative slice of world cinema with Blow-Up, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Battle of Algiers, A Man and A Woman, Persona, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Tokyo Drifter and Daisies. A little something for everyone there.
Years without a movie: 1921, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1935, 1936, 1943, 1944, 1947, 1992, 2015.
Directors
Fifty directors appear more than once and account for 120 of the 300 total films. 14 directors have three films on the list. The pantheon, as selected by us, is a group of five directors each of whom is on the list four times each — Almodovar, Kobayashi*, Bergman, Resnais and Satyajit Ray. Kobayashi gets an asterisk since three of his four, one could argue, are just one long movie, though it is in three parts and was released in different years. For the purposes of our group, it does seem to have been viewed as one work (before my time here). Just noting.
Directors I’m surprised I didn’t see more of — Ford, Godard, Hitchcock, Malick, Fassbinder, Fellini, Kurosawa, Ozu, Scorsese.
The most surprising name on the list is easily Jorgen Leth who co-directed The Five Obstructions and was solo on A Sunday in Hell.
The other tidbit I find funny is that while Sofia Coppola is on there twice, her pops Francis Ford Coppola, isn’t on here at all.
Countries
Films from 35 different countries are on this list (I counted China and Hong Kong separately) and 19 countries are represented three or more times. The U.S., to no surprise, led the list with 83 films. Five other countries are represented in the double digits. France is a not very close second with 45 films. Japan is a not very close third with 30.
The “by director country” info did provide some interesting revelations. The U.S. and France still both led the list -- but both lost ground relative to the country of origin, i.e., directors from other countries were making movies in the U.S. and France and padding those country stats. The U.S. drops from 83 to 65, while France goes from 45 to 35.
Eastern European countries were the big gainers due to director migration. Though Austria, Hungary and Poland only account for five movies by country, that leaps to 15 if you look at director origin as the likes of Polanski, Wilder, Zinnemann and others fled war-torn Europe for the U.S. Germany has 11 films on the list, but accounts for 18 directed by.
Asian countries were generally unaffected by migration.
The other catch to this whole thing is that while I envisioned making wonderful charts that would make nice visuals, I lack the Excel skills/know how. I don’t think it’s a complicated thing to do, but I haven’t yet figured out how to do so. The sheets have some of my hand tallying. Also, I need to figure out how to insert the updated spreadsheet itself.
That means you get my learnings in text form. So ... here ... we ... go ....
Years
By decade, the 1960s are the most represented (by a good margin) with 53 movies from those years followed by 46 in the 2000s and 44 in the 1970s.
The 1920s, to no surprise, is the least represented (7), followed by the 1940s (14).
I set a completely arbitrary figure of 5 movies meaning a “busy” year for us. A whopping 27 years have at least five picks. There are 10 years with six films, five years with seven films and just one year with eight. The most popular year among this little cabal of film fans is ... 1966. That really proves to be a wonderfully representative slice of world cinema with Blow-Up, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Battle of Algiers, A Man and A Woman, Persona, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Tokyo Drifter and Daisies. A little something for everyone there.
Years without a movie: 1921, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1935, 1936, 1943, 1944, 1947, 1992, 2015.
Directors
Fifty directors appear more than once and account for 120 of the 300 total films. 14 directors have three films on the list. The pantheon, as selected by us, is a group of five directors each of whom is on the list four times each — Almodovar, Kobayashi*, Bergman, Resnais and Satyajit Ray. Kobayashi gets an asterisk since three of his four, one could argue, are just one long movie, though it is in three parts and was released in different years. For the purposes of our group, it does seem to have been viewed as one work (before my time here). Just noting.
Directors I’m surprised I didn’t see more of — Ford, Godard, Hitchcock, Malick, Fassbinder, Fellini, Kurosawa, Ozu, Scorsese.
The most surprising name on the list is easily Jorgen Leth who co-directed The Five Obstructions and was solo on A Sunday in Hell.
The other tidbit I find funny is that while Sofia Coppola is on there twice, her pops Francis Ford Coppola, isn’t on here at all.
Countries
Films from 35 different countries are on this list (I counted China and Hong Kong separately) and 19 countries are represented three or more times. The U.S., to no surprise, led the list with 83 films. Five other countries are represented in the double digits. France is a not very close second with 45 films. Japan is a not very close third with 30.
The “by director country” info did provide some interesting revelations. The U.S. and France still both led the list -- but both lost ground relative to the country of origin, i.e., directors from other countries were making movies in the U.S. and France and padding those country stats. The U.S. drops from 83 to 65, while France goes from 45 to 35.
Eastern European countries were the big gainers due to director migration. Though Austria, Hungary and Poland only account for five movies by country, that leaps to 15 if you look at director origin as the likes of Polanski, Wilder, Zinnemann and others fled war-torn Europe for the U.S. Germany has 11 films on the list, but accounts for 18 directed by.
Asian countries were generally unaffected by migration.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: WCQF - Game 2 - Vancouver Canucks vs. Nashville Predators, 10pm ET, ESPN2
- Latest: notsocommonsense
-
