The Criterion Collection

[GasmaskAvenger]

I didn't realize Le Samouraï is also a Melville film.

I now got something to pick up at Barnes & Noble this July alongside The Virgin Spring.

[malakaheso]

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.

If your objection to him is that he isn't cinematic, I'd be careful who I said that in front of :-) Why isn't he very cinematic? Because he doesn't move the camera much? Because he drains his films of emotion? Because there is no obvious visceral quality to his work? Although I would dispute the last few points myself.

Bresson's 'magic' is the way he links shots together, which has been argued is the very essence of cinema and what separates it from other visual mediums like painting etc.

Man, if you think Bresson is too dry, stay the hell away from Straub-Huillet ;-)

[joy-division]

Originally Posted by 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)).

What about Dogville & Dancer in the Dark?

[theater dreamer]

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.

Yes, I bought and watched La silence de la mer because it was Melville's film, but I enjoyed it because I thought it was a fascinating, intimate character study of what it was like to live in occupied France. Being an American born some 25 plus years after the end of World War II, we have been led to believe that all German officers were monsters like Hitler, that the vast majority of Germans believed as the Führer did. Certainly films that have come after La silence de la mer have worked to change this historical narrative, but this was one of the first films to humanize a German officer. Melville's debut led to some fascinating dinnertime conversation the following weekend when I went home to see my family.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. If you don't like his work, fine. I just happen to completely disagree with you. I

[Abdrewes]

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.

Hey JW. By cinematic, what do you mean? Have you seen Au Hasard Balthasar or L'Argent? I find those very cinematic in the sense that they force a perspective that might not otherwise work in another medium. In one you see the world pass by through the eyes of a donkey, the other through the eye of a counterfeit bill.

But if you mean not cinematic in terms of his use of non-actors, or the way he manipulates images and sound, I disagree strongly. The former is a choice that may alienate some, but it is non-theatrical not non-cinematic or non-imagistic. It is his use of non actors that actually freed his eye to explore objects and ideas that interested him (for example, hands). That sounds cinematic to me.

If your gripe is how his narratives are constructed, what defines a cinematically told story anyway? Adherence to convention?

[Ctzalman]

Originally Posted by jw007

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.

i'll chime in with Abdrewes. keep in mind the period of bresson's work. bresson thought that too many movies were just stage adaptations committed to film. highly emotive, exaggerated acting, with a a fairly simple presentation of the actions/mise-en-scène. i find it ironic to say that bresson is not 'cinematic.' check out his book, 'notes on the cinematographer' if you want to get a better understanding of his ideas regarding cinema. he was striving to establish a new language in film where the actors took a back seat to structure of the film itself.

while the acting in his films is often described as wooden, i don't see how you cannot find an emotional depth to his films. most have underlying themes of responsibility, redemption and salvation. another thing: personally, i think (more irony) the dardenne brothers are the cinematic heirs of bresson. i can find marked similarities between mouchette/rosetta and pickpocket/l'enfant.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Ctzalman

while the acting in his films is often described as wooden, i don't see how you cannot find an emotional depth to his films. most have underlying themes of responsibility, redemption and salvation. another thing: personally, i think (more irony) the dardenne brothers are the cinematic heirs of bresson. i can find marked similarities between mouchette/rosetta and pickpocket/l'enfant.

I was going to point that out too, but there are enough differences for me to leave it alone, especially since I find the Dardenne's to be rather middling, which merely reinforces, for at me at least, that the differences probably outweigh the similarities in the overall analysis.

[captainron_howdy]

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.

Not sure how old you are, but wait until you get into your early 30s and give Bresson another chance. He quickly became one of my favorite filmmakers of all time. I tried watching his films when I was in my teens & early 20s and I didn't connect very well with them. For some reason now, I can't get enough of his work and feel he's one of the best Directors ever.

Oh, btw I friggin hate Godard.....sue me.

[ravenus]

My taste in films is mostly conventional. I tried watching Pickpocket once but was immensely bored by it.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Yes, I bought and watched La silence de la mer because it was Melville's film, but I enjoyed it because I thought it was a fascinating, intimate character study of what it was like to live in occupied France. Being an American born some 25 plus years after the end of World War II, we have been led to believe that all German officers were monsters like Hitler, that the vast majority of Germans believed as the Führer did. Certainly films that have come after La silence de la mer have worked to change this historical narrative, but this was one of the first films to humanize a German officer. Melville's debut led to some fascinating dinnertime conversation the following weekend when I went home to see my family.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. If you don't like his work, fine. I just happen to completely disagree with you. I

Once the film makes the point in the first 20 minutes or so, the entire rest of the film is boring and redundant. I fail to see how that one point being made repeatedly is enough substance for a feature length film. No offense to your point or anything, but if you don't understand that there are good people in every nation or political circumstance already, then I don't know what to tell you. This isn't a deep or philosophical statement. And again, this same point had already been made far better, far earlier, in The Grand Illusion.

[MifuneFan]

lol

[SammyJankis]

Oof, this thread.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by 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)).

Originally Posted by joy-division

What about Dogville & Dancer in the Dark?

Be sure to add Breaking the Waves to your watchlist while you're at it.

I consider myself a casual Trier fan, but I don't necessarily love all his works (Melancholia, I couldn't stand). I'm not even sure why, but I've watched BTW one more than any other Criterion film.

However, Dancer is the Dark is probably the one Trier film that moved me the most.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Be sure to add Breaking the Waves to your watchlist while you're at it.

I consider myself a casual Trier fan, but I don't necessarily love all his works (Melancholia, I couldn't stand). I'm not even sure why, but I've watched BTW one more than any other Criterion film.

However, Dancer is the Dark is probably the one Trier film that moved me the most.

I just watched Breaking the Waves for the second time last night. I bought it and initially viewed the film years ago and I recall just how devastating it was. Not sure I can re-watch it more than a few times at this point now. Amazingly heartwrenching story.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Hey JW. By cinematic, what do you mean? Have you seen Au Hasard Balthasar or L'Argent? I find those very cinematic in the sense that they force a perspective that might not otherwise work in another medium. In one you see the world pass by through the eyes of a donkey, the other through the eye of a counterfeit bill.

But if you mean not cinematic in terms of his use of non-actors, or the way he manipulates images and sound, I disagree strongly. The former is a choice that may alienate some, but it is non-theatrical not non-cinematic or non-imagistic. It is his use of non actors that actually freed his eye to explore objects and ideas that interested him (for example, hands). That sounds cinematic to me.

If your gripe is how his narratives are constructed, what defines a cinematically told story anyway? Adherence to convention?

I own the Criterion DVD of Au Hasard Balthasar and watched it many years ago. I own 4 Robert Bresson films: Au Hasard Balthasar, Pickpocket, Mouchette, and A Man Escaped. All of which I've seen one time through each. I guess you can say its a matter of his work being "emotionally polarizing" and alienating to me. "Cinematic" is a relative term, so I prob. shouldn't have used this as it can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by captainron_howdy

Not sure how old you are, but wait until you get into your early 30s and give Bresson another chance. He quickly became one of my favorite filmmakers of all time. I tried watching his films when I was in my teens & early 20s and I didn't connect very well with them. For some reason now, I can't get enough of his work and feel he's one of the best Directors ever.

Oh, btw I friggin hate Godard.....sue me.

I'm turning 40 this year. How old are you?

I detest Godard's films myself, you're not the only one!

[jlk5844]

I watched my first Bresson on Saturday night: A Man Escaped. I had heard of it when Criterion released it on Blu-ray, but never thought to seek it out until I happened to see a brief clip of it in a YouTube video a little while ago (maybe a CineFix one?), and was instantly drawn to the film. The way it was shot had me hooked on seeing it, and who doesn't love a good prison escape drama? I've been familiarizing myself with Bresson's filmography for awhile and realized there were actually a couple films of his I've been wanting to see (Au Hasard Balthazar, L'Argent). This one was immediately accessible as a DVR recording off of TCM and seemed like a good place to start.

I loved it. It is very different from most films for reasons that have been outlined above concerning Bresson's minimalist methods. It doesn't indulge in traditional facets of cinematic storytelling like plot or acting; André Devigny's tale is stripped down to its most essential elements. It's not something that will work for everyone, but I think it's a pretty cool, admirable notion (though Bresson seems a little elitist about it, I like variety and wouldn't want every movie to be this way). Even the title is as simple as can be, and its past tense suggests a mythic quality that goes along with the subtle spiritual force at work in the protagonist Fontaine's mission. The rarely mentioned subtitle The Wind Bloweth Where It Listeth is clearer about the fatalism contained within the drama.

So much attention is paid to the practical minutiae and precision of Fontaine's plan for escape with laser-like focus that it's easy to become absorbed in the suspense of the situation without it ever feeling overly calculated or cheap. Bresson's spareness elevates the themes and ideas in a familiar premise. The quiet despair of Fontaine's plight, the desperation and required discipline to survive: all evident in his thought process, his meticulous actions, and his exchanges with other prisoners. This is visual poetry; pure cinema; a true masterpiece that I'm sure will become richer with more viewings. I'm excited to have stumbled upon another master filmmaker, one whose work I cannot wait to explore further.

The Blu-ray shot up to at least my top five titles to pick up during the B&N sale. This is a must for the collection, eager to check out the extras. I'll grab the other two films I mentioned too (might wait for a BD-only edition of Pickpocket). Love the covers for these.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by 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)).

Can Antichrist get some love up in here?

[CQD84]

I haven't visited this thread in a few days. Judging from the last few posts, I feel like I've been away on vacation only to come home to discover my house is on fire.

[javy]

Originally Posted by Arawn

Can Antichrist get some love up in here?

Dude, Antichrist is one of the best films ever made. Psychological dramatic horror about wicked evil things. This is a film that I would dream about being made if it wasn't so. Makes a nice companion piece with The Witch.

I know we're all different but I'm a little shocked that someone couldn't like The Red Circle.