misswonderly3

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} > MFF does have some valid points as it relates to ones viewing of movies and any and all art forms. > > On one side we have the 'everything is subjective' POV. This view often comes along with a 'hey, I just like it, I don't have to explain why' type of response. OK, I get where this POV is coming from but it does make for boring conversation. > > Then one the other side we have an academic approach. While I find this approach a lot more interesting it can be taken to a level were it gets too serious and approaches folly. james, I don't prefer the "Hey, I just like it, I don't have to explain why" approach. That wouldn't generate very interesting conversations here "Hey, I liked it too. Whadda ya know?" In fact, when discussing fiction, film, or music, I always like to know not only if someone liked or disliked something, but why. I want them to talk about the reasons behind their opinion of the film (or song, or book). And I expect them to have fairly intelligent answers, not just -"Oh, I don't know -I just liked it." So please don't think that's what I'm advocating here. There's nothing wrong with being subjective -that's the very definition of personal opinion - but I do think it's more interesting, more fun, if you will, to give specific points about what one thinks is good or bad, in all the different aspects of movies that that can entail, when you say you like or don't like something. What I don't think is necessary is to feel one has to back up one's opinion of a film with research and authoritative quotes etc. Not even film critics do that ! ( Film academics do, of course.) MyFavouriteFilms said: We can keep challenging ourselves to learn more about classic Hollywood. And we should not accept the old conventional attitudes about star-making and motion picture production. I don't really see the need to "challenge" ourselves in the way you describe. I'll say it again, these boards encourage the contribution of a fan's knowledge, yes, but also the exchange of thoughts and opinions about all things cinematic. It shouldn't be an onerous chore to post on these threads. And I don't think I "accept the old conventional attiltudes " . I kind of take it one film at a time. Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 8:09 PM

SansFin, I think nobody knows what to say after that last sentence in your post. It certainly brings things into perspective . Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 7:34 PM

MyFavouriteFilms: Let me try again. I not only love watching films, I love discussing and analyzing them. I enjoy an academic approach to talking about film. But it seems to me that what you want to do is not actually discuss the films themselves, you want to discuss the context around the film, the political, cultural, and sociological parametres surrounding each movie you see. There is certainly a place for that in an "academic" conversation about cinema, but my perception is that you want to talk about those things a lot more than any actual specific movie. There are many ways to approach a discussion of a film. I like to do it the way I would discuss a novel or short story, bearing in mind the many additonal elements a film presents that written fiction of course does not. But, just as I would enjoy exchanging ideas about the characters, their motivations, the story (if there is one -sometimes in both film and literature there is not, at least not in a traditional sense), and of course basic English Lit 101 concepts such as irony, symbolism, etc. in literature, I enjoy looking at those analytical tools in talking about film. In additon, with film, there are all the visual aspects to look at, and how they ( camera angle, lighting, mise en scene etc.) enhance or move forward the story. These are the elements of analyzing a movie that I enjoy; although it's always useful to consider the historical and sociological context in which the film was made, it's certainly not the only feature or even the primary feature of the film that should be considered. All I'm saying is that my impression is that you put a much higher premium on the latter aspects of film analysis than the former, the things I am talking about. And perhaps if one does that there is a greater need for fact-checking and "backing up" one's comments than in the kind of movie discussion that I prefer. If most of the discussions on these boards are about the exchange of opinion amongst dedicated film lovers, than I still say it should not be necessary to feel one has to do all that work.Nobody should feel they have to do " homework" to participate on these forums. Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 7:09 PM

I do enjoy it. I love movies, I always have, Film Studies was my second major in university and I have watched films both old and new all my life. And I enjoy discussing and analyzing them, not just viewing them. But I am not in university anymore, nor am I a professional film critic. I almost get the feeling that you think if someone does not take the same approach to assessing and dissecting films, they don't have the same passion for them as you do, they can't really "love" film. Not so. But I feel that your take on film and film criticism involves more than analyzing it as an art form, and more than discussing it as a form of entertainment. You seem to want to apply a very serious sociological perspective on it that is foreign to me. And yes, even though I sort of enjoyed writing essays for my Film Studies classes at the time, I also thought of it as work. Now there's such a thing as work you enjoy, because you love what you're doing. Academic work and paid professional film criticism may fall into this category. But to feel that one has to look everything up and back everything up when posting on a site such as this really does feel like I'm back in school, and if I wanted that, I would go back to school. (Maybe some time -there are plenty of film courses offered in the university in the city where I live). I don't think we should have to be so serious and work so hard on a silte such as this -sure, if you want to...but don't ask everyone to do the same. Question: if you were at a party or some similar social occasion, and everyone got into a deep discussion about some aspect of movies and cinema, would you have that same expectation? Or would you see it as the fun social interaction that it would be?

MyFavouriteFilms, with respect, you make it sound like so much work just to watch a movie. I think that most people on these boards like to discuss films, perhaps critique and deconstruct them a bit; depends on the film. Those who are serious about their love of this art form - and source of entertainment - enjoy talking about the films they've seen, even perhaps engaging in some friendly debate about them. I'm not saying I favour the idea of mindlessly consuming a film as you would a bag of chips (although there's something to be said for that kind of movie sometimes ) and never analyzing it. But it seems to me that the approach you take to movies, films, call them what you will, somehow takes the colour and fun out of them. I often get the feeling that if I were to think about films the way you do, it would be a chore rather than a joy. I get pleasure out of watching movies and, yes, discussing and analyzing them . There's nothing wrong with an academic approach, up to a point. For me, that point comes when it's all taken so seriously that the fun's gone out of it. And these forums are supposed to be as much for fun as for anything else.

It is widely held by critics that Luciano Pavarotti performs the definitive version of Bo Diddley's Who Do You Love. You sure know your country singers. They all look so pleasant and well-dressed as they sing their pleasant and well-performed country songs. I've never heard of half of these guys. Those dudes in your last post look like they're wearing the fore-runners of nudie suits.

Fred, this is an example of the problem with duplicate threads. I didn't see your thread about the Alec Guinness films tonight until after I'd posted on the other one. Anyway, I'll just repeat: these great British Alec Guinness comedies are not being aired in Canada tonight, and I am experiencing my usual frustration about this. Why can't these rights issues be resolved? Especially because they usually involve films that don't have much money-making potential anyway. I've seen the others (they're great ) but I'm especially upset over not being able to view *Captain's Paradise* , one of those elusive films I've wanted to see all my life. Aargh. Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 1:58 PM

I can't handle this. Every time it happens I go crazy with frustration. Those Alec Guinness films are great -clever, funny, original. There's no actor like Guinness. And while I've at least seen two of them, I have never seen *The Captain's Paradise*, and always wanted to. In Canada they're showing a bunch of Robert Mitchum films - I don't follow the logic. You'd think they'd try to at least find some Alec Guinness movies , preferably comedies (kn keeping with tonight's theme) that can be aired in this country. I love Robert Mitchum, but I've seen all those films several times. Life can be tough.

Well, it's Saturday. If anyone out there is entertaining this (or any) Saturday night, and they find that their guests are staying too late, you want them to go, but you want to be polite about it, just give them a gentle hint and play this song. This is Blossom Dearie's version. She's kind of an acquired taste -when I first heard her, I thought her voice was too little-girlish to be taken seriously. After a few listens I came to like her style ( perhaps a Hallelujah ! moment ) and now I'm a fan. At the next social gathering you host, when you're tired and want them all to go, let them know that The Party's Over : Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 1:51 PM because I originally accidentally typed "lessons" instead of "listens". She's not that hard to like.

Nothing like old Irish folk songs. I was thinking of one the other day, She Moved Through the Fair. It's a very old song originally from Ireland, but many performers of other nationalities have covered it (kind of like Who do You Love in that respect -hmm...). I love this song not only for its graceful haunting melody, but for its eerie lyrics - I think it's about a ghost. This is Fairport Convention's version: (Sorry there doesn't appear to be a live performance of it by them; still, it's an interesting album cover.)

Second City TV was a very funny Canadian television show that launched the careers of several wonderful comedians, many of whom were Canadian. ( I must try and be a little less jingoistic.)

Looks like *Curse of the Demon* is on TCM this Friday at 6:00 pm. This is one I'm going to not only watch at the time, but record. I try to record every Jacques Tourneur film that gets aired. I always get him mixed up with Val Lewton, but I guess there's a reason for that. Tourneur is a fabulous example of a "horror" director that I like a lot. (Sorry to put "horror" in quotation marks, but as we've seen on this thread, there are several different definitions and different kinds of horror films.) *Cat People* and *I Walked With a Zombie* are both great examples of his style of horror.What I like about this style is the overall atlmosphere of undefined fear; people are afraid without even knowing quite why. They're uneasy, and therefore we're uneasy watching them. This is the kind of suspense in horror movies that I like the best. There's something strange going on in an otherwise seemingly ordinary world. Tourneur's and Lewton's films possess (no pun intended, *Exorcist* fans ! ) a special quality of eeriness and mystery. They're my kind of horror film.

It does not sound like a film noir to me. Noir rarely involves family dramas of the type described.

I dunno. I prefer Pat Boone's.

skimpole, while I certainly agree with you that Hitchcock is indeed an incomparably better film maker than Brian de Palma, I'm not sure why you conider Hitch a maker of "horror"movies. Thrillers, yes, suspense films, yes. But to me his films don't fit any kind of criteria for the horror genre at all.

Well, yeah. But the original was by Bo Diddley. As C.B. and I have both noted, many people have covered the song, Who Do You Love. I guess it's one of those standards that everyone puts their own stamp on.

Swithin said many interesting things in his post, but the part I'm going to quote is this: "...The genre is so rich, and I love most of it. ..." That's it...the genre is rich, and I guess what I was trying to say in my earlier post on this subject is, there are many sub-genres and sub-categories to it ( noir is the same). I wish I could say I'd seen the films you cite, Swithin. Maybe TCM's got some of them coming up. (Of course I've seen *Frankenstein*, and I agree with you about the ending's being satisfying and yet leaving it open for a sequel(s). ) There are times when it "works" to see the monster/demon/ghost/source of fear. But as you said, it usually is better to show it at least halfway through the movie. I still think it's very eerie and effective to give just a hint of the fearful creature -a sound, a fleeting glimpse of an ethereal thing, or -and I find this very scary - evidence of something supernatural going on in the form of seemingly ordinary events. Example: someone leaves the room for a second, and when they return a closet door is open, when they'd just closed and locked it (feeble example maybe, but you get the idea.) I always thought the ghost scene in the 1951 version of *A Christmas Carol* was deliciously scary, what with the face on the door knocker, those clocks and bells ringing, and then Marley himself appearing in all his ghostly ghastliness (or, if you prefer, ghastly ghostliness.) There's just something about ghosts that I find more creepy and spine tingling than a whole passel of monsters and murderers. Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 12:43 PM

Richard Thompson is possibly the only musician more under-recognized in American than the Kinks. Great song-writer, there's no lyricist like him. Unique guitar style. Friday night coming again. Annie's getting restless, she's painting her lips a bright bright red, and Buddy's getting worried. He thinks she's working the Midnight Shift :

Well, perhaps not. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwQGHC8qP4 (In any case, it's not really a video - just a picture someone stuck on youtube to go with the song .Possibly a Sophia Loren fan who was wondering if La Loren loved him.) Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 9:43 AM

Depends on how you define "horror".I agree that the latter-day ultra violent movies that feature images of people getting hacked up by unspeakably evil psychopaths are not my idea of a "horror" film. Haven't they in recent years been labelled "slasher" films? What's somewhat disturbing is their main appeal seems to lie with teenagers and young adults. Maybe it all started with the original *Texas Chainsaw Massacre.* Although "horror", however you define it, does have to carry an element of suspense, I 'm with Tikisoo that the Hitchcock films do not fit into this category. I would never label them "horror". The only two that come close are of course, *Psycho* and maybe *Frenzy*, because these two films are about a crazed individual who has a need to kill people, preferably young women. But the story and dialogue and general quality of those two titles elevate them from the type of horror film I was talking about above. It seems there are two ways of looking at it: "horror" films that involve maniacs hiding out with a view to killing people, preferably as violently and painfully as possible; and films that involve some aspect of the supernatural. Most of the classic oldies fall fall into this category: *Dracula* (pick whichever version you want), *The Wolf Man*, all *The Mummy* films, and even *Frankenstein* (although technically speaking, that last isn't exactly about the supernatural per sec.) But my own idea of "horror" films is about neither homicidal maniacs nor monsters, but ghosts. If it is well done, I find this the scariest type of horror movie of all. A major part of what makes them genuinely frightening is if they don't show much, but leave most of it up to the viewer's imagination. Some of the most effective ghost stories that fall into this genre: *The Uninvited*, *The Haunting*, and a truly chilling film based on the Henry James novella The Turn of the Screw, *The Innocents*. All three of these excellently made films are extremely scary, and there's nary a knife or saw in sight. Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 9:46 AM Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 10:46 AM

Nope. I looked up the Sapphires - a Phillie band, no less. It was a pleasant little song. The video I selected had a picture of someone who looked a lot like Sophia Loren. Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 21, 2010 8:25 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 1:01 AM

Well, I'm just a low-brow. I find that often the so-called high end, big budget films are wretched. Big stars, big money, and "posh" production values do not necessarily add up to a great or even a good film. Conversely, some of the best movies ever made were put together on a ridiculously tight budget with unknown actors and cheapo sets.

I'm afraid that Eleanor Parker just doesn't "do it'" for me. I think of her as whiney and clingy. This is unfair of me, because I only remember her in two films, both of which featured her as a whiney clingy character. I know I've seen her in other roles, but I don't remember them. The two films I'm referring to are *Between Two Worlds* and *The Man With the Golden Arm*; in both she played an irritatingly anxious and foolish character -although certainly her character in the former was not nearly as contemptible as her character in the latter. She's just annoying (yeah, yeah, in my opinion.)

Arturo, you can't hear it, but I am applauding your post right now. I agree with everything you said, including your hesitation to even post on a thread that uses ultimate terms like "most important" and "greatest". Not to say that I don't like discussing movies, why I like or don't like them, what makes " good", "mediocre", or "bad", because like most people here I do. But I do feel that designations such as "most important" or "greatest" are meaningless.

Well, I'm one of those who loves Mulholland Drive. It's like entering a strange dream. It's just so damned mysterious and weird and disturbing; but it doesn't feel contrived, like "yeah, let's stick in a bunch of weird stuff and freak the audience out - they'll think it's art". I've seen movies that do that, and they don't impress me. Mulholland Drive feels like it was just some eerie enigmatic dream floating around that David Lynch managed to grab hold of long enough to make a film out of. (Kind of like that theory that sculptors are just releasing from stone, figures that are already there.) Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 21, 2010 8:09 PM