Arkadin

I often wonder why there is so little love for *McCabe and Mrs. Miller* (1971) at this forum. It's not only a great western, but certainly one of the most beautiful films ever made (I like *Oxbow* and *Joe Kidd* as well). I have not seen *The Great Silence* or *Keoma*. Want to fill me in on these two?

It's been one of my faves for years. Check out my thoughts here: http://silverscreenoasis.com/oasis/viewtopic.php?t=2008

I talked a little bit about Mark's mirror earlier in the thread. Just so you don't have to dig, I'll reprint it here. I also found some really cool stills and will use them to illustrate my theory (which was written in the sister thread at SSO months ago): An interesting thing about Mark?s mirror, is that it distorts the features of it?s viewer?-much like a funhouse device. The victim is therefore revealed to themselves in an unflattering way. A monstrosity. They are not only frightened by fear of death, but a reflection that seems to reveal their flawed souls in their faces. This is seen clearly with Moria Shearer's character who although intimidated by the spike, is not spellbound with terror until Mark adds the mirror. This is why they stay frozen. They never see the spike coming until it?s too late because they are paralyzed by a mirror that comes ever closer with their own twisted faces, horrified by what they see in themselves. Mark knows this. That?s why he must look into the mirror and accept his own death. It?s his way of facing the truth about himself, coming to grips with all he?s done, and finding some sense of understanding in the way he was made. To understand the reasoning behind Mark's kills, we need to take a closer look at his victims and more importantly--those who are not chosen for his "experimental documentary". Mark is a very handsome man and his subjects are also equally beautiful. Mark works on the hypothesis that beauty is a mask that hides evil within (as his does). This is why when shooting at the seedy apartment he is touched by a girl with bruising on her face (a scene which is revisited in Mike Leigh's *Secrets and Lies* [1996]). He does not show interest in killing her however, because in her face he finds evidence of what he seeks. This is honesty to him, that a face should reveal it's true nature. This is what he seeks in others, reviewing and examining his films of faces in the throes of death. He is looking for the spiritual in the physical (as does Cronenberg), but fails again and again (I'll have to find another one!) to find it. His method is the same one with which his father warped him: fear. Helen is also excluded because she makes herself close to him. Mark works from distance and detachment. Mrs, Stephens is considered, but rejected. Not because she is blind, but because they are equals who are both tormented and suffer from a sickness: She is an alcoholic, he a serial killer. Her urging Mark to seek help, makes him consider that his situation might not be hopeless. When this fails, he seeks to find the answers in himself knowing his life was always coming to this point (literally!).

How 'bout this one?

> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ChiO wrote:}{quote} > > MissG, in a Joan Bennettesque way, asked: *So what is it about these films that attracts* > > *you to them?* > > > > You don't have a couch big enough. > > > > Signed, > > One of the genetically predisposed > > Dear G.P.: > > I fixed up the place since you last saw it. Got a much bigger couch now, bigger than life. > > Signed, > > > > P.S. So if you think you can squirm out of answering this question, think again! I hope you cleaned up that sink. It looked horrible after that Fritz Lang guy spent all day arranging those dirty dishes. Also, if you could quit flicking your cigarette ash and spitting grape seeds on the floor...

Those guys are pretty sensitive about certain things. I've got some friends over there and it's amazing what they will and won't show.

> {quote:title=ChiO wrote:}{quote} Lots of intriguing titles being bandied about. I am surprised that with Peckinpah being a hot topic, *Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid* hasn't been mentioned. Or is it over-the-radar? It and *Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia* vie for being my favorite Peckinpah movies.(/quote) You obviously haven't seen *Cross of Iron* yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHz50Le9X2c

He died in his late fifties. Peckinpah had a lot of problems getting his films made. It didn't help matters that he was an alcoholic, which was probably the contributing factor in his demise. *Ride The High Country* was a big hit, but he had lots of problems on the set of *Major Dundee* and battled the producer and actors every step of the way. The film was severely cut by the producers and a commercial flop. This started a reputation that Sam was never able to shake; of being combative and unreliable (like Orson Welles). *The Wild Bunch* was a success, but it too was cut and Peckinpah felt betrayed. The film also drew ire from many critics and people in the industry for its violence and because it closed a chapter on the western style of the fifties (things were changing anyway). Many never forgave him for that. *Straw Dogs* was banned in England for years because of a brutal rape scene, which did not endear SP to the media who thought he just had a taste for blood. By the time he was making *Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia* and *Cross of Iron*, Peckinpah was creating very specialized works that most critics tossed off as trash, but would later re-evaluate as classics (Welles called *Cross of Iron* the greatest antiwar film ever made). Securing funding was always difficult though, and Sam (who was in poor health) struggled to make ends meet, finally directing rock videos in his last days.

Hi Molo, I own and love *Lust For Gold*. Great film that made my paltry List Your 100 Favorite Westerns list (could only list about 60). I also had *Pursued*, *Track of the Cat*, and of course *Day of the Outlaw* on that list as well. While you could label all of these as noir styled westerns, They're also psychological and socially conscious films that use the western genre for self discovery.

As FF stated, *Straw Dogs* is not a western, but it's a very gripping movie. Other good non-westerns would include *Cross of Iron*, Sam's only war film, *The Getaway*, a heist style w/Steve McQueen, and *Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia*, one of the most harrowing noirs ever made.

Be sure and get back to me after you've viewed it. I'd like to know what you think.

Hi MissG., As Chris mentioned, *Silver River* is played on TCM from time to time, usually about once a year. I first became interested as a fan of Flynn and Ann Sheridan, but the supporting roles are great as well. I'll try and post some pics in the Western Gallery thread. The misogynist view of Peckinpah comes from some of his movies that show violent things happening to the fairer sex. Films they point out include *The Wild Bunch* (1969), *Straw Dogs* (1971), and *Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia* (1974). I personally disagree with this view and think the critics don't understand what they see, or are just simpletons. Peckinpah actually has many scenes within those films that are sympathetic or empowering of women. *Cross of Iron* (1976) and *Ride the High Country* (1962) can also be looked at in this way as well. *The Lonely Man* is a great film. If you liked *The Tin Star* (also made the same year with Perkins), you should like this. I think *TLM* is a better movie with better performances however.

I?ve got a few rhymes for the house: *The Lonely Man* (1957) Jack Palance is an aging gunfighter who tries to reconcile with his estranged son (Anothony Perkins). *Silver River* (1948) A gambler (Errol Flynn) sets his sights on a mining town. An interesting tale of corruption in business. *The Ballad of Cable Hogue* (1970) An easy to find DVD that gets little love, even from Peckinpah fans. For all those who accuse Sam of being a misogynist, this movie proves them wrong. It?s also his most tender film. *The Face of a Fugitive* (1959) Fred MacMurray helps a new lawman in his hunt for two killers?one of which is himself.

Has anyone mentioned *The Mummy* with Boris Karloff and *The Black Cat* with Lugosi and Karloff? I thought *The Mummy* was sort of funny, because it seemed he walked so slow a turtle could outrun him! *The Mummy* (1932) is one of my all time favorites. My wife and I watch the film every Halloween. It's sort of our "Wonderful Life" film for that holiday. Karloff is amazing in this film. You never really see him walk with any kind of a gait. He just glides in and out. His acting is also impressive in it's subtley. He never raises his voice at all, he simply emotes. *The Mummy* decidely veered away from shock and offered thrills of a different kind. It's also a love story and Karloff's parts with Zita Johann are understated and tenderly played. Karloff always brought compassion to every character he portrayed and this one is no exception. How can we the audience, not be enthralled about a love that not only brings about death but supercedes death itself?

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my favorite Giallo classic, *Deep Red* (1975). Although ripped off by American film makers to make such films as *Halloween*, *Friday the 13th*, and other 80's slashers, it's a much more complex film than any of what it inspired and worthy of critical study. It was also one of the first films to combine Horror with rock music, which was pretty unheard of at that time.

While I love the novel, The movie of Bradbury's classic just doesn't seem to have the same punch. It's not the fault of the actors however. I think it's the fact that they missed so much of the thought and imagery behind the book. One part I do like is the scene in the library where Dark meets Will's father and offers him eternal life. That scene is beautifully played and the actors are intense and working off each other. It's worth seeing for that scene alone. For those that haven't read it, check out Something Wicked This Way Comes. I think it's possibly Ray Bradbury's best book. His later work The Halloween Tree, is a fine companion piece.

I have not been able to put it all together, at least to my satisfaction. But sometimes I ask too much. I like movies that resolve (more or less) at the end, and maybe this one does, but no doubt Godard has given us many straws to grasp at and it's for us to do with it as we will. I really like this movie and I may never tire of viewing it again, and yet again. I don't know that we are really supposed to put it together in a linear sense. *Contempt* is a film of miscommunication. This is evidenced clearly by the broken relationships, Lang's thoughts, The Odyssey, and even even the inclusion of Francesca, the interpeter. One of the funniest things is Palance's little red book of quotes (I have the answer here) where he says "To know that one does not know is the gift of a superior spirit. Not to know and to think that one does know is a mistake. To know that this is a mistake keeps one from making it."

I have the long cut. It's a great film. Hopefully, it will be on DVD soon.

I love the *Big Sky*. It's a great film where characters learn about themselves. The plot (although good) is simply a way for us to look inside their ideals and convictions. Sometimes we learn more from seeking than finding and that's certainly true of *The Big Sky*.

*The Ninth Day* is an amazing film. I've only seen it once so I don't have much to say here (I don't really feel I can discuss something in depth on one viewing), but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Glad to find someone else who's seen it.

No love for *Under the Volcano* (1984), *Night of the Iguana* (1964), *Key Largo* (1947), *Reflections in a Golden Eye* (1967), *The Kremlin Letter* (1970)?

_Arkadin_ is probably right that the "we the audience are being photographed, including us as participants," but allow me to posit another possibility. *+The cinema substitutes for our gazes a world more in harmony with our desires. *CONTEMPT* is a story of that world. (camera turns directly to the audience)*+ *With that opening quote from *Andre Bazin* and statement of intent, the camera turns and begins to film us, the audience -- not as participants, but as the subjects. We are not watching a movie and actors; we are projecting our fantasies, our desires, onto the screen. The trials and tribulations of filmmaking may provide the underpinning for a narrative of a failing marriage, but the "real" movie is us. And, if that is the case, then the film is not about voyeurism or even exhibitionism...it is about narcissism.* That's a very interesting theory, and one I had not thought of. Cinesage discussed the idea as well that Godard was actually trying to create friction between himself and his viewers. His focus was to make us actually feel "contempt" for him and drive us out of theaters! I'd like to quote him accurately, but I can't find the original thread! Hopefully, he will drop in and discuss it. I've heard the color filters are for the respective flags, but like you, I don't really buy that answer. Thoughts and ideas are most welcome here. *Contempt* is a film of astonishing depth and while I love the movie and have watched it several times, I'll be the first to admit I have barely begun to mine its treasures. I took notes the last time I watched and ended up with five pages of scrawl--front and back!

*I dont know if I can make a case for the voyeurism theme continuing into the second half of the film when Scottie works towards changing Judy into Madeleine. Someone else may want to pick up the ball at this point. But a thought came to me while watching the movie earlier this week (for the umpteenth time): all the while Scottie is undressing Madeleine, Judy is actually aware of being undressed. Judy is aware that she is being followed and spied on. As hes been falling in love with her, she has been falling in love with him; falling in love with this poor sap who is following her, following an illusion. Unbeknownst to Scottie, he is being watched too.* Scottie is being watched--by us. Many people get all upset when they find out the truth of Judy. They are missing the point. After Madeleine dies, our focus shifts to Scottie (much like when Marion is killed in *Psycho* we are left with Norman as our point of interest). We observe Scottie, knowing the truth behind all the thoughts and motives. We wonder how he will react should he learn the truth. We see many clues to who Judy is (not just the necklace) and wonder what will trip her up. We observe Scottie's total depravity in his treatment of Judy as the ultimate sex object, never seeing anything in her but the image and undertones of Madeleine. Judy, like Norman, destroys herself to become loved, but also like him in the end, she has no identity and is lost -- figuratively and literally over the parapet. Just as Madeleine was Scotties obsession, his life has become ours. Hitchcock turns us into voyeurs. He did this with other films in the past *(Rope, Rear Window)* and will continue this line through the early sixties *(Psycho, Marnie)*, but this is the one film where he puts us into the equation with full knowlege. In an almost God-like way, we become observers in the life of Scottie knowing the train wreck of his life is coming, but unable to look away. Great analysis CM. I feasted on every word.