Chit-chat, current events

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

Posts: 4209
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am


Post by RedRiver »

those characters would say those words immediately, without premeditation, kinda like most of life.

There's writing and there's great writing. In the latter, that's what happens!
Posts: 2207
Joined: August 20th, 2009, 2:46 pm


Post by kingrat »

Nichols deserves a lot of credit for making Albee's stylized dialogue work on screen. Wexler's approach to shooting the film adds to the "real" feeling.

An acting teacher I knew said that when he was working with weaker students, he often assigned them a scene from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and he would be surprised by how much better they did. The characters, the strength, the emotions, are all there in the words.

It's neat to conclude this survey with ChiO picking the same top three. I'd have given odds that would never happen. And ChiO, thanks for pointing out the Conrad Hall connection to Richard Brooks' two most visually remarkable films.

Lucky, thank you for your kind words. I'd love to see some of your own lists, complete with comments.
User avatar
Posts: 3925
Joined: January 2nd, 2008, 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago


Post by ChiO »

It's neat to conclude this survey with ChiO picking the same top three. I'd have given odds that would never happen.
Who woulda thunk?
And ChiO, thanks for pointing out the Conrad Hall connection to Richard Brooks' two most visually remarkable films.
Always happy to help imprint cinematographers' names. Hall was nominated ten times for an Oscar. He won three on those times. For THE PROFESSIONALS and IN COLD BLOOD, he was nominated, but did not win. Winners those years: Ted Moore for A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (probably best known for working on the first four Sean Connery Bond films) and Burnett Guffey for BONNIE AND CLYDE (can't begrudge an Oscar for my favorite noir cinematographer after John Alton and it is a beautiful movie...but I would have awarded it to Hall).
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
Posts: 2207
Joined: August 20th, 2009, 2:46 pm


Post by kingrat »

Had I gotten around to watching my recording of The Pawnbroker before posting the 1965 top ten, it would definitely have been included, pushing out The Flight of the Phoenix, and I would have said that my eight favorites of the year were all black & white films. 1965 was definitely a year for serious, often downbeat, dramas in B&W. I’m thinking of King Rat, The Hill, Darling, The Pawnbroker, A Patch of Blue, and The Slender Thread, along with such thrillers as Mirage, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, Repulsion, Bunny Lake Is Missing, and Return from the Ashes. Action films (The Train, In Harm’s Way) and prestigious all-star films (Ship of Fools) also were in B&W.

1966, which I consider the last year of the classic era, was also, perhaps not coincidentally, the last year of separate Oscar categories in cinematography, art direction, and costume design for B&W films. Haskell Wexler won the last B&W cinematography Oscar for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, defeating, among others, James Wong Howe for Seconds, two superlative examples of the cinematographer’s art. Among the other B&W films for that year are comedies (The Fortune Cookie), a big-scale action movie (Is Paris Burning?), trendy British films (Georgy Girl, Morgan) and the retro amnesia drama Mister Buddwing.

The difference between 1965 and 1967 is startling. B&W is a major artistic mode in 1965, and two years later it isn’t. In Cold Blood is the one really significant Hollywood B&W film, and The Whisperers is one of the last films of the British New Wave. The Incident and Ulysses are among the other B&W films for 1967.

The indie Faces was one of the few prominent B&W films of 1968. From now on, B&W is for independent films, some foreign films, and for special projects. Woody Allen’s choice of B&W for Manhattan has a distinctly nostalgic feel.

I’m guessing that one of the reasons for the end of B&W is the number of homes with color televisions, so that color films are more marketable to TV.
User avatar
Posts: 3818
Joined: September 24th, 2007, 9:54 am
Location: Brooklyn, New York


Post by CineMaven »

"Whether by way of a memorable line of dialogue, a scene that we can’t forget or simply because they create a stunning image, introductions in films – the first impressions – can be as lasting as when we last see or hear from/of our beloved film characters..."

This is the first line I read of a very good article on the ONCE UPON A SCREEN... blog about films' first impressions. Citizen Screen has listed twenty-five films in two parts, of screen characters making their first entrance onto a film that she's enjoyed. If you have a moment, you can read about them here.

Part I: ... pressions/

Part II: ... part-deux/

She's listed a lot of favorites but maybe you have some of your own who've made a great "first impression" on you. For me, you can't beat Madame Konstantin in "Notorious." She's more imposing than Maria Ouspenskaya and Judith Anderson rolled into one. How'd YOU like to tell her that you've married an American spy?

"You build my gallows high, baby."
User avatar
Posts: 5513
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD


Post by movieman1957 »

ChiO wrote:Yes, 1962 was a great year for movies. Most of the great ones, however, were non-English language. THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (Luis Bunuel), all by itself, elevates the year. Add THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC (Robert Bresson) and several others, and it is spectacular. But, for the English language movies, my Top Ten are:

8. LOLITA (Stanley Kubrick) - Lolita. Light of my life.... Sellers is the weak link. Mason is marvelous. But the key to it all is Shelley, Bird thou never wert....
As usual you sum it up quite well. Mason is great in a role that is just beyond creepy. Sellers is just weird. The whole idea of that character doesn't make any sense to my feeble mind. (I get the idea of the relationship but the execution of it is bizarre.) The whole thing is just a little out of my league. Part serious drama, part goofy and too long it is just more than unusual. For me, if they had gone one way or the other I would have enjoyed it more.

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
Post Reply