The WHF Film Club

[Frank Harvey]

Very different films. I remember being blown away by Zodiac at the cinema but I've watched parts of it several times since and never been quite as engaged.

I full appreciate Zodiac is a bit different, but it is another film that I find factually accurate (on the whole). For me, Zodiac gets better and better with each watch.

 

[John Duncan]

I think it's time for JD to make his 3 nominations, but I'm guessing this probably won't be one of them. :shifty:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775496/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It's ok, Bradford is off the agenda (for now...)

 

[BenLaw]

You are to a certain extent implying that we should aspire to nominate films that everyone will like.

Ha, not really, I'm just having a whinge! I'm sure it's not beyond me to nominate three films that I think are both interesting and a few of you may like, though TBH I've been surprised at the outcome of the vote on each occasion.

For me I knew that the Film Club would always be an adventurous journey exploring types of film that I had never watched before, and analysing them in enough depth to discuss them. So far I have liked some of the films, disliked some, and struggled with some (especially the surrealist films, where I am never sure what is meant as a depiction of true life, and what is meant as a depiction of a dream). But I am still happy to continue the journey, because there will be visual treasures to discover.

Good stuff, I agree with the sentiment..

I watched it via You Tube, and then felt pleased that I hadn't had to spend money buying it.

Given what I've read about the quality of the transfers other than on the blu ray, I can't help but think YouTube won't be doing the film justice, but I can understand that no-one wants to commit the cash when they're not keen on the film! I didn't fully understand much of the plot, and the book is not meant to be straightforward. I'm hoping that when I shortly rewatch it some of it will become clearer.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I think it's time for JD to make his 3 nominations, but I'm guessing this probably won't be one of them. :shifty:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775496/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It's ok, Bradford is off the agenda (for now...)

Good news JD.

 

[strapped for cash]

You mentioned on another thread I think that certain academics would forcefully argue for the existence of shows or films considered to have limited cultural appeal, would not a similar argument apply to the existence of this film, and indeed any film?

I think I know the post you were referring to. If so, I was discussing scholars of cult cinema.

Often, such scholars seek to recuperate films' reputation by arguing that they represent "other" perspectives and are democratically essential, or that these were always great films but their cultural import has been overlooked.

There are complex ethical questions associated with the question you ask, not least because this has implications for the limits of censorship. I don't have easy answers. How does one feel, for instance, about The Triumph of the Will? In one sense it's an important text historically. In another it's dangerous propaganda. (The film's appeal is limited in both contexts, though seems more troubling in the latter sense.)

It seems to me that for it to be concluded that it ought not to exist / has no 'purpose' that a moral judgment would have to be made, and I would always be wary of moral judgments of art given the difficulty in identifying a suitable arbiter.

Following this line of argument, one could only conclude that censorship should be completely abolished. I'd be hesitant to agree. As always, there are discussions and very different views on what's morally acceptable.

My views are probably more liberal than most on this issue, but the debates around censorship are so numerous and complex that I don't think we can start to address them here. I'm far from certain about where I would draw the line. One could argue that anything's permissible within legal boundaries, though if pushed I'd likely take a more circumspect view.

One thing's for certain, while there's censorship there will always be moral arbiters, who will always be appointed according to subjective values, and who will always make subjective assessments about artistic practice.

Rather ironically, the two film club selections I have made appear to have met with almost universal dislike, whereas if Snowtown and Peeping Tom had been voted for I suspect there would have been much more feverish and impassioned debate.

Probably. Peeping Tom doesn't seem especially shocking by current standards, although it was considered so reprehensible on release that it essentially finished Michael Powell's career. This alone tells us something about how perspectives have changed over little more than half a century.

 

[strapped for cash]

I was assuming if you write an academic text on the subject it wouldn't be solely or mainly based on personal opinion. I don't know to what extent that is avoided in this context?

I'm never really writing about whether I like a film.

When writing about Wes Anderson (among others) I was discussing industry, issues of representation, and the kinds of people afforded creative opportunities.

I made an argument and took a position, which is fundamental to academic writing. The key point is that your argument is supported by evidence. The writer's job is to persuade the reader. (Whether I'm any good at this is another question entirely.)

 

[strapped for cash]

Having read some of your subsequent posts I may have been understanding 'purpose' in a slightly different way than you were intending it. Clearly, any and all films are made for a 'reason' in that persons make a conscious decision to make a film. I'm not sure as a matter of principle that would have to go beyond, 'I think this is an interesting subject, I'm going to make a film about it.' As for purpose, I was understanding that in the context of an attempt or intention to have some sort of specific influence on an audience. I'm not sure that any such purpose needs to exist. I can't quote any particular previous comment of yours in response to your question, but perhaps can pose the question (because I would be interested to hear your answer): does art require a purpose?

I don't think art can exist without a purpose. This would require no creative input from anybody involved.

Unfortunately things get even more complicated, because we get into issues of authorship. I'm not sure we want to go there on this thread.

 

[richardw42]

I've just ordered a DVD copy of Agnosia. It sounds like something I'd enjoy.

Anybody seen it ?

£2.28 inc P&P

Never heard of it and I'm afraid 5.5 on IMDB isn't tempting me at the moment!

just watched it. Really good film, 100% recommend it. Where that 5.5 comes from is anybody's guess.

If you look furthrt down the IMDB page, there's a discussion thread asking Why The Low Score ?

Lots of very positive comments in there.

 

[John Duncan]

Back to The Trial - having seen that YouTube copy, it's terrible, and you should try to see the Studio Canal version if you can.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Back to The Trial - having seen that YouTube copy, it's terrible, and you should try to see the Studio Canal version if you can.

Whenever you're ready JD, can we have your 3 film choices please?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Has everyone watched TheTrial?

I've got quite a way through it, but started drifting off to the land of nod, so will resume watching later or tomorrow.

 

[richardw42]

I dozed off for the last 20 mins, don't feel at all inclined to re watch it.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Duplicate post

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I dozed off for the last 20 mins, don't feel at all inclined to re watch it.

That's the same as me, but I do think we should all watch the film in it's entirety. I've watched films before, and really not liked them, then suddenly they all make sense in the last 20 minutes, and a film that I wasn't enjoying, becomes a film I really like.

 

[John Duncan]

Back to The Trial - having seen that YouTube copy, it's terrible, and you should try to see the Studio Canal version if you can.

Whenever you're ready JD, can we have your 3 film choices please?

Sorry, will do...

 

[BenLaw]

You mentioned on another thread I think that certain academics would forcefully argue for the existence of shows or films considered to have limited cultural appeal, would not a similar argument apply to the existence of this film, and indeed any film?

I think I know the post you were referring to. If so, I was discussing scholars of cult cinema.

Often, such scholars seek to recuperate films' reputation by arguing that they represent "other" perspectives and are democratically essential, or that these were always great films but their cultural import has been overlooked.

Actually I believe the post was about Eastenders! I think your point was that whatever the objective quality of the show, persons justify their existence for other reasons. I don't know the argument, but I'm guessing one would be along the lines of being 'democratically essential'.

There are complex ethical questions associated with the question you ask, not least because this has implications for the limits of censorship. I don't have easy answers. How does one feel, for instance, about The Triumph of the Will? In one sense it's an important text historically. In another it's dangerous propaganda. (The film's appeal is limited in both contexts, though seems more troubling in the latter sense.)

Interesting example, as I own it. I also own a copy of Mein Kampf. The former is certainly remarkable in its staging and cinematography and an amazing example of propoganda. I'm not sure I'm up for the psycho-analysis as to why, although I'm sure it's along similar lines to what we've discussed already. Worth mentioning, perhaps, that I lost family in the holocaust and have a professional interest in crime, so there's arguably some objective basis for some of these interests.

Following this line of argument, one could only conclude that censorship should be completely abolished. I'd be hesitant to agree. As always, there are discussions and very different views on what's morally acceptable.

My views are probably more liberal than most on this issue, but the debates around censorship are so numerous and complex that I don't think we can start to address them here. I'm far from certain about where I would draw the line. One could argue that anything's permissible within legal boundaries, though if pushed I'd likely take a more circumspect view.

One thing's for certain, while there's censorship there will always be moral arbiters, who will always be appointed according to subjective values, and who will always make subjective assessments about artistic practice.

Agreed this is too complex - and I''m sure you've studied many of the arguments so I imagine my undeveloped views wouldn't take things much further. I think I'm uncomfortable with censorship beyond that which contravenes the law. Even that ends up with individual persons making judgements, usually involving morality consciously or subconsiously, but at least the systems within which those judgments are made are highly formalised and regulated.

 

[expat_mike]

Back to The Trial - having seen that YouTube copy, it's terrible, and you should try to see the Studio Canal version if you can.

I know that the YouTube quality was not HD, but not so many years ago it would have been considered broadcast quality for TV.

I accept that the Studio Canal version would be better visually, but I do not think that it would help me fathom out the plotline.

I'm happy for the discussions to begin, once the remaining club members have rewatched the sections that sent them to sleep the first time. :rofl:

 

[BenLaw]

Has everyone watched TheTrial?

I've got quite a way through it, but started drifting off to the land of nod, so will resume watching later or tomorrow.

Haven't actually rewatched it myself yet. I'm a little surprised it was sending people to sleep, but if you didn't like it up to the last twenty minutes I suspect it may be too late.

 

[John Duncan]

I had just settled on the following three films, for various reasons:

1. Chaplin's The Great Dictator
2. Downfall
3. The Lives of Others

Having just read that ^^, though, I wonder if they are inappropriate. Tell me and I will choose a different three.

 

[John Duncan]

I know that the YouTube quality was not HD, but not so many years ago it would have been considered broadcast quality for TV.

I accept that the Studio Canal version would be better visually, but I do not think that it would help me fathom out the plotline.

The one I saw was really jumpy, maybe there are more.

But you're right, better quality visuals won't explain any better.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I had just settled on the following three films, for various reasons: 1. Chaplin's The Great Dictator 2. Downfall 3. The Lives of Others Having just read that ^^, though, I wonder if they are inappropriate. Tell me and I will choose a different three.

I've seen 2 of those, and enjoyed both, but I've no desire to ever watch a Chaplin film, so I'll have to vote for one of them.

Lives 3 pts

Downfall 2 pts

Dictator 1 pt

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Has everyone watched TheTrial?

I've got quite a way through it, but started drifting off to the land of nod, so will resume watching later or tomorrow.

Haven't actually rewatched it myself yet. I'm a little surprised it was sending people to sleep, but if you didn't like it up to the last twenty minutes I suspect it may be too late.

It wasn't the film sending me to sleep Ben, just age, and I'm looking forward to finishing it.

 

[richardw42]

Ok. I promise I'll re do the end tomorrow.

Re JDs 3. Downfall is brilliant but I watched it just a few weeks ago so I think it'll have to be

the Lves of Others 3

great Dictator 2

Downfall 1

 

[BenLaw]

Ok. I promise I'll re do the end tomorrow.

Re JDs 3. Downfall is brilliant but I watched it just a few weeks ago so I think it'll have to be

the Lves of Others 3

great Dictator 2

Downfall 1

Same vote from me.

 

[expat_mike]

I think all 3 look interesting, but I have to prioritise, so:

Downfall - 3 pts

Lives - 2 pts

The Great Dictator - 1 pt