MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar
ElizabethJoestar (943)
Posts
Jack Weston
Not nearly as bad as its reputation
Interview with Alan Arkin from 1968
Question about Reed's character
Great titles sequence
Why do people think the 2000s are indistinct compared to other decades?
Movies that scared you as a kid
One of the most underrated villains ever
Rooney Mara apparently set to play her in a biopic
Creepy ending!
View all posts >
Replies
Maybe the 1931 Dracula? Dude gets staked and the heroes walk free. But then again, there was that epilogue scene (cut due to censorious concerns) where Van Helsing warns the audience "Remember, there ARE such things!" (That is, supernatural threats.)
Definitely interesting! Of course, there are exceptions, like 1970s paranoia thrillers or the ending of Hitchcock's VERTIGO, which leaves the protagonist in a very ambiguous psychological space.
Arguments rage as to whether Psycho is a horror movie. And if it is, is it a 'slasher'? For me it's a psychological horror/proto-slasher, a forerunner.
--
I'd say it's certainly horror-- or at the very least, a thriller that slowly morphs into a horror film. The moment Marion gets knifed in the shower, you could argue it becomes almost a different film.
But the thriller/horror line is a notoriously precarious one. I once read that the difference between a thriller and a horror film is that a thriller villain can be killed and the protagonist can return to a safe, "normal" world, whereas horror villains are in a sense deathless and horror endings are not so comforting, even with the characters out of immediate danger. I think PSYCHO definitely fits the latter: "Mother" never dies and in fact takes over Norman completely. Even with Marion's disappearance solved and Lila and Sam out of harm's way, the ending of PSYCHO isn't really comforting at all. The last shot is of Marion's car being pulled from the swamp, wherein her body lays moldering in that plastic curtain. That implied image is a chilling one.
Capra is an interesting filmmaker I need to dive more into. I watch IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE every year during December. I think it's a masterpiece. One Capra title I was very fond of in college was THE BITTER TEA OF GENERAL YEN, a pre-code romance that's extremely anti-Capra in many ways. It's about a love affair between a white Christian missionary (Barbara Stanwyck early in her star career) and a Chinese warlord (unfortunately played by a Swedish actor in yellowface-- but what else would you expect from Hollywood in 1932?). It's both very of its time and weirdly progressive, making it a fascinating production. It has this heady blend of swooning romanticism and dour cynicism that's very pre-code. I haven't seen it in years, so I don't know what I'd think of it now, but ten years ago, I was floored that this was helmed by the same guy accused of producing "capra-corn" for the masses.
--
I myself saw Frank Capra in person at a screening of "Its a Wonderful Life" in 1981. Full house, loved it. The old, small man gave a quiet Q and A after the screening.
--
That is an awesome story! I rather like that Potter isn't punished. Unfortunately in real life, unpleasant people like that aren't often taken down for their awfulness, but it's clear from the last scene that he will never know the love and warmth of the community. He's consigned himself to a kind of hell, so I totally get Capra's perspective.
With Spielberg, I really liked THE FABELMANS (I think you didn't care for that one though, right?) and his WEST SIDE STORY. Comparing his work to his younger peers, it strikes me how "classical" his directorial style is, if that makes sense. It's appealing to me.
I still want to see MUNICH and WAR OF THE WORLDS. Actually, there's a lot of Spielberg I need to get off my ass and see (or I guess given how movie watching works, get on my ass and see?).
2019: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I gave it a tie with Scorsese's The Irishman for Number One. I loved both of them, but each of them was flawed in some way and couldn't beat the other for Number One. With Scorsese, the first hour is too slow(but it really picks up once Pacino's Hoffa enters the movie). With QT, again as with Inglorious Basterds, ALL of Brad Pitt's scenes are great(he is a "real" movie star) but I found my interest dragging when Leo's part came up at the studio. Still, the "fantasy" of seeing Sharon Tate saved from the Mansons was bittersweet indeed, and the movie also lets us feel the sadness of her REAL last night on earth.
--
It's amazing how the ending of that movie is both awesome and sad.
I love the hangout vibe so much too. Who knew watching DiCaprio and Pitt watching TV and drinking beer could be so engaging?
Roger1, your ranking has made me realize how few QT films I've seen. I've watched Pulp Fiction countless times over the years. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is probably my favorite, though PF is a close second.
Saw RESEVOIR DOGS years ago and liked it. Same with INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. I don't recall thinking any scene ran too long. I found that first scene super tense and brilliant. The ending is fabulous.
Annnddd-- that's it. I still need to see JACKIE BROWN. Online, that seems to be the critic-anointed QT title.
I recall the brouhaha over the KILL BILL movies in the mid-2000s, when I was about 10/11ish. I remember teenage cousins loving it and the adults in my family (with the exception of an uncle who loved himself some ultraviolence in genre movies) calling it trash. It's overdue for a watch from me.
I have decided to here -- in an OT vein as we have been graciously alllowed here on this page -- to say a few things in FAVOR of QT even as he seems to be inviting invective. (QT is a guy who seems to have drawn haters equal to his fans in this internet era; Hitchcock had haters too but it was never like THIS.)
--
Oh yeah, he's always been that way, it seems. A very divisive filmmaker and his brash manner doesn't help. For me, it's a case of really enjoying the man's films while not caring for the man himself. I find him annoying in interviews and podcasts, though he is undeniably passionate about film and a talented creator.
--
No, what I go for with QT is...his dialogue. His "talk scenes." They are SO great, so entertaining, so unique. And I mean like almost ALL of them.
--
Oh without a doubt. I love the dialogue in his movies.
And the thing with Kubrick is that he tended to take longer and longer between projects because of research or-- as with Hitchcock-- doing pre-production on certain projects that didn't pan out (Napoleon and The Aryan Papers being two-- even Eyes Wide Shut had been percolating for decades-- at one point with Steve Martin in consideration for lead, if I remember correctly). It's not like Kubrick was like, "I'm only making a few films for quality purposes." He seemed to be very particular about which projects he was going to commit to.
ElizabethJoestar, you raise an interesting point here: when DOES a director's "late period" begin?
--
I feel like everyone defines it differently, so it's hard to measure. At least with hitchcock, PSYCHO tends to be the dividing line between Hitchcock in his prime and late period Hitchcock. Wilder is a bit trickier. I think THE APARTMENT is the perfect point, for all the reasons you spelled out.
--
BOTH directors probably peaked in 1960...everything they made after that (even The Birds and Frenzy for Hitchcock; even Irma La Douce for Wilder) wasn't really "of its time." So..QT is right?
No...QT is WRONG. ALL of those movies expressed their directors' visions with continuing power --I'd say ALL of those movies EXCEPT Buddy Buddy was worthwhile in SOME way.
--
Yes, even the lesser films are of interest from either of these guys. As boring as I find TOPAZ, it has some wonderful sequences. Same with FEDORA, which has a gothic camp quality and cynical twist I find interesting... though it generally feels like warmed over SUNSET BLVD, unfortunately. But still, these aren't worthless films by any stretch.
View all replies >