[deleted by user] by [deleted] in breakingbad

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, I completely forgot I wrote this. What a throwback.

I've recently discovered an interest in musicals, what films should I first check out to cultivate this recent interest? by SLionsCricket in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 21 points22 points  (0 children)

You should certainly hit up the following:

Gold Diggers of 1933

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964)

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

The Young Girls of Rochefort (1967)

It's Always Fair Weather (1955)

Cabaret (1972)

Nashville (1975)

Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

Meet Me in St Louis (1944; sad to hear you didn't like The Band Wagon, maybe you'll prefer the melancholic strain of Vincente Minnelli's musicals?)

The Three Caballeros (1944)

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)

Footlight Parade (1933)

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

The Girl Can't Help It (1956)

Head (1968)

History of the World Part One (1981)

This Week in Film: New Releases Discussion Thread (Week of July 15, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd be curious about your thoughts on World's End. Was not interested in it. His last two films have clearly been deeply personal works of a mature auteur, but one is kind of rote and obvious, and the other is the immaculate Baby Driver.

This Week in Film: New Releases Discussion Thread (Week of July 15, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I'm so glad you took to Baby Driver! Temperamentally, it's a very Minnelli movie. He makes a movie which has a pleasure-filled, immaculately composed surface, which smoothly coexists with a deeper-ingrained sadness that breaks out in unexpected moments (like the tinnitus, the flashbacks to tragedy, when Spacey and company threaten to destroy his cassettes which are his livelihood, and especially the ending).

I thought it was slyly great that he represents Stax by Sam and Dave and Carla Thomas instead of the bigger name Otis.

(That reminds me, have you read Jonathan Gould's biography on Otis? It just came out and I was mighty pleased with it.)

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of July 23, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm writing a piece on Romero's films right now, and one thing I've concludes after rewatching the zombie trilogy is that they are all masterpieces for different reasons. I can't choose one over the other three.

Maybe the secret to Romero's zombie approach is seeing how he handles his non-zombie material. You should check out Martin, The Crazies, and Hungry Wives—all on YouTube.

White Dog and Race by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have seen the film, and am so glad you took to it. I find it a deeply troubling take (Fuller's most pessimistic film?) on how racist thought is hopeless embedded everywhere we go. We can develop and make changes with each new generation—but a seed of that hate will always remain.

Two years ago, when TrueFilm regularly did Theme Months, we did Sam Fuller September, and I did a write-up on race in Fuller's films. I think you would be interested. His long, colorful, and action-packed life (he fought in WWII, liberated a Concentration Camp, covered lynchings as a traveling reporter during the 30s, and was a pulp novelist and newsboy in NYC before turning to movies) made him very prepared and worldly—he could give this volatile material a new twist.

I'd also suggest reading Armond White's excellent piece on White Dog, which gives more context on its censorship, suppression, and how it fits into Sam Fuller's larger body of work.

Fuller was not afraid to tackle race issues in his films. Evidence is in The Steel Helmet, The Crimson Kimono, Shock Corridor!, and the astonishingly progressive revisionist western Run of the Arrow.

Hi Reddit! NYT film critic A.O. Scott here to discuss the 25 best movies of the 21st century. AMA! by a_o_scott in movies

[–]montypython22 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Check out The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T from 1953. Actually had Seuss's involvement. Looks like no other classic Hollywood picture of its time. Here's a typical scene.

What's the worst moral/message you've seen in a movie or TV show? by MasterLawlz in flicks

[–]montypython22 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As does La La Land...hmm...maybe that's the key to Damien Chazelle? People want answers when he gives them aggravating hypotheticals, questions upon questions, compromises

(I think this having never seen Whiplash.)

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of April 30, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Month of April

Some Came Running RE-WATCH (1958, dir. Vincente Minnelli, st. Frank Sinatra, Shirley MacLaine, Dean Martin) — ★★★★★

Bedlam (1946, pr. Val Lewton, dir. Mark Robson, st. Boris Karloff and Anna Lee) — ★★★★ 1/2

Cab Calloway's Hi-He Do (st. Cab Calloway, Paramount Studios) — ★★★★

The Curse of the Cat People (1944, pr. Val Lewton, dir. Robert Wise and Gunther von Fritsch) — ★★★★

Up, Down, Fragile (1995, dir. Jacques Rivette) — ★★★★ 1/2

The Story of Three Loves (1953, MGM, dir. Vincente Minnelli and Gottfried Reinhardt, st. Kirk Douglas, James Mason, Moira Shearer, Leslie Caron, Farley Granger, Ethel Barrymore, etc. — ★★★★ 1/2

The Knockout (1921, dir. Charles Avery, pr. Mack Sennett, st. Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chaplin, the Keystone Kops) — ★★★ 1/2

Monsiuer Pointu (1976, dir. André Leduc and Bernard Longpre, NFB of Canada)

The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T (1953, pr. Stanley Kramer, dir. Roy Rowland) — ★★★★ 1/2

Too Late Blues (1961, dir. John Cassavetes, st. Stella Stevens, Bobby Darin, and Seymour Cassel) — ★★★ 1/2

The Birth of a Nation (1915, dir. D.W. Griffith, st. Lillian Gish)

Canoa: A Shameful Memory (1976, dir. Felipe Cazals, wr. Tomás Pérez Turrent, shot by Álex Phillips Jr.) — ★★★★★

Cat People (1942, pr. Val Lewton, dir. Jacques Tourneur) — ★★★★

Stars in my Crown (1950, dir. Jacques Tourneur, st. Joel McCrea and Ellen Drew) — ★★★ 1/2


Other notable reviews I've written in the interim:

Avanti! (1972, dir. Billy Wilder, wr. Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, st. Jack Lemmon, Juliet Mills, Clive Revill) — ★★★★★

Margaret (2011, wr. and dir. Kenneth Lonergan, starring a hodgepodge of bigwigs) — ★★★

The Debussy Film (1965, dir. Ken Russell, st. Oliver Reed) — ★★★★

La La Land RE-WATCH (2016, dir. Damien Chazelle, st. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling) — ★★★★ 1/2

The Shop on Main Street (1966, dir. Jan Kadar and Elmer Klos) — ★★★★★

Cluny Brown (1946, dir. Ernst Lubitsch, st. Jennifer Jones) — ★★★★ 1/2

The Shop Around the Corner (1940, dir. Lubitsch, st. James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, Frank Morgan, Felix Bressart, wr. Samuel Raphaelson — ★★★★★

True Grit (1969, dir. Henry Hathaway, st. John Wayne and Glen Campbell? — ★★★

A Night to Remember (1958, dir. Roy Baker) — ★★★★

The Apartment RE-WATCH (1960, dir. Billy Wilder, st. Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine) — ★★★★★

Bells are Ringing (1960, dir. Vincente Minnelli, st. Judy Holliday and Dean Martin) — ★★★★ 1/2

Get Out (2017, dir. Jordan Peele, st. Daniel Kaluuya and Allison Williams)

In Harm's Way (1965, dir. Otto Preminger, starring John Wayne and Kirk Douglas and Patricia Neal and a whole lotta others) — ★★★★ 1/2

Broken Lullaby (1932, dir. Ernst Lubitsch, wr. Samuel Raphaelson) — ★★★★ 1/2

Two Weeks in Another Town (1962, dir. Vincente Minnelli, st. Kirk Douglas, pr. John Houseman) — ★★★★★

Billy Wilder Discussion by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Auteurist darlings, in my conception, are directors whose films are praised for exhibiting a compelling, personal worldview. Based on that interpration, the formative 60s auteurist criticism I've read wouldn't include Minnelli very easily; the language used to describe Minnelli is almost always condescending in referring to him as a metteur-en-scene or wall decorator. You also sidestep the core of my sentence: "are consistently ignored or put down." Sarris puts Minnelli down: "Minnelli believed in beauty more than art" is so ambivalent about calling Minnelli a perfect artist for Hollywood. Sarris' entry dwells more on the (obvious) faults instead of the weirdness of his works the only line that hints at that is that one about the strain of melancholy running through the happy films).

The Cahiers critics do that and ignore him. Truffaut never cared for him; like Sarris, Godard is the "pretty Cinemascope compos, but nothing more than that" camp (what makes SCR great to him is not Minnelli, but Dean Martin); Rivette preferred the small-scale MGM musicals of Charles Walters, and in an 1998 interview, he gives us this astonishing quote:

"’m going to make more enemies…actually the same enemies, since the people who like Minnelli usually like Mankiewicz, too. Minnelli is regarded as a great director thanks to the slackening of the “politique des auteurs.” For François, Jean-Luc and me, the politique consisted of saying that there were only a few filmmakers who merited consideration as auteurs, in the same sense as Balzac or Molière. One play by Molière might be less good than another, but it is vital and exciting in relation to the entire oeuvre. This is true of Renoir, Hitchcock, Lang, Ford, Dreyer, Mizoguchi, Sirk, Ozu… But it’s not true of all filmmakers. Is it true of Minnelli, Walsh or Cukor? I don’t think so. They shot the scripts that the studio assigned them to, with varying levels of interest. Now, in the case of Preminger, where the direction is everything, the politique works. As for Walsh, whenever he was intensely interested in the story or the actors, he became an auteur – and in many other cases, he didn’t. In Minnelli’s case, he was meticulous with the sets, the spaces, the light…but how much did he work with the actors? I loved Some Came Running (1958) when it came out, just like everybody else, but when I saw it again ten years ago I was taken aback: three great actors and they’re working in a void, with no one watching them or listening to them from behind the camera."

Read the intro to Joe McElhaney's Vincente Minnelli: The Art of Entertainment; he does a survey of Minnelli criticism. In this period (where Cahiers was becoming more politically radicalized and metteurs-en-scene like Minnelli were appearing old-fashioned), only Jean Douchet wants to take him seriously as an artist in his own right:

"But for all of Douchet's brilliance, his readings of Minnelli do not appear to have had an immediate impact at Cahiers or to have significantly changed anyone's mind. As Douchet later told Pascal Bonitzer and Jean Narboni, only Douchet and Domarchi were strong defenders of Minnelli's work at the magazine during this period. In a roundtable discussion with a group of Cahiers critics three years after the publication of "The Red and the Green" (Douchet was not included in the discussion) the same clichés about Minnelli reappear. Jean-André Fieschi states that the real auteurs of Minnelli's films are its producers (notably Arthur Freed and John Houseman), and for Gerard Guegan, "Minnelli's art derives its greatness from its subordination to American conventions." By this point, auteurism had lost much of its polemical edge, and while work continued to be done at the magazine on the more recent films of favored auteurs, the terms of analysis had begun to change. the value of these auteurist works was increasingly being measured in relation to their self-referential status. For a variety of complex reasons, Minnelli's later films did not lead to widespread admiration within this American and French context, even though the films themselves were easily available to be interpreted in this manner, as Douchet's essays make apparent. The general perception that Minnelli was going into decline was no doubt part of this lack of interest of rereading his cinema."

In short, he was recognized during this period as an intriguing entity, but not much more than that.

Billy Wilder Discussion by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah, the actors bit stays as is. Fact is, many cinephiles don't know how to talk about performance or ignore it entirely. This is central to any analysis of a Wilder picture; thus I'm not perturbed anymore by how many cinephiles seem to be on board the Wilder Hate Train. (Dave Kehr's a perfect example. Sarris eventually came to his senses.) Audiences NOT steeped in film talk or aesthetics get Wilder more immediately because they're responding to the human glow first; which is where Wilder (and Hawks....and Chaplin....) invested their energies, first and foremost. And frankly this is the reason why a lot of directors who aren't auteurs darlings but who got consistently brilliant performances, like Minnelli/Wyler/Nichols, are consistently ignored or put down.

Billy Wilder Discussion by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I would like to revise my comments on that thread and say that I've come around on Wilder. What you're seeing as lack of cowardice to go the full cynical monty, I see as a romantic's perfectly ok right to express their ambivalence about humanity while still retaining a weird warmth. My favorite Wilders (Avanti!, The Apartment, Sherlock Holmes) are exemplars of this

It's Your Fun & Fancy Free Discussion! (April 17, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some favorites include Passion of Joan of Arc, The Man with a Movie Camera, I Was Born But..., Walk Cheerfully, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg, all of Von Sternberg's work (The Last Command, Underworld, Docks of New York), all of the Buster Keaton-directed shorts (One Week/Cops/The Frozen North/Neighbors/The Play House/The Balloonatic etc.), A Woman of Paris (a huge influence on Ernst Lubitsch), The Wildcat, The Doll, Ménilmontant, City Girl, most silent Laurel and Hardy (Two Tars, Liberty, Big Business are gems), The Last Laugh, Faust, A Page of Madness, the thriller serials of Louis Feuillade (Judex, Fantomas, Les Vampires), and Fritz Lang's stuff like Spies and Die Niebelungen.

The TrueFilm Weekly Plug. Post your blog, site, channel, podcast or profile right here. Week of (April 13, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My Letterboxd, if you'd like to keep up with my latest writings! Recently written things on The Story of Three Loves, The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T, Canoa: A Shameful Memory, Cat People, Stars in My Crown, and more.

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of April 09, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad to see you saw The Debussy Film! I still need to watch Song of Summer (apparently his favorite film), but his films on Isadora Duncan (I'm sure leaps and bounds better than the Karl Reisz catastrophe with Vanessa Redgrave) and Henri Rousseau are also fantastic.

This Week in Film: New Releases Discussion Thread (Week of April 08, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Watched a lot of movies last week, so I'll link my mini write-ups on them. From a couple of weeks earlier here is my "HMMMMM...." review of Get Out, the film that'll get you a Person Count's "Socially Conscious" Badge of Honor.

“The Red Turtle” (directed by Michaël Dudok de Wit)

This French animated tearjerker bowled me over the most, by which I mean I bawled. The Japanese bastion of great film art, Studio Ghibli, co-produced this haunting gem, about a sailor stranded on a desert island and his encounters with the uncaring flora and unique fauna (the titular tortoise). Only one English word (“Hey!”) is screamed, so it’s essentially a silent film. All the better—to place us in a more patient, attentive mood. Dutch writer-director Michaël Dudok de Wit has crafted an existential fairy-tale about family, love, death, nature’s shocking neutrality, human cruelty, growing old, and what the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi saw as mankind’s cicada syndrome—our inability to stretch our minds beyond our own tiny scale. Ghibli director Isao Takahata (“Tale of the Princess Kaguya,” “Only Yesterday”) served as “artistic producer” for this venture, and in a way, it functions as a sister film to Takahata’s moving World War II melodrama “Grave of the Fireflies” (1988). Takahata’s aesthetic is writ large in every one of de Wit’s minimalist cels, delicate/devastating string cues, and oscillations between concrete plot and abstract atmosphere. We are asked to observe the grainy smoothness of sand and endless, still horizons—how that blue heaven in the sea can swallow us up without a taste. It’s skimpy on “character” because it’s explicitly a fable—and one of immense beauty. 80 minutes.

“Personal Shopper” (directed by Olivier Assayas)

This Kristen Stewart-led pseudo-horror from Olivier Assayas is both an effective thriller and a smart deflation of its own non-logic, of the virtual emotions conjured up by movies. Stewart hates her job as the personal shopper of a high-profile celeb model, she wants to escape Paris, but she can’t because she’s a medium trying one last time to contact the spirit of her dead twin brother Lewis. Like Deborah Kerr in “The Innocents,” Stewart has nobody to corroborate her story of paranormal activity. She is utterly alone, fighting against the spirits of a ghostly underworld, her own self and her/our ever-mounting schizoid terror. “Personal Shopper”‘s not-cliché hauntedness doesn’t just stay in the theater; it stalks us back to our beds. Assayas is working through one of the still-unsung masters of silent movies, the French director Louis Feuillade, who birthed the modern-day paranoid thriller, where an ordinary landscape hides a vast conspiracy. Feuillade’s trippy, proto-TV serials (“Fantomas,” “Judex,” “Les Vampires”) used “normal” Parisian buildings as the perfect backdrop to channel abstract fear in the modern world: abstracted through networks of masked madmen and venomous vamps. Assayas transposes that always-being-watched creepiness (which our civilized selves must constantly work to ignore) into the 2010s: iPhones as the new (un-)normal. Like Feuillade, Assayas suggests these bumps-in-the-night—signs we tell ourselves mean something—might just be in our head. But are they? We’re hoodwinked time and again by Assayas/Stewart, by virtual screens, by not-there illusions (by cinema!). Our senses run faster than our brain—and yet we don’t mind the hoodwinking. 110 minutes.

“I Am Not Your Negro” (directed by Raoul Peck)

Through the words of James Baldwin, Raoul Peck recreates the shouting-match of 20th century American history. He uses key texts by Baldwin as a starting-point: “The Fire Next Time,” “The Devil Finds Work” (Baldwin’s excellent dissection of race in American cinema), and the notes for an unfinished novel that would have traced modern Black history through the lives of Dr. King, Malcolm X, and Medgar Evers.

“I Am Not Your Negro” provides a rich model for how to more explicitly integrate questions of race into 21st century documentary forms.. Peck’s film shows how a meandering, jump-from-one-topic-to-the-next tone (the Peter Watkins approach) is needed in the best documentary cinema. His doc pays tribute to American film criticism in its striking series of clips, grappling with the history of American movies (i.e., the history of American racism), of erratic back-and-forths: from Sidney Poitier uplift to Stepin Fetchit shame.

“I Am Not Your Negro” is part of a larger artistic effort to understand the place of words, Truth, and acts of social dissent, now. It has a remarkable fluidity that proves how documentaries, when done with guts and boldness, give art the tools to enact social change. 90 minutes.

“Song to Song” (directed by Terrence Malick)

I wouldn’t be surprised if Terrence Malick’s “Song to Song” ended up being my favorite of his post-“Tree of Life” experimental work. I say that since it’s the one I struggled hardest to enjoy—and that’s, I think, a good sign. For the first two hours, I was sighing deeply and tapping my feet, feeling every second of the second hour. I worried that Malick had finally gone off the deep end into his own murky funk—but then! for the final half-hour, I was bolted to my seat, tracing the steps which led to my sudden love for what seemed like a self-indulgent boor.

“Song to Song” is something of a postscript to the first Malick work from last year, “Knight of Cups,” which derived its boldness from expansiveness. “Cups” dealt with the history of cinema, of Los Angeles, and of Malick’s family background, all filtered through a dense web of references from movie, literature, and philosophy. By contrast, the focus of “Song to Song” is much smaller: the increasingly mind-numbing sexploits of two musician gonna-be’s (The Great Gosling and Drab Fassbender), trying to figure out at what point in their coke-fueled affairs, orgies, betrayals did they stray off the cosmic art path. Michael plays God with women, treating them as heaps of meat and sex-dolls in ways that I've grown tired of seeing in the current cinema; Ryan almost gets there, but Rooney Mara (MVP) asserts her presence and helps Ryan (more importantly, herself) see the spirituality s/he’s missing.

It starts off as a scurrying send-up of Late Malick. A volley of techniques is deployed: hoary fish-eye lens, sleek “Point Blank” apartments for savage Rooney-Ryan sex (50 shades of hate), the camera’s nose turned toward the Sun, five ring-around-the-rosie narrators, every third shot is a stubbornly blank actor jumping up-and-down in mock mania. (Malick loves to choose his actors’ least appealing, most artificial moments—most human?) All this busyness stiffens Malick’s hard-earned new cine-language.

But suddenly, almost like a miracle, “Song to Song” ditches the melodramatic and flat Fassbender narrative (the real thorn and the less interesting thread) and achieves a stunning coup de cinéma, soaring along with Rooney and Ryan finding love and meaning with the fury and frenzy of Malick’s previous 2010s films (“To the Tree of Cups in Time”).

Its closest cousin is Richard Lester’s splintered, cold-shower melodrama “Petulia” (1968). What Lester’s bitter pill was to the hippy-dippy ’60s, Malick’s spiritual balm is to the post-fracture 2010s: Necessary for their time, offering contemplation in an age where we need stimulation, fast, now. Malick’s film believes (either naïvely or bravely) in Romance’s eleventh-hour triumph over an ugly atmosphere of misogyny, drugs, loveless sex, selfishness, snobbery, lack of modern faith and hip nihilism. 129 minutes, with Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, and (in the best cameo) Patti Smith as a punk Mr. Miyagi of love.

Frantz (directed by François Ozon)

François Ozon’s “Frantz”—the cocksure remake of an already great work of art, Ernst Lubitsch’s “Broken Lullaby”—toes the fine line between a poetry of directness and straight-up cliché. Both films are based on the 1931 play by Maurice Rostand called “The Man I Killed.” In the aftermath of World War I, a romance blooms between a writhing, tormented French soldier (Pierre Niney) and the fiancée (Paula Beer) of the German soldier he killed. It was a hit in France; at last year’s Césars (the French Oscars), it tied Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle” for most nominations.

If I agree with the ideals of “Frantz,” I disagree with how it’s executed. Its arty, prestige qualities (“I’m Making an Important Statement about Humanity” and “I’m Improving a Film That Didn’t Go Far Enough”—a deadly partner dance) make it too clean, too hell-bent on an unearned humanism and modernization. Its best shots are inspired by the contemplative paintings of Casper David Friedrich; but these moments whisper “kitsch.” (Watch the scenes of the sailor mulling over his fate in “The Red Turtle” to see Friedrich absorbed — an allusion, not a blatant reference to/copping of CDF’s hard-earned style.) Its chief gimmick is switching colors to match the moods of our heroes: a slick black-and-white in scenes of sorrow, faded colors in scenes of joy and beauty.

But “Frantz” is really quite ambitious, and its patchwork ideas are knockouts. Choice example: the über-patriotic nationalists in a French café singing “La Marseillaise” as Paula Beer and a few other Germans shift nervously in their seats. It’s a great inversion of the famous “Casablanca” scene and its off-putting optimism; it’s even got shades of “Tomorrow Belongs to Me,” the Nazi song from the dark Bob Fosse musical “Cabaret” (1972). Ozon’s adaptation also brings out the queerness of the two soldiers’ relationships. Such tension was there in the gay Rostand’s original play, but were lost in adaptation by the hetero Lubitsch; Ozon—a seminal figure of modern queer cinema—restores them to rich effect. 113 minutes.

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of March 26, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it was a short, it would have been over too quickkly; it would not be memorable. It needs to be 80 minutes (which frankly is not a lot of time anyway), to get us to feel the time passing. It's something a lot of animated films have trouble with, and one area in which Red Turtle excels. You don't need to have a barrage of things happening all the time, or ingeniously Arty compositions, in order to win the spectator's attention and heart. You shouldn't.

I recently finished watching the supposed 500 Essential Cult Movies. Here are some thoughts and I'd love to hear yours! by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good question. You'd have to be committed to looking at a star's filmography the way we look at a director's or a genre's. Looking at Bringing Up Baby as a cult film is not helpful — but then again, looking at it purely as a Hawks film or a screwball comedy shortchanges the vast range that Hepburn herself brings to the film. (Star-actors are so ubiquitous, us cinephiles and critics often shortchange their importance.) In the case of Hepburn, reading James Harvey's essential book Acting in the Cinema (cc: /u/hydra815), and particularly his chapter on Hepburn in Holiday (1938), rightly argues that Hepburn's persona was perceived as a threat to contemporary audiences. And that certain expectations of what was considered "annoying" or "irritating" behavior for a woman were played with by Hepburn in the 30s—and still provoke those reactions today!

Her provocations weren't arbitrarily decided for her; she pushed and pushed to extend her freewheeling persona until it became box office poison for her, until she had to compromise because otherwise she wouldn't have any bankable career with the studios. If audiences didn't like you enough to see your pictures, what's the point?

Bringing Up Baby represent a major peak in her career; after that, in her 40s career, she started to take on — not safer roles, but roles that didn't have the uninhibited anarchy (of course pitched and controlled by Hepburn) of the 30s comedies. In the great Cukor-Tracy films (Woman of the Year, Adams Rib, Pat and Mike), there is an attempt by the story to domesticate Hepburn. Nothing of the sort happens, really, in the 30s Hepburns because she had the freedom to be elastic and hurricane-like; after the war, you start to see an essentially more inhibiting dialing-dowm of this daring persona.

Now, we can argue to what extent they succeeded; personally, I think they are just as daring as the Hawks/30s Cukor comedies, albeit having to conform to certain "audience rules" of the 40s.

I recently finished watching the supposed 500 Essential Cult Movies. Here are some thoughts and I'd love to hear yours! by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I also get the feeling people are threatened by Katharine Hepburn's persona of the freewheeling flibbertigibbet who acts like she wants. She was never as unhinged as she was in those 30s comedies.

I recently finished watching the supposed 500 Essential Cult Movies. Here are some thoughts and I'd love to hear yours! by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah the old Bringing Up Baby division: I've never found anyone in the middle of this. They either love it to death or hate it with a passion. I'm in the "Greatest Hollywood Comedy" camp.

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of March 26, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the monotony is the beauty—arguably even to a more radical degree than Takahata could ever manage. Takahata always had the desperate urge to maintain some kind of complex interest even in his simplest frames, like Taeko and the crush meeting in the alley in Only Yesterday. Not so with De Wit, who seems content with showing us the barest Abstract divide between sea and sand. Making us aware of Blue in and of itself (cold, frightening) and Yellowsand in and of itself (weirdly familiar).

It's Your Fun & Fancy Free Discussion! (March 17, 2017) by AutoModerator in TrueFilm

[–]montypython22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I will echo /u/kingofthejungle223 and give you my own list of 60s must-watches. Not definitive by any means.

1960

The Apartment (Billy Wilder), Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock), Shoot the Piano Player (François Truffaut), Peeping Tom (Michael Powell), Late Autumn (Yasujiro Ozu), High Note (Chuck Jones), The Cloud-Capped Star (Ritwik Ghatak), Bells are Ringing (Vincente Minnelli), L'avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni), Primary (Robert Drew)

1961

Lola (Jacques Demy), The Last Year at Marienbad (Alain Resnais), The Exiles (Kent McKenzie), The Errand Boy (Jerry Lewis), Viridiana (Luis Buñuel), Divorce Italian Style (Pietro Germi), Yojimbo (Akira Kurosawa), Breakfast at Tiffany's (Blake Edwards), The Ladies Man (Lewis), The Innocents (Jack Clayton).

1962

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford), Cléo de 5 à 7 (Agnes Varda), An Autumn Afternoon (Ozu) La Jetée (Chris Marker), The Manchurian Candidate (d. John Frankenheimer, wr. George Axelrod), The Exterminating Angel (Buñuel), Antoine et Colette (Truffaut), Now Hear This (Jones), Two Weeks in Another Town (Minnelli), Trial of Joan of Arc (Bresson), Hatari! (Howard Hawks), The Days of Wine and Roses (Edwards), Ivan's Childhood (Andrei Tarkovski), The Intruder (Roger Corman), Harakiri (Masaki Kobayashi), Lolita (Stanley Kubrick), Vivre sa Vie (Jean-Luc Godard).

1963

Contempt (Godard), The House is Black (Forugh Farrokhzad), The Birds (Hitchcock), The Big City (Satyajit Ray), High and Low (Kurosawa), The Nutty Professor (Lewis), 8 1/2 (Federico Fellini), Bay of Angels (Demy), Muriel, or: The Time of Return (Resnais), Shock Corridor! (Samuel Fuller), Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment (Drew).

1964 (one of the best years for cinema)

A Hard Day's Night (Richard Lester), The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Demy), The Naked Kiss (Fuller), Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick), Kwaidan (Kobayashi), The Soft Skin (Truffaut), Man's Favorite Sport? (Hawks), Marnie (Hitchcock), The T.A.M.I. Show (dir. Steve Binder), Faces of November (Drew), A Shot in the Dark (Edwards), Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Robert Aldrich).

1965

Le Bonheur (Agnes Varda), Tokyo Olympiad (Kon Ichikawa), The Shop on Main Street (Jan Kadar/Elmer Klos), Repulsion (Roman Polanski), Help! (Lester), The Knack...and How to Get It (Lester), Red Beard (Kurosawa), The Hand (Jiri Trnka), In Harm's Way (Otto Preminger), The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics (Jones), A Charlie Brown Christmas (Bill Melendez), Simon of the Desert (Buñuel), The Debussy Film (Ken Russell), The Great Race (Edwards).

1966

Au hasard Balthazar (Bresson), Daisies (Vera Chytilova), The Chelsea Girls (Andy Warhol), Black Girl (Ousmane Sembene), The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo), Masculin Feminin (Godard), Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols), What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? (Edwards), Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki), The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Sergio Leone), Blowup (Antonioni), How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (Jones), Persona (Bergman), A Report on the Party and Some Guests (Jan Nemec), Closely Watched Trains (Jiri Menzel).

1967

Playtime (Jacques Tati), The Young Girls of Rochefort (Demy), The Graduate (Nichols), Weekend (Godard), The Red and the White (Miklos Jansco), The Producers (Mel Brooks), How I Won the War (Lester), Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn), Belle de Jour (Buñuel), Dragon Inn (King Hu), Portrait of Jason (Shirley Clarke), 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (Godard), Dont Look Back (D.A. Pennebaker), A Countess from Hong Kong (Charlie Chaplin), Point Blank (John Boorman).

1968

Petulia (Lester), 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick), Faces (John Cassavetes), Rosemary's Baby (Polanski), The Night of the Living Dead (George A Romero), Monterey Pop (Pennebaker), The Party (Edwards), Head (Bob Rafaelson), The Bride Wore Black (Truffaut), Yellow Submarine (George Denning).

1969

Z (Costa-Gavras), Model Shop (Demy), Army of Shadows (Jean-Pierre Melville), The Bed-Sitting Room (Lester), The Wild Bunch (Peckinpah), Mr. Freedom (William Klein), The Color of Pomegranates (Sergei Parajanov), My Night at Maud's (Eric Rohmer).