The Criterion Collection

[mja345]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find to be so overrated about Melville? For example, what do you specifically dislike about films like "Le Cercle Rouge", "Le Doulos", "Le Samourai", etc.?

[peruguy]

I normally don't comment much on reviews because, you know, viva la difference. But I read one today (5-7-18) here at B-R.com for the Criterion release of TOM JONES. One of my faves btw, that I have watched multiple times on TCM until Criterion released a deluxe 2 disc edition that I have been wanting for, like... FOREVER
Some dude named Dr. (of what? Dr. of films?) Svet Atanasov slammed this classic and Tony Richardson pretty hard. WTH? I think about 40% of the output of film companies WORLDWIDE are of the romantic / comedy variety, and honestly, most of them SUCK big time. The baloney sandwich of the industry for sure.
The less than stellar reviews of TOM JONES discs on places like Amazon have to do with picture quality and Criterion has finally taken care of that.
Anyway, just my rant concerning a... questionable knowledge of that particular genre by the good Doctor
"You might want to rent before you buy." Good f***ing grief.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by mja345

Just out of curiosity, what do you find to be so overrated about Melville? For example, what do you specifically dislike about films like "Le Cercle Rouge", "Le Doulos", "Le Samourai", etc.?

From Letterboxd on Le Cercle Rouge:

Another Melville and another disappointment. The visual style here is entirely drab and it seems lighting was hardly even thought of. This is 70's naturalism taken to unbearable extremes. The story is a by-the-numbers crime/heist film where every character is unsympathetic and bland. In Le Samourai, Delon's lack of dialogue and outward drama seemed to match the tone of the picture, but here it just seems tossed in to achieve a sense of "cool" this film doesn't have. The tired trope of characters meeting by accident and events coming full circle randomly is an element I always despise, and the film acknowledging it in the opening credits didn't lessen my boredom of it. By the time the end came, I didn't care and was glad for it to be over.

La Silence De La Mer:

This is a pretty awful start to Melville's career. The narration which tells us everything we can clearly see, the script which is basically endless French and German clichés (the French are artistic and the Germans are brutes etc.), and the piled on sentimentality which isn't done with any kind of subtlety or restraint. This is The Grand Illusion stripped of all mystery and depth. Still, this is somehow considered a great film by most, and I can only assume it's because of the director attached. Skip this and move on to his later works.

Didn't write anything on Le Samourai. Didn't hate it but was underwhelmed. I just think Melville doesn't really know how to tell a story so he just cloaks his lack of filmmaking acumen with minimalism.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by peruguy

I normally don't comment much on reviews because, you know, viva la difference. But I read one today (5-7-18) here at B-R.com for the Criterion release of TOM JONES. One of my faves btw, that I have watched multiple times on TCM until Criterion released a deluxe 2 disc edition that I have been wanting for, like... FOREVER
Some dude named Dr. (of what? Dr. of films?) Svet Atanasov slammed this classic and Tony Richardson pretty hard. WTH? I think about 40% of the output of film companies WORLDWIDE are of the romantic / comedy variety, and honestly, most of them SUCK big time. The baloney sandwich of the industry for sure.
The less than stellar reviews of TOM JONES discs on places like Amazon have to do with picture quality and Criterion has finally taken care of that.
Anyway, just my rant concerning a... questionable knowledge of that particular genre by the good Doctor
"You might want to rent before you buy." Good f***ing grief.

"I can't handle opinions that differ from my own"

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

From Letterboxd on Le Cercle Rouge:

Another Melville and another disappointment. The visual style here is entirely drab and it seems lighting was hardly even thought of. This is 70's naturalism taken to unbearable extremes. The story is a by-the-numbers crime/heist film where every character is unsympathetic and bland. In Le Samourai, Delon's lack of dialogue and outward drama seemed to match the tone of the picture, but here it just seems tossed in to achieve a sense of "cool" this film doesn't have. The tired trope of characters meeting by accident and events coming full circle randomly is an element I always despise, and the film acknowledging it in the opening credits didn't lessen my boredom of it. By the time the end came, I didn't care and was glad for it to be over.

La Silence De La Mer:

This is a pretty awful start to Melville's career. The narration which tells us everything we can clearly see, the script which is basically endless French and German clichés (the French are artistic and the Germans are brutes etc.), and the piled on sentimentality which isn't done with any kind of subtlety or restraint. This is The Grand Illusion stripped of all mystery and depth. Still, this is somehow considered a great film by most, and I can only assume it's because of the director attached. Skip this and move on to his later works.

Didn't write anything on Le Samourai. Didn't hate it but was underwhelmed. I just think Melville doesn't really know how to tell a story so he just cloaks his lack of filmmaking acumen with minimalism.

I respect that man. Hey, we all have acclaimed directors we are underwhelmed by.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Leon Morin, Priest:

The primary flaw here is that it just isn't very cinematic at any point. I'm not even sure how interesting this would be as a play. A woman and a young, attractive priest dance around low-level philosophy for two hours. That's the movie. There is some French resistance stuff but there isn't enough to amount to anything other than window dressing. Apparently Melville's original cut was three hours and contained much more of this element. The love story isn't much better and doesn't amount to anything satisfying for the audience. Not all films have to have a happy ending, but there was something deeply anti-climactic about how the relationship we just invested two hours into ends here.

[Rich Pure Doom]

I'm not just trying to be contrarian or anything. I generally enjoy MOST acclaimed directors, but I just don't see the fuss here.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

I just think Melville doesn't really know how to tell a story so he just cloaks his lack of filmmaking acumen with minimalism.

This comment is exactly how I feel about Ti West as a filmmaker.

That said, I disagree with your thoughts on Le Cercle Rouge.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

I think all Melville aside from Army of Shadows is third tier. La silence De La Mer wouldn't even be a blip on anyone's radar if it didn't have his name attached. Talk about hammering home a banal "we are all human beings" message for 90 minutes ripe with terribly obvious narration and droll characterizations. Seriously, Melville is one of the most overrated directors in history. Not trying to start a huge flame war, but it's just one man's opinion.

While I wouldn't go that far, I think he's overrated too. His visual sense typically takes the backseat to everything else (except for maybe Le Samorai, but it's been a while since Ive seen it). I'd take any french new wave director over him. Even Alain Robbe-Grillet if he counts.

(I'll take House of the Devil over any Melville , Gasmask. Let's fight!)

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

While I wouldn't go that far, I think he's overrated too. His visual sense typically takes the backseat to everything else (except for maybe Le Samorai, but it's been a while since Ive seen it). I'd take any french new wave director over him. Even Alain Robbe-Grillet if he counts.

(I'll take House of the Devil over any Melville , Gasmask. Let's fight!)

I've always thought that Godard is the French New Wave director whose visual sense and style sort of towered over the actual story (and I'm a big Godard fan), if that's what you're speaking of. That's certainly the case with his early films. I mean, Godard almost intentionally thumbed his nose at the traditional notion of plot.

Films like "Bob le Flambeur", "Le Doulos", "Le Deuxieme Souffle", "Army of Shadows" are fairly plot-heavy IMO. While I certainly understand that everyone has directors they don't love, the main criticism I can think of Melville's films is that they're too detached, not necessarily lacking in story. The one Melville film where the style, the "cool" factor overrides everything else is certainly "Le Samourai", as great as it is.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by mja345

I've always thought that Godard is the French New Wave director whose visual sense and style sort of towered over the actual story (and I'm a big Godard fan), if that's what you're speaking of. That's certainly the case with his early films. I mean, Godard almost intentionally thumbed his nose at the traditional notion of plot.

Films like "Bob le Flambeur", "Le Doulos", "Le Deuxieme Souffle", "Army of Shadows" are fairly plot-heavy IMO. While I certainly understand that everyone has directors they don't love, the main criticism I can think of Melville's films is that they're too detached, not necessarily lacking in story. The one Melville film where the style, the "cool" factor overrides everything else is certainly "Le Samourai", as great as it is.

I'm no plot guy, but even I find JLG's later (post-60s) films super alienating. For me, Godard definitely hit the right mix in the late sixties.

I actually like Melville much more as a writer than as a director. There is a detachment to most of his films, but I think it simply has to do with him consistently choosing the most boring angles to film from. The outlier is Le Samourai for sure. Each shot seems much more considered than anything he had previously done.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm no plot guy, but even I find JLG's later (post-60s) films super alienating. For me, Godard definitely hit the right mix in the late sixties.

I actually like Melville much more as a writer than as a director. There is a detachment to most of his films, but I think it simply has to do with him consistently choosing the most boring angles to film from. The outlier is Le Samourai for sure. Each shot seems much more considered than anything he had previously done.

I misread your post a bit (long day at work) and read it as everything takes a backseat to his visual sense. I would agree that Melville was perhaps not the most visually inventive director. I think he and Godard are interesting to compare in that sometimes one's strengths are the other's weaknesses, and vice versa.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by mja345

I misread your post a bit (long day at work) and read it as everything takes a backseat to his visual sense. I would agree that Melville was perhaps not the most visually inventive director. I think he and Godard are interesting to compare in that sometimes one's strengths are the other's weaknesses, and vice versa.

I can't comment on that last statement just yet. I've seen all his 60's stuff, but only five from the 70s onwards. I recall Ignatiy Vishnevetsky commenting something to the effect that it wasn't until later in his career where Godard actually took ideas he laid in his 60's films somewhere.

It's a narrative that seems to make sense, but I need to really dig in and find out for myself.

But strictly based on the stuff I've seen, maybe. Maybe early Godard would've benefitted from a strong writer like Melville (I wouldn't have let Melville alter a single word or frame on Weekend, Two or Three Things I Know About Her, Masculin Feminin, etc tho).

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

This comment is exactly how I feel about Ti West as a filmmaker.

That said, I disagree with your thoughts on Le Cercle Rouge.

Surely the real problem with Ti West is that he doesn't have an original bone in his body? That he is just a collage film maker and nothing more?

Nobody really cares about Ti West other than hardcore horror fanboys. He is totally irrelevant.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

I'm not just trying to be contrarian or anything. I generally enjoy MOST acclaimed directors, but I just don't see the fuss here.

It happens. Occasionally the cinematic virtues of some directors are not apparent on the first few viewings--that happened to me with Renoir and Bresson, among others--but sometimes no matter how hard you try, you just don't connect with their style for whatever reason. It could be their pacing, framing, use of color, editing style (i.e shot rhythm), the way they direct actors etc. There are so many different variables to consider and it's often difficult to know exactly which one is responsible for disengagement.

In the end, you just have to give them an honest chance and go in with an open mind, but eventually you need to make a decision about whether to pursue further (i.e watch more films). At that point you can't continue keeping an 'open mind' forever, so to speak, you have to move on etc. Or maybe you can return to their work later, as I've done with several directors.

I must admit that I'm on the fence about Melville.

[jw007]

I know you're all talking about Melville, but am I the only person in this forum who can't get into Robert Bresson? I admire his work but the films aren't very cinematic either. Please go ahead and disagree now.

[812crew]

Personally, I love it when people state their opinion when it goes against the common consensus. So feel free to keep speaking your mind, Rich Pure Doom.I really dislike it when forums turn into hyperbolic praise for every classic movie, simply because it's regarded as a classic. I like Melville more than you, but I did trade away my copies of Le Silence de la Mer and Leon Morin, because I didn't think they were all that amazing (and I personally feel like Le Samourai's a bit overrated, especially on this forum).
And yes, jw007, I don't like Bresson either (although I wouldn't say he's not cinematic. He's probably more cinematic than most. He just doesn't care much about emotional connectivity, something that I gravitate toward).
But hey, we all have our opinions. I love Bergman and Antonioni and Malick and Tarkovsky, but I totally understand it when people rag on those guys too.
Point is, even with the greats, film is subjective. And that's the most fun part of it all. People shouldn't feel like they're starting a "flame war" just because they don't like a movie.

[StarDestroyer52]

Originally Posted by jw007

I know you're all talking about Melville, but am I the only person in this forum who can't get into Robert Bresson? I admire his work but the films aren't very cinematic either. Please go ahead and disagree now.

I liked A Man Escaped and The Trial of Joan of Arc, though that is the extent of the Bresson films I've seen. While Joan of Arc is nowhere near Dreyer's I still liked it a lot. I'm surprised Bresson's Joan of Arc is not available on home video

[jw007]

Originally Posted by 812crew

And yes, jw007, I don't like Bresson either (although I wouldn't say he's not cinematic. He's probably more cinematic than most. He just doesn't care much about emotional connectivity, something that I gravitate toward).

YES! You hit it on the head. That's one of the primary reasons I love films, because of the emotional reaction I gain. When a director such as Bresson intentionally avoided any semblance or residue of emotional connection, it turned me off greatly. I gave most of his films a chance, but he's the opposite of a Terrence Malick or Jean-Pierre Dardenne or Martin Scorsese in terms of emotional connectivity.

[jw007]

Meanwhile, one director I've come to loathe (Lars von Trier) I am giving another shot lately. I just finished watching Nymphomaniac Volume I and Nymphomaniac Volume II the last 2 nights (part of the Depression trilogy) and now want to investigate his early trilogy called the Europa trilogy (The Element of Crime (1984), Epidemic (1987), and Europa (1991)).