The WHF Film Club

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

No, you're probably right, it comes back to the point strapped was recently talking about that you can't pigeon hole films in genres (to paraphrase him!). I watched it without reading any description (apart from when I first added it to my lovefilm list, which was long forgotten) so had no idea of the type of film I was about to watch. A few years ago you might call it a 'chiller'? What would you call it?

I don't know, 'psychological thriller' maybe??? I like the 'chiller' description, but your mention of it is the first time I've heard it for many years.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'll be watching Delicatessen over the next couple of days. I've seen it before, but it was so long ago, it'll be like watching it again for the first time, as I recall absolutely naff all about it.

Watched Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark tonight with the colour turned right down, virtually to the point of being B&W - worked really well.

 

[bigboss]

And for anyone else that might fancy watching Visitor Q, there's a very cheap copy on eBay (not mine I promise, I'd never sell it).

This, and many others are freely available to watch (full length films) on youtube.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

And for anyone else that might fancy watching Visitor Q, there's a very cheap copy on eBay (not mine I promise, I'd never sell it).

This, and many others are freely available to watch (full length films) on youtube.

I like hard copies, and the PQ on youtube is lacking.Good for casual viewing though.

You should watch it BB!

 

[bigboss]

Having a 4-month old child robs us of all privacy and time. Will watch at some point.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Having a 4-month old child robs us of all privacy and time. Will watch at some point.

Definitely not a film for a 4 month old.

 

[bigboss]

 

[expat_mike]

I see The Trial is on YouTube as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUDLy3ablus

 

[richardw42]

Dang. I always forget to check YouTube. Thet have lots on there.

 

[BenLaw]

Of those, I've only seen Touch of Evil, so I may be unfairly rejecting a genre. Having said that, I really didn't get on with Touch of Evil, could not see what all the fuss was about. Given that and my indifference to Double Indemnity, would you recommend any of the others in particular?

Out of interest, which version of Touch of Evil have you seen? (Perhaps all three, though I'm not sure this is possible without owning the BD.)

Sorry for the delay in replying to this, I haven't been on my laptop much of late. I believe it was this version, although I have moved the disc on now. I wasn't aware there were different versions, so perhaps you can tell me what I was missing out on.

If you don't get on with noir, I'm not sure what I'd recommend. The Big Heat, Scarlet Street, and Kiss me Deadly are at the nastier (or more nihilistic) end of the noir spectrum.

I've put each of those on my lovefilm list so I'll watch them at some point. It's strange, as I like a lot of the films which I guess to a large extent are thematically the precursors to a lot of noir, like White Heat and Angels with Dirty Faces. And then I like many of the expressionist films you mention. I think I have a problem with what I find to be unconvincing or limited characterisation and dialogue, which certainly are not, for me, faults you could level at The Third Man or Sunset Boulevard. I wouldn't criticise the dialogue in Touch of Evil particularly, although I did find characterisation lacking.

What about revisionist examples? For example, Chinatown, or The Long Goodbye? Then there are examples of "tech-noir," such as Blade Runner and The Terminator.

I like The Long Goodbye a lot and found Chinatown very interesting, although a little hard work. It's a long time since I saw it. Interesting examples you raise of tech-noir (not a concept I was familiar with). Terminator (and indeed Terminator 2) are films I can (and indeed have) watch over and over again. Blade Runner, however, I can't stand. Both may be founded in childhood and nostalgia, however, as I suspect I was too young when I first watched Blade Runner and that that may have coloured subsequent viewings, whereas T and T2 I was gripped by from the moment I saw them.

Rather than thinking of noir as a discrete genre, associated with 1950s cinema, it helps to think of this category as an extension of expressionistic tendencies in early 20th century European filmmaking. Without Nosferatu, Metropolis, and M, post-WWII US cinema may have looked very different, especially since German emigres (Murnau and Lang) worked in Hollywood after the 1940s.

That probably means I should priortisem watching The Big Heat and Scarlet Street to see the links. Conversely, I'm in the middle of Sunrise, which is brilliant so far, but is rather different in tone and style from Nosferatui and Faust!

 

[BenLaw]

Hopefully later in the week. Visitor Q was dispatched today so hopefully will arrive tomorrow and I then need to find time to watch it.

Oh yeah, absolutely no rush with Delicatessen, this is the review I'm looking forward to.

I watched Visitor Q last night. If Royal Mail and Lovefilm play ball I should get Delicatessen on Saturday.

I don't know quite what to make of the film, which in a sense is a good thing as it's definitely made my brain tick a bit.

I'm definitely putting this into the surrealist category, and if this thread has taught me anything it's that I'm not very good at interpreting and understanding surrealist cinema. There's obviously a lot of parallells between this and your first film club choice. The narrative is much clearer in this, but the message, if there is any, is rather harder for me to work out.

If I don't take the action literally, then I'm asking myself why it was depicted. I assume it's some sort of commentary on Japanese culture and society (I can't believe the filmakers are literally depicting a father's reaction and urges upon witnessing his son being bullied!). My knowledge of Japanese culture and society is rather lacking, so you may have the advantage of me in that regard.

I would guess there's a commentary about the hedonistic and nihilistic tendencies hidden deep within the ordinary, stoic member of Japanese society, who have an outwardly respectable presentation, and something about the societal pressure they feel to keep this hidden. If it isn't saying something along these lines, then many of the depictions can only be there to shock. Given how most of it was presented, I didn't find any of it particularly shocking, but to the extent that any of it was only there to shock (I'm not sure about the opening scene in particular) then it's a bit cheap. Some of it is clearly meant to be funny, and I did indeed laugh (this sounds bad written down) at the defecating incestual necrophilia and the later scene in the bath. I think there may be an inconsistency between the humour of those ostensibly shocking moments and any suggestion the film is making a serious societal point.

I'm struggling with the significance of the guy in the leather trousers, maybe you can help me with that.

This would make an interesting choice for the film club, there would be lots to say, although I don't know how palatable everyone would find it.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Was it mentioned a while back that Delicatessen was on YouTube? Just searched and couldn't see anything, other than 10 minute clips...

 

[John Duncan]

defecating incestual necrophilia

I don't know how palatable everyone would find it.

You think?

 

[John Duncan]

Was it mentioned a while back that Delicatessen was on YouTube? Just searched and couldn't see anything, other than 10 minute clips...

You've got mail.

 

[BenLaw]

defecating incestual necrophilia

I don't know how palatable everyone would find it.

You think?

'Everyone' being the general populace, clearly not. 'Everyone' being the members of the film club, I'm not sure. I have a feeling HFO may not have been a fan, but that we have some hardy sorts around right now. I somehow thought that phrase might attract some comment

 

[strapped for cash]

Sorry for the delay in replying to this, I haven't been on my laptop much of late. I believe it was this version, although I have moved the disc on now. I wasn't aware there were different versions, so perhaps you can tell me what I was missing out on.

There's a good summary here:

http://parallax-view.org/2008/10/09/the-making-unmaking-and-reclamation-of-touch-of-evil/

For what it's worth, there's broad disagreement about which is the "best" version; and debates get into issues of authorship and revisionists' rights to tamper with "Welles vision."

The article linked to above touches on some of these issues. I've discussed models of directorial authorship previously on this thread; and a mini essay on authorship theory probably wouldn't delight other forum members.

It's strange, as I like a lot of the films which I guess to a large extent are thematically the precursors to a lot of noir, like White Heat and Angels with Dirty Faces. And then I like many of the expressionist films you mention. I think I have a problem with what I find to be unconvincing or limited characterisation and dialogue, which certainly are not, for me, faults you could level at The Third Man or Sunset Boulevard. I wouldn't criticise the dialogue in Touch of Evil particularly, although I did find characterisation lacking.

I get what you're saying. Given noir's heavily stylised nature, and crime fiction origins, it's probably not for the realists out there.

Blade Runner... I can't stand.

I'm not crazy about Blade Runner myself. (Another film of many versions.) It's gorgeous to look at, and I love the Vangelis soundtrack, probably for reasons of nostalgia. Ultimately, however, it leaves me a little cold.

I'm in the middle of Sunrise, which is brilliant so far, but is rather different in tone and style from Nosferatui and Faust!

Sunrise is really quite charming (and the BD is excellent). Given the list of films you plan to watch, you're perhaps not looking for further suggestions. Nevertheless, a triple bill of Sunrise, City Girl, and Days of Heaven is highly recommended!

 

[expat_mike]

I have a feeling HFO may not have been a fan, but that we have some hardy sorts around right now.

I think that you are right about HFO. He wasn't keen on watching L'Empire des sens which I get the impression is a less controversial film.

 

[expat_mike]

defecating incestual necrophilia

For a short while, I thought that Ben had been reading this novel

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/books/frances-national-library-hopes-to-buy-sades-120-days.html?_r=0

But maybe the film-maker had read it instead. :rofl:

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Hopefully later in the week. Visitor Q was dispatched today so hopefully will arrive tomorrow and I then need to find time to watch it.

Oh yeah, absolutely no rush with Delicatessen, this is the review I'm looking forward to.

I watched Visitor Q last night. If Royal Mail and Lovefilm play ball I should get Delicatessen on Saturday.

I don't know quite what to make of the film, which in a sense is a good thing as it's definitely made my brain tick a bit.

I'm definitely putting this into the surrealist category, and if this thread has taught me anything it's that I'm not very good at interpreting and understanding surrealist cinema. There's obviously a lot of parallells between this and your first film club choice. The narrative is much clearer in this, but the message, if there is any, is rather harder for me to work out.

If I don't take the action literally, then I'm asking myself why it was depicted. I assume it's some sort of commentary on Japanese culture and society (I can't believe the filmakers are literally depicting a father's reaction and urges upon witnessing his son being bullied!). My knowledge of Japanese culture and society is rather lacking, so you may have the advantage of me in that regard.

I would guess there's a commentary about the hedonistic and nihilistic tendencies hidden deep within the ordinary, stoic member of Japanese society, who have an outwardly respectable presentation, and something about the societal pressure they feel to keep this hidden. If it isn't saying something along these lines, then many of the depictions can only be there to shock. Given how most of it was presented, I didn't find any of it particularly shocking, but to the extent that any of it was only there to shock (I'm not sure about the opening scene in particular) then it's a bit cheap. Some of it is clearly meant to be funny, and I did indeed laugh (this sounds bad written down) at the defecating incestual necrophilia and the later scene in the bath. I think there may be an inconsistency between the humour of those ostensibly shocking moments and any suggestion the film is making a serious societal point.

I'm struggling with the significance of the guy in the leather trousers, maybe you can help me with that.

This would make an interesting choice for the film club, there would be lots to say, although I don't know how palatable everyone would find it.

I have just chatted to my wife. She says that the family in Japan began to breakdown when the economy first failed in the 90s. Some of the specific things in the film are actually quite factual, though exaggerated. For example, the man of the house suddenly had to work much longer hours, for less money, and because of this, his children didn't regard him as their dad, as he only ever saw them when they were sleeping. The shortness of money in the family meant there was less money for the children, so some daughters would actually walk the streets offering men of their father's age sex for cash, while still dressed in their school uniforms.

It's difficult for me to comprehend, but my wife told me these things without any sense of disgust, or sadness.

Maybe the film isn't so removed from reality after all?

 

[BenLaw]

That's interesting background, thanks BBB. As I said, I anticipated there was probably a basis in reality for many / all of the themes but I'd still argue it's fairly far removed from reality, in particular the opening scene, the lactation and the bath scene. The drug use seemed the closest to reality.

Anyway, what were your thoughts on it? What did you make of the stranger in the leather trousers? What did you think the point was of much of the action being filmed?

I watched the Korean Breathless yesterday - what a film! Best thing I've seen in ages.

 

[strapped for cash]

Out of interest, Ben, since you've discussed moments you disliked in films due to their lack of realism, would you describe yourself principally as a fan of "realist" cinema? (This term is itself quite loose, since there are different approaches to cinematic realism; for instance, post-war Italian realist films are stylistically different from what's often termed "classical Hollywood illusory realism.")

How does this sit with your enjoyment of heavily stylised early twentieth century cinema, expressionism in particular, as you're clearly (and rightly!) fond of several expressionist films?

Sorry if those questions seem confrontational. That's not my intention. I'm fascinated by issues of taste and points of disconnect when watching films.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

That's interesting background, thanks BBB. As I said, I anticipated there was probably a basis in reality for many / all of the themes but I'd still argue it's fairly far removed from reality, in particular the opening scene, the lactation and the bath scene. The drug use seemed the closest to reality.

Anyway, what were your thoughts on it? What did you make of the stranger in the leather trousers? What did you think the point was of much of the action being filmed?

I'm going to have to reacquaint myself with the film Ben.

I watched the Korean Breathless yesterday - what a film! Best thing I've seen in ages.

I have seen it, and I'm sure I liked it, but I'm struggling to remember much about it.

I have the memory of goldfish Ben.

 

[expat_mike]

Out of interest, Ben, since you've discussed moments you disliked in films due to their lack of realism, would you describe yourself principally as a fan of "realist" cinema? (This term is itself quite loose, since there are different approaches to cinematic realism; for instance, post-war Italian realist films are stylistically different from what's often termed "classical Hollywood illusory realism.")

How does this sit with your enjoyment of heavily stylised early twentieth century cinema, expressionism in particular, as you're clearly (and rightly!) fond of several expressionist films?

Sorry if those questions seem confrontational. That's not my intention. I'm fascinated by issues of taste and points of disconnect when watching films.

I'm currently reading the book "Quiet" which explains the differences between introvert and extrovert personalities, can be influenced by the amount of additional sensory stimulation that the brain needs. Your post has started me wondering if there is a correlation between an introvert personality (being already stimulated enough by simpler films) and an extrovert personality needing the additional stimulation provided by the additional amount of "detail" in a "realist" film.

 

[expat_mike]

I have seen it, and I'm sure I liked it, but I'm struggling to remember much about it.

I am surprised that your wife would let you watch a film with Korean in the title.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm currently reading the book "Quiet" which explains the differences between introvert and extrovert personalities, can be influenced by the amount of additional sensory stimulation that the brain needs. Your post has started me wondering if there is a correlation between an introvert personality (being already stimulated enough by simpler films) and an extrovert personality needing the additional stimulation provided by the additional amount of "detail" in a "realist" film.

Interesting question, Mike.

I'm not sure "realist" cinema is necessarily "more detailed" that "non-realist" cinema. These are quite loose categories, since there are many realist filmmaking methods, and many non-realist (or "abstract," or "formalist") approaches. In fact, filmmakers often mix so-called "realist" and "formalist" techniques. (Ben and I discussed The Third Man in such terms on this thread.)

I haven't read Cain's book, so I can't comment on her discussion of "the power of introverts."

For what it's worth, I've completed the Myers-Briggs personality test on a couple of occasions. The first time, many years back, I was defined as an INTJ. The second time, more recently, the results came out as INFJ. Either way, I'm an introvert.

I honestly don't know how I feel about such personality tests. In one regard, I identify with many INTJ and INFJ characteristics. In another, such tests may be like horoscopes. I wonder if we could see aspects of ourselves in every Myers-Briggs personality type. Of course that's the kind of thing an INTJ or INFJ would say...