The WHF Film Club

[John Duncan]

Sorry, haven't been around. What's my fault? Or is the answer, as usual, "all of it"?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I said I wasn't really knowledgable about film, and I wanted the club to be an education.

Well, it's already educational for me, every time Strapped writes anything, I have to look up at least 2 words I've never heard before.

 

[strapped for cash]

Point taken, I'll rein it in, though discussion of Survive Style 5+ might be less interesting.

 

[strapped for cash]

Sorry, haven't been around. What's my fault? Or is the answer, as usual, "all of it"?

Not at all. We were very specific!

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Point taken, I'll rein it in, though discussion of Survive Style 5+ might be less interesting.

I wasn't having a dig, I do find it educational, and also highly discombobulating.

 

[BenLaw]

Anyway, some good suggestions of favourite films, I need to rewatch American Werewolf and Mulholland Drive, the latter especially is a bit fuzzy in my mind. I think I prefer Eraserhead but it is fresher in my mind and a very different film, obviously made at very different points in his career.

I too would not be able to select just one favourite. A few films I could watch over and over again would be The Hustler (maybe most of all? Not a perfect film but bookended by the two pool scenes I never tire of), The Third Man, The Sting (two structurally perfect films IMO), Twelve Angry Men (a play on film, but I do love films set within limited scenes), Reservoir Dogs, Apocalypse Now. I also love older horror, Wicker Man is a really good call. I'd be tempted to go for something rather older, perhaps Nosferatu and then Shadow of the Vampire as a companion piece.

Eraserhead is great (a film about post-ejaculation anxiety and fear of paternity), though Mulholland Drive is Lynch's masterpiece in my view, closely followed by Blue Velvet.

Since I was discussing film endings, The Third Man is right up there. It takes Alida Valli ages to walk past Joseph Cotten.

Nosferatu also receives a Blu-ray release soon. I'll need to replace the DVD.

Yes, the ending of The Third Man is brilliant, it always comes to mind when I see a straight, tree lined road.

I was was not aware of the Nosferatu blu ray release, it would be great if you could post when it's out as I will need to get that.

Have you seen Shadow of the Vampire?

 

[strapped for cash]

I was was not aware of the Nosferatu blu ray release, it would be great if you could post when it's out as I will need to get that.

Have you seen Shadow of the Vampire?

November 18 for the Nosferatu Blu-ray.

I bought the Eureka Masters of Cinema DVD edition about a year ago, to replace an older DVD copy with a ropier transfer and different music/intertitles. I was somewhat annoyed when the Eureka Blu-ray was announced. I wish I'd waited.

I've seen Shadow of the Vampire a few times, though I don't own the film. I enjoyed it.

Given your enjoyment of German expressionism (I recall us discussing Metropolis), and broader interest in criminology, I'm guessing you've seen M? It's a must own Blu-ray, in my opinion.

 

[strapped for cash]

Point taken, I'll rein it in, though discussion of Survive Style 5+ might be less interesting.

I wasn't having a dig, I do find it educational, and also highly discombobulating.

OK, I'll loosen my grip on reins again.

 

[expat_mike]

It's certainly educational for me. I have already had to look up surrealism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealist_cinema.

Because I am the reason for the delay, I will try to compensate by giving you a conjecture to discuss.

Surrealists "interest is almost exclusively in exploring the conjunctions, the points of contact, between different realms of existence".

If you take this as proof that SS5+ contains surrealist elements, then does this also mean that most british detective novels/tv drama/films" are also surrealist, because they rely on multiple plotlines and interaction of seemingly unrelated characters, to create multiple red herrings?

 

[strapped for cash]

If you take this as proof that SS5+ contains surrealist elements, then does this also mean that most british detective novels/tv drama/films" are also surrealist, because they rely on multiple plotlines and interaction of seemingly unrelated characters, to create multiple red herrings?

I'm afraid not, Mike. (Again I feel like an **** as I type this.)

Surrealism is concerned with conscious and unconscious states of existence and their relationships (representation of the unconscious is surrealism's defining feature). Going back to Lynch, Eraserhead is entirely about the unconscious, Mulholland Drive is only partially so, though the conscious part of the narrative is non-linear, just to add to the confusion.

 

[BenLaw]

two structurally perfect films IMO

Can you define structurally perfect?

Probably not I've never studied any film criticism (whereas I'm guessing you have), so I imagine there's some sort of formal definition which I'm misusing. However, having watched a lot of films IME the vast, vast majority have some sort of 'structural problem'. Both The Third Man and The Sting I find (obviously very subjective) are (i) not too long, (ii) everything is in the right order, (iii) each scene and each thematic concept has just the right amount of time spent on it, not laboured but properly developed.

 

[BenLaw]

I was was not aware of the Nosferatu blu ray release, it would be great if you could post when it's out as I will need to get that.

Have you seen Shadow of the Vampire?

November 18 for the Nosferatu Blu-ray.

I bought the Eureka Masters of Cinema DVD edition about a year ago, to replace an older DVD copy with a ropier transfer and different music/intertitles. I was somewhat annoyed when the Eureka Blu-ray was announced. I wish I'd waited.

Mine is the Eureka Masters of Cinema version but I must have had it about five years, so a replacement doesn't upset me if the PQ is improved. As far as you know is this just a remaster rather than a new (old) print?

Given your enjoyment of German expressionism (I recall us discussing Metropolis), and broader interest in criminology, I'm guessing you've seen M? It's a must own Blu-ray, in my opinion.

I have, but I only own it on DVD. Is the blu ray much of a step up?

I recently bought The Island of Lost Souls on blu ray but haven't had a chance to watch it yet. I've never seen the film, so am looking forward to that. I've also never got round to watching my copy of Vampyr all the way through, which is an oversight.

 

[strapped for cash]

two structurally perfect films IMO

Can you define structurally perfect?

Probably not I've never studied any film criticism (whereas I'm guessing you have), so I imagine there's some sort of formal definition which I'm misusing. However, having watched a lot of films IME the vast, vast majority have some sort of 'structural problem'. Both The Third Man and The Sting I find (obviously very subjective) are (i) not too long, (ii) everything is in the right order, (iii) each scene and each thematic concept has just the right amount of time spent on it, not laboured but properly developed.

It's not misuse, as such, but there isn't anything approaching a valid definition of structurally perfect cinema. Indeed, different filmmakers use different stylistic and thematic conventions to achieve different effects.

For instance, the classical continuity system (or classical illusory realism) seeks to disguise filmmaking's artifice through conventions such as shot-reverse-shot, non-contravention of the 180 degree rule, sound bridges, and so on; while anti-realist techniques foreground cinema's artifice (Soviet montage, Godard's anti-realist output, or more recently Funny Games and Hidden).

Then you have techniques such as surrealism and expressionism which have nothing to do with representing reality, but seek to represent different psychological states (expressionism is the visualisation of character psychology, surrealists seek to represent the unconscious).

One of the interesting things about The Third Man is that it mixes realist and expressionist styles -- the former through location shooting and casting of non-actors (following trends in post-war Italian cinema), the latter through canted camera angles and chiaroscuro (legacies of German expressionism that also found a home in film noir and horror filmmaking).

I guess the point is that there's no such thing as a correct filmmaking technique, only overlapping stylistic and thematic conventions that can be used for very different purposes. Indeed, these assorted filmmaking conventions are continually re-appropriated and reinvented.

You mention things being "in the right order," but discontinuity is no less valid than continuity. Indeed, continuous narratives are very rarely truly continuous and use techniques to disguise shortcomings in this regard (temporal ellipses, for instance).

You're right that I spent seven plus years studying film theory and film history to doctorate level, though when I've suggested as much on here I've been accused of arrogance and met with hostility. Perhaps this post will provoke similar responses.

In truth, I'm useless at many things, though I hopefully learned a few things about film along the way. I'm absolutely certain, for instance, that I know considerably less about the UK legal system than your good self, or about medicine than BigBoss, or about aviation history than Chebby, and so on...

 

[strapped for cash]

Mine is the Eureka Masters of Cinema version but I must have had it about five years, so a replacement doesn't upset me if the PQ is improved. As far as you know is this just a remaster rather than a new (old) print?

As far as I know, it's the same master (you have the same DVD version as myself, then). I guess we'll discover how good a job Eureka have done when it's released, though I have plenty of faith.

I have, but I only own it on DVD. Is the blu ray much of a step up?

Yes, it's worth it.

I recently bought The Island of Lost Souls on blu ray but haven't had a chance to watch it yet. I've never seen the film, so am looking forward to that. I've also never got round to watching my copy of Vampyr all the way through, which is an oversight.

Both are on my list of Blu-rays I'll buy if I ever work through the stack of unwatched titles cluttering my living room. I've seen Island of Lost Souls, though since you haven't, I'll say no more. I never got round to watching Vampyr. I really should. It's been on my radar for many years.

 

[John Duncan]

two structurally perfect films IMO

Can you define structurally perfect?

Probably not I've never studied any film criticism (whereas I'm guessing you have), so I imagine there's some sort of formal definition which I'm misusing. However, having watched a lot of films IME the vast, vast majority have some sort of 'structural problem'. Both The Third Man and The Sting I find (obviously very subjective) are (i) not too long, (ii) everything is in the right order, (iii) each scene and each thematic concept has just the right amount of time spent on it, not laboured but properly developed.

It's not misuse, as such, but there isn't anything approaching a valid definition of structurally perfect cinema. Indeed, different filmmakers use different stylistic and thematic conventions to achieve different effects.

For instance, the classical continuity system (or classical illusory realism) seeks to disguise filmmaking's artifice through conventions such as shot-reverse-shot, non-contravention of the 180 degree rule, sound bridges, and so on; while anti-realist techniques foreground cinema's artifice (Soviet montage, Godard's anti-realist output, or more recently Funny Games and Hidden).

Then you have techniques such as surrealism and expressionism which have nothing to do with representing reality, but seek to represent different psychological states (expressionism is the visualisation of character psychology, surrealists seek to represent the unconscious).

One of the interesting things about The Third Man is that it mixes realist and expressionist styles -- the former through location shooting and casting of non-actors (following trends in post-war Italian cinema), the latter through canted camera angles and chiaroscuro (legacies of German expressionism that also found a home in film noir and horror filmmaking).

I guess the point is that there's no such thing as a correct filmmaking technique, only overlapping stylistic and thematic conventions that can be used for very different purposes. Indeed, these assorted filmmaking conventions are continually re-appropriated and reinvented.

You mention things being "in the right order," but discontinuity is no less valid than continuity. Indeed, continuous narratives are very rarely truly continuous and use techniques to disguise shortcomings in this regard (temporal ellipses, for instance).

You're right that I spent seven plus years studying film theory and film history to doctorate level, though when I've suggested as much on here I've been accused of arrogance and met with hostility. Perhaps this post will provoke similar responses.

In truth, I'm useless at many things, though I hopefully learned a few things about film along the way. I'm absolutely certain, for instance, that I know considerably less about the UK legal system than your good self, or about medicine than BigBoss, or about aviation history than Chebby, and so on...

Can I leave the Film Club please?

 

[strapped for cash]

Can I leave the Film Club please?

If you're serious, JD, it probably makes more sense for me to.

 

[chebby]

two structurally perfect films IMO

Can you define structurally perfect?

Probably not I've never studied any film criticism (whereas I'm guessing you have), so I imagine there's some sort of formal definition which I'm misusing. However, having watched a lot of films IME the vast, vast majority have some sort of 'structural problem'. Both The Third Man and The Sting I find (obviously very subjective) are (i) not too long, (ii) everything is in the right order, (iii) each scene and each thematic concept has just the right amount of time spent on it, not laboured but properly developed.

It's not misuse, as such, but there isn't anything approaching a valid definition of structurally perfect cinema. Indeed, different filmmakers use different stylistic and thematic conventions to achieve different effects.

For instance, the classical continuity system (or classical illusory realism) seeks to disguise filmmaking's artifice through conventions such as shot-reverse-shot, non-contravention of the 180 degree rule, sound bridges, and so on; while anti-realist techniques foreground cinema's artifice (Soviet montage, Godard's anti-realist output, or more recently Funny Games and Hidden).

Then you have techniques such as surrealism and expressionism which have nothing to do with representing reality, but seek to represent different psychological states (expressionism is the visualisation of character psychology, surrealists seek to represent the unconscious).

One of the interesting things about The Third Man is that it mixes realist and expressionist styles -- the former through location shooting and casting of non-actors (following trends in post-war Italian cinema), the latter through canted camera angles and chiaroscuro (legacies of German expressionism that also found a home in film noir and horror filmmaking).

I guess the point is that there's no such thing as a correct filmmaking technique, only overlapping stylistic and thematic conventions that can be used for very different purposes. Indeed, these assorted filmmaking conventions are continually re-appropriated and reinvented.

You mention things being "in the right order," but discontinuity is no less valid than continuity. Indeed, continuous narratives are very rarely truly continuous and use techniques to disguise shortcomings in this regard (temporal ellipses, for instance).

You're right that I spent seven plus years studying film theory and film history to doctorate level, though when I've suggested as much on here I've been accused of arrogance and met with hostility. Perhaps this post will provoke similar responses.

In truth, I'm useless at many things, though I hopefully learned a few things about film along the way. I'm absolutely certain, for instance, that I know considerably less about the UK legal system than your good self, or about medicine than BigBoss, or about aviation history than Chebby, and so on...

Can I leave the Film Club please?

"...he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves."

 

[strapped for cash]

"...he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves."

I get it, Chebby, you don't like me, though I can't help but think you're being more than a little hypocritical. You strut around the forum passing judgement on others for their ill informed views, poor syntax, etc. I wasn't belittling anyone, as you imply, and you're considerably more forthright in your dismissal (and at times derision) of others.

As I say, the sensible solution is that I don't participate in film club, though your post strikes me as particularly nasty and unnecessary.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Blo*dy hell. You nod off on the sofa for a few hours and the whole world has changed.

No-one is leaving film club, especially before you discuss my film choice.

I was well aware of Strapped's knowledge of film before he became a member, so surely having someone with that can only be good for film club. I know I'm not going to be able to discuss and review a film in the same way as him; christ! I struggle to remember what even happened plotwise a week after watching.

I used to try and understand what films meant, and quite often I do, but in the end, the most important thing for me, is did I enjoy watching it.

So JD and Strapped, you're going nowhere (unless you really want to of course), and for those who just want to stir and annoy, pi*s off.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

And for what it's worth Strapped, I'm almost certain that JD was joking.

 

[CnoEvil]

Blo*dy hell. You nod off on the sofa for a few hours and the whole world has changed.

....and not a cable in sight......whoda thunk it. :O

 

[strapped for cash]

And for what it's worth Strapped, I'm almost certain that JD was joking.

I wasn't sure and I'm still not. Nothing in the post suggested JD was joking.

The way I see it, I can do one of three things:

1) Continue as before and be told I'm an ****hole

2) Contribute and pretend to know nothing about a subject I've studied for the best part of a decade

3) Not participate

I don't like option one or two. I'll contact you elsewhere to let you know what I thought of Survive Style 5+.

I'm not being melodramatic; I've just gone rapidly off the idea. I have plenty of opportunities to discuss film without being sniped at for engaging with the subject in depth.

I've never insulted Chebby, or engaged with him in anything less than a cordial and respectful manner. Unfortunately he can't extend me the same courtesy. This isn't the fist time he's gone out of his way to insult me.

Beyond that, I've no desire to be the reason others might want to leave film club.

 

[expat_mike]

Everyone take 5, and calm down.

This must be looking amusing to any of the other forum members - the film club achieves almost 300 posts and breaks up, and all before discussing it's first film. :exmark:

I didn't realise the extent of Strapped's knowledge, until after he had answered my conjecture about surrealism and british crime fiction. Do I feel belittled - no. Educated - yes.

It is clear that the conversation can never be of the same level as 6 blokes having a discussion down the pub, when one person knows a great deal more than the others. But was that the aim of the club? I thought it's aims included discussion and education, and I know that I have already learnt a lot from what Strapped has said so far.

I would like Strapped and JD and Chebby to all stay - it would be a boring world if we all had the same personalities and experiences - so lets try and make a go of this club.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Thanks for that Mike, but Chebby was never a member, he was just provoking Strapped.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

And for what it's worth Strapped, I'm almost certain that JD was joking.

I wasn't sure and I'm still not. Nothing in the post suggested JD was joking.

The way I see it, I can do one of three things:

1) Continue as before and be told I'm an ****hole

2) Contribute and pretend to know nothing about a subject I've studied for the best part of a decade

3) Not participate

I don't like option one or two. I'll contact you elsewhere to let you know what I thought of Survive Style 5+.

I'm not being melodramatic; I've just gone rapidly off the idea. I have plenty of opportunities to discuss film without being sniped at for engaging with the subject in depth.

I've never insulted Chebby, or engaged with him in anything less than a cordial and respectful manner. Unfortunately he can't extend me the same courtesy. This isn't the fist time he's gone out of his way to insult me.

Beyond that, I've no desire to be the reason others might want to leave film club.

Youre only being sniped at by someone who is not a member of the club, so if I was you, I'd just ignore him. It's highly unlikely that he will continue to do so,

JD. Can you clarify your position please?