The Criterion Collection

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I just started reading this, it looks promising:

In Dreams and Imagination: Surrealist Values in Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire: http://sensesofcinema.com/2013/featu...inland-empire/

You might hate me for life abdrewes, but I think that Mulholland Dr is one of the worst examples of surrealism. Surrealism is another overused/inappropriately used term, just like existentialism. There is a whole French movement, a group of artists from 1920s that started the surrealist movement.

Don't get me wrong The movie is pretty good. It uses some "dream-like" (I always like that term better, because it does not relate to the surrealist movement by Breton) techniques. He uses these technique to make the movie more enigmatic, and give it an interesting non-linear story. Besides the technical dream-like aspects, I cannot find anymore depth in the film; where in a true surrealist film the depth is abysmal.

Any movie by Bunuel or Jodorowsky are excellent examples of surrealism, there are so many layers to their film that it becomes a spiritual experience. They do not shy away from any topic: religious symbolism, cruelty, violence, sexuality, etc.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Fellini, I agree with what your first statement, but as far as Solaris is concerned, I don't feel the film was poorly edited. Other than the driving scene (which I've levied a defense for) which scenes do you feel were poorly edited?

And Yes, Andrei Rublev is also great.

I plan to rewatched the film (Solaris) hopefully this month, it's been ten years since I last saw it. It really made me avoid Tarkovsky for ten years; now within the last month I have seen three of his films (I really enjoyed all of them). In my opinion Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev are masterpieces.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I hope your just talking about Casualties of War and Raising Caine. Other than those, he has an awesome filmography.

I love some of his work, but for me he practically defines "mixed bag".

I'm having a hard time thinking of any director who reaches such heights and such depths -- sometimes in the same film!

But I did like Casualties of War and Raising Cain -- the latter is a bit of a curiosity. Every time I see it my opinion shifts rather dramatically.

And I'm still having a hard time believing that anyone would willingly attempt to remake a movie like Carrie.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You might hate me for life abdrewes, but I think that Mulholland Dr is one of the worst examples of surrealism. Surrealism is another overused/inappropriately used term, just like existentialism. There is a whole French movement, a group of artists from 1920s that started the surrealist movement.

Don't get me wrong The movie is pretty good. It uses some "dream-like" (I always like that term better, because it does not relate to the surrealist movement by Breton) techniques. He uses these technique to make the movie more enigmatic, and give it an interesting non-linear story. Besides the technical dream-like aspects, I cannot find anymore depth in the film; where in a true surrealist film the depth is abysmal.

Any movie by Bunuel or Jodorowsky are excellent examples of surrealism, there are so many layers to their film that it becomes a spiritual experience. They do not shy away from any topic: religious symbolism, cruelty, violence, sexuality, etc.

What do you mean by "the depth is abysmal?' (I'm guessing as in a deep abyss?, if so Mulholland Drive certainly qualifies)

I haven't read the entire article yet (I had to take off for school) so I cant comment on the article's merits.

I would agree that Bunuel and Jodorowski are firmer textbook examples of surrealism. (the latter of which had ties to Surrealist painters like Dali, himself)

As for the film itself, there is a tremendous amount of depth in the film (its more than a puzzle-piece). It offers one of the most pained portraits of unrequited love I've ever seen. The way I interpret which part is a "dream" (not the best terminology) only makes the first act all the more heartbreaking. In short, its a film that never loses it's potency, even after you "figure it out."

If your definition of surrealism has to do with imagery and not politics, wouldn't Tony Scott's Domino be the "most surrealist" film of the past decade? It was the most radical departure from classical film form in recent memory (isn't one crucial definition of surrealism that it has to be revolutionary?)

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

What do you mean by "the depth is abysmal?'

I haven't read the entire article yet (I had to take off for school) so I cant comment on the article's merits.

I would agree that Bunuel and Jodorowski are firmer textbook examples of surrealism. (the latter of which had ties to Surrealist painters like Dali, himself)

As for the film itself, there is a tremendous amount of depth in the film (its more than a puzzle-piece). It offers one of the most pained portraits of unrequited love I've ever seen. The way I interpret which part is a "dream" (not the best terminology) only makes the first act all the more heartbreaking. In short, its a film that never loses it's potency, even after you "figure it out."

I did not read the article, but the title alluded to Lynch's movies being truly surrealist.

The depth of a film does not make a film any better or worse than other films. The Third Man, for example, does not have the depth of Pickpocket, but it is a fantastic film.

Lynch has a brilliant technical style that I enjoy. But if I had to give a directors name as true surrealist, it would be Bunuel and Jodorowsky. They were both friends of Breton.

I will plan to read the article latter on.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I did not read the article, but the title alluded to Lynch's movies being truly surrealist.

The depth of a film does not make a film any better or worse than other films. The Third Man, for example, does not have the depth of Pickpocket, but it is a fantastic film.

Lynch has a brilliant technical style that I enjoy. But if I had to give a directors name as true surrealist, it would be Bunuel and Jodorowsky. Which were both friends of Breton.

(I made a few modifications to my previous post)

It seems as if you are conflating "deep films" and those that fall under the strict definition of surrealist. How did Bresson and Carole Reed enter the conversation?

For one: I don't think you can argue any form of surrealism still exists as a movement (such as Breton defined it), if it does, it exists in an entirely different, subversive form. "Neo-post-surrealism???"

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

If nothing is happening for me, nothing is happening for me. I am not going to search what the director was hoping to tell me, he just failed to reach me period. I can still call it one of the worst movie ever made, does not change anything, it still won the Jury Prize at Cannes as well as five Ceasars.

Pretty much agreed with this. It is far more incumbent upon the artist to portray his vision to the audience. He doesn't need to spoonfeed but if he fails to do so in a focused and delineated manner (based on the film) then yes, it is not up for you to search out what he was trying to say. It shouldn't be a standardized test to figure out 'what does this mean?'

Not everything speaks to everybody, and the world does go round and round.

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You might hate me for life abdrewes, but I think that Mulholland Dr is one of the worst examples of surrealism. Surrealism is another overused/inappropriately used term, just like existentialism. There is a whole French movement, a group of artists from 1920s that started the surrealist movement.

Don't get me wrong The movie is pretty good. It uses some "dream-like" (I always like that term better, because it does not relate to the surrealist movement by Breton) techniques. He uses these technique to make the movie more enigmatic, and give it an interesting non-linear story. Besides the technical dream-like aspects, I cannot find anymore depth in the film; where in a true surrealist film the depth is abysmal.

Any movie by Bunuel or Jodorowsky are excellent examples of surrealism, there are so many layers to their film that it becomes a spiritual experience. They do not shy away from any topic: religious symbolism, cruelty, violence, sexuality, etc.

I've seen you bring up this point before re: Mulholland Drive...what's so un-surreal about it (might I ask)? Just because it doesn't conform to the strictest textbook definition(s) of Surrealism - or that Lynch may not be in the same camp as Bunuel and co. in terms of his formal technique on that front - does not preclude Mulholland Drive from utilizing surrealism in its narrative. Which it does quite effectively, I might add, in presenting a picture that is at once a bitter, sardonic look at the Hollywood Dream and an equally devastating portrait of a doomed relationship.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

(I made a few modifications to my previous post)

It seems as if you are conflating "deep films" and those that fall under the strict definition of surrealist. How did Bresson and Carole Reed enter the conversation?

For one: I don't think you can argue any form of surrealism still exists as a movement (such as Breton defined it), if it does, it exists in an entirely different, subversive form. "Neo-post-surrealism???"

I brought up Carol Reed as an example of excellent technical film making vs Robert Bresson's simplistic (although fantastic editing) highly spiritual film making.

Lynch has a great technical way of film making, great sense of composition.

[Show spoiler]After you understand that the first part is a fantasy/dream, an obsession, it loses it's mystery and becomes a passion crime story.

Now try to explain El Topo or Holy Mountain, there symbols all of the place. It is entirely a whole new experience, every time you watch it.

Well...you draw more people to read your article if you mention Lynch and specifically Mulholland Dr (by experience, not a lot of people know about Eraserhead, which is more surreal) than Jodorowsky or Bunuel.

[bruceames]

My top 10 list:

Five Easy Pieces
The Last Picture Show
Chungking Express
Harakiri
Letter Never Sent
Revanche
Samurai Trilogy
Three Colors Blue
Walkabout
Wild Strawberries (DVD)

It will change though since I still have quite a few Criterions that I haven't watched yet.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

I've seen you bring up this point before re: Mulholland Drive...what's so un-surreal about it? Just because it doesn't conform to the strictest textbook definition(s) of Surrealism - or that Lynch may not be in the same camp as Bunuel and co. in terms of his formal technique on that front - does not preclude Mulholland Drive from utilizing surrealism in its narrative. Which it does quite effectively, I might add, in presenting a picture that is at once a bitter, sardonic look at the Hollywood Dream and an equally devastating portrait of a doomed relationship.

My argument is not against the film using dream-like techniques, but the idea by some that it is exemplary surrealist film. They are missing the point by a long stretch

[Abdrewes]

Mulholland Drivedoesn't lose any of its mystery. Considering the first half is pure refracted wish fulfillment, knowing what will befall/has befallen Diane later only makes the first two thirds all the more resonant.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

My argument is not against the film using dream-like techniques, but the idea by some that it is exemplary surrealist film.

You really need to clarify your argument, because much like "existentialism," "surrealism" is a very big net. Are you referring to the images (I think that's where your coming from), the politics? I think the last several posts have been too vague.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

My argument is not against the film using dream-like techniques, but the idea by some that it is exemplary surrealist film.

Okay, I thought you've been saying that the film didn't have surreal elements at all. Don't really see how that could be argued.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

You really need to clarify your argument, because much like "existentialism," "surrealism" is a very big net. Are you referring to the images (I think that's where your coming from), the politics? I think the last several posts have been too vague.

This also answers cinemach question.

The surrealism I am referring to is Breton's concept. I briefly read the article now that Abdrewes posted by Michel Pattison. It really hits the high points of surrealism. The authors ideas about surrealism I completely agree, and you will understand what I mean. It is still a summary but it is really good.

Really good article, anyone interested in understanding surrealism should give this article a chance.

Thanks for posting the article, Abdrewes. Maybe this will bring some clarity to the concept.

[zgritz]

Didn't see this posted but I'm at Costco and they have a couple of criterion blurays for 19.99.
Saw the following:
Rosemary's baby
Anatomy of a murder
The Game
Man who knew to much

[The Great Owl]

I assigned heads to The Double Life of Veronique Blu-ray and tails to the Sweet Smell of Success Blu-ray, then flipped the coin three times. It came up tails all three times.

So, it looks as though I'll be using my latest Barnes & Noble coupon to purchase Sweet Smell of Success this afternoon on the way home.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

This also answers cinemach question.

The surrealism I am referring to is Breton's concept. I briefly read the article now that Abdrewes posted by Michel Pattison. It really hits the high points of surrealism. The authors ideas about surrealism I completely agree, and you will understand what I mean. It is still a summary but it is really good.

Really good article, anyone interested in understanding surrealism should give this article a chance.

Thanks for posting the article, Abdrewes. Maybe this will bring some clarity to the concept.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I assigned heads to The Double Life of Veronique Blu-ray and tails to the Sweet Smell of Success Blu-ray, then flipped the coin three times. It came up tails all three times.

So, it looks as though I'll be using my latest Barnes & Noble coupon to purchase Sweet Smell of Success this afternoon on the way home.

I've got a 15% coupon I don't plan to use.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I've got a 15% coupon I don't plan to use.

Mine is a 20%, but I'm not sure if multiple coupons can be used in conjunction.

Sweet Smell of Success will be a good one to buy in person, because I want to make sure that the digipak is undamaged.

[Scottie]

For fans of Lars von Trier, here is the poster for his new movie Nymphomaniac.

[Visco.]

Originally Posted by iScottie

For fans of Lars von Trier, here is the poster for his new movie Nymphomaniac.

I think I know what he's trying to get us to see there..

I don't know whether or not to be excited about this movie or not. Hopefully he shoots it in the same style as Melancholia.