The Criterion Collection

[octagon]

I've got twenty minutes while my rice steams and my haddock fillets thaw...what does 'essential' even mean?

I'm assuming you don't mean it in that generic 'movies absolutely everyone should own' sense but oddly enough that's one of the only ways it makes sense.

It's hard to think of any artist whose contributions were so unique that a study of that meduim would be fatally flawed without him/her and it's really hard with film.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's hard to think of any artist whose contributions were so unique that a study of that meduim would be fatally flawed without him/her and it's really hard with film.

You really think that? It can also be the "inventor", the "first to do something" as well, not just be unique. Essential to film history to me is not "Must see" like you said, that sounds like a critic's list. To me, "essential" is something that is a "building block", or an importance to the next. This person was essential to filmmaking. Sure, someone later could of came and did what one left his mark doing, but it doesn't change that someone like Georges Méliès will always be "essential" to film storytelling and experimenting with imaginary. Then the Soviet directors I named like Dovzhenko was "essential" to camera technique and not just propaganda (which also is important to history).

So yes, I do think 1 artist's contributions to film were unique "at the time" that it should be considered important for the next person as a stepping stone. Hence, Essential.

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

So yes, I do think 1 artist's contributions to film were unique "at the time" that it should be considered important for the next person as a stepping stone. Hence, Essential.

I think Enter the Void will be looked at as important film in terms of Cinematography in the coming years

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

I'd consider myself part of the younger generation (being 23), and I totally agree. While I love foreign, black & white, and pre-1970's films...the girl I've recently starting hanging out with refuses to watch any of them with me. She doesn't want to have to "read the movie" with subtitles. So frustrating that she won't even try to watch one with me.

Here you go....

[Show spoiler]www.match.com

On a serious note:
I don't think anyone should tell anyone else what they should, and should not 'enjoy'

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

You really think that? It can also be the "inventor", the "first to do something" as well, not just be unique. Essential to film history to me is not "Must see" like you said, that sounds like a critic's list. To me, "essential" is something that is a "building block", or an importance to the next. This person was essential to filmmaking. Sure, someone later could of came and did what one left his mark doing, but it doesn't change that someone like Georges Méliès will always be "essential" to film storytelling and experimenting with imaginary. Then the Soviet directors I named like Dovzhenko was "essential" to camera technique and not just propaganda (which also is important to history).

So yes, I do think 1 artist's contributions to film were unique "at the time" that it should be considered important for the next person as a stepping stone. Hence, Essential.

It's fine to have your opinions on what constitutes a significant contribution to film history. I just made that comment because you came across as pretty arrogant. Maybe that's just your writing style. And I don't see how you aren't including Griffith if you are talking "building blocks".

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by buffetfroid

It's fine to have your opinions on what constitutes a significant contribution to film history. I just made that comment because you came across as pretty arrogant. Maybe that's just your writing style. And I don't see how you aren't including Griffith if you are talking "building blocks".

I added Griffith down at the bottom list where I put Lang, etc.

Sorry if I was, I was replying to a joke about that girl going to film school, so I wasn't like directing my post towards anybody here. It's just what I would think is essential (excluding the obvious which is the lack of South American and African films that can be seen right now.) The South American films I have seen, are great and some favs of mine, but if I was to show someone the timeline of filmmaking in my opinion, it's my list of Georges Méliès to Griffith to Sergei Eisenstein/Aleksandr Dovzhenko to René Clair/Kenji Mizoguchi and so on.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by stobbart

I think Enter the Void will be looked at as important film in terms of Cinematography in the coming years

I think Noe's oeuvre will be remembered for his technical prowess rather than any sort of insightful philosophy. This is coming from a huge fan of Enter the Void.

[jacobsever]

Just watched Charade for the first time, and loved every second of it. The dialogue was so witty and laugh out loud funny. Audrey looked stunning, I was born 60 years too late.

For some reason, my favorite part of the movie was Cary Grant telling her to shut up. Their chemistry was so fun to watch. I'm going to try and convince my mom/girlfriend to watch this with me.

Is the commentary any good on it?

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by keldons

I think Noe's oeuvre will be remembered for his technical prowess rather than any sort of insightful philosophy. This is coming from a huge fan of Enter the Void.

.....that is what cinematography is, the technical side, I mentioned nothing of what he is trying to convey. The camera work on Enter the Void is just stunning, especially the scene

[Show spoiler]Where he dies

how the camera is just going high and low and moving around in ways that are impossible for a crane

[greekak229]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Just watched Charade for the first time, and loved every second of it. The dialogue was so witty and laugh out loud funny. Audrey looked stunning, I was born 60 years too late.

For some reason, my favorite part of the movie was Cary Grant telling her to shut up. Their chemistry was so fun to watch. I'm going to try and convince my mom/girlfriend to watch this with me.

Is the commentary any good on it?

I, too, felt the same way about it upon the first viewing. And yes, I was born 60 years too late as well. Audrey looked amazing in it.

[jacobsever]

One thing that kinda confused me... in one of the first scenes when she is in the French police's office being questioned, he pulls out a cigar and she tells him not to, which led me to believe she hated smoking. Then the next scene shows her with a cigarette in her mouth!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Audrey looked stunning, I was born 60 years too late.

Originally Posted by greekak229

I was born 60 years too late as well. Audrey looked amazing in it.

I would appreciate you guys stop talking about my wife this way

Charade is a wonderful movie but for me far from being her best movie the way I look at it but it's all opinion. This is what I fine interesting about movies, how different movies affect different people in extremely different ways. As for young people having a hard time with older movies, like I said it's not just young people. My buddy is far from being a young guy and I know he would fall asleep watching Charade or most of Audrey Hepburn movies. He also won't watch movies unless they are dub, saying he does not want to read but watch. I will just let it go, everyone is different. What I find sad is just not at least trying to see them, give it a effort. It's history, different style, it help's you expend your horizon, your views.....call it what you want. Movies offer a chance to see the world, different cultures, new way of thinking.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

One thing that kinda confused me... in one of the first scenes when she is in the French police's office being questioned, he pulls out a cigar and she tells him not to, which led me to believe she hated smoking. Then the next scene shows her with a cigarette in her mouth!

I never tought much about it but I would imagine it was just because of the shock of hearing her husband was dead. Plus the fact that she was actually going to divorce him and now she is being told he is dead. I think it was probably just that.

[24framesasecond]

My humble opinion: Audrey Hepburn's best movie was The Nun's Story.

Here's a trivia question for you: what is the only movie Warner Bros. ever made that doesn't have music at the film's end? That's right--The Nun's Story. I won't give away the ending to those who haven't seen it, but when you do, I'm sure you'll agree that the choice not to have music at the end was the wise one.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by 24framesasecond

My humble opinion: Audrey Hepburn's best movie was The Nun's Story.

Here's a trivia question for you: what is the only movie Warner Bros. ever made that doesn't have music at the film's end? That's right--The Nun's Story. I won't give away the ending to those who haven't seen it, but when you do, I'm sure you'll agree that the choice not to have music at the end was the wise one.

It's extremely fitting for the ending of the movie, I agree.

The movie I consider her the best in are Roman Holliday & Waiting Until Dark. My favorite is Waiting Until Dark.

She is also very good in The Children's Hour. Who am I kidding, I think she's great in everything

[octagon]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

To me, "essential" is something that is a "building block", or an importance to the next. This person was essential to filmmaking. Sure, someone later could of came and did what one left his mark doing, but it doesn't change that someone like Georges Méliès will always be "essential" to film storytelling and experimenting with imaginary. Then the Soviet directors I named like Dovzhenko was "essential" to camera technique and not just propaganda (which also is important to history).

So yes, I do think 1 artist's contributions to film were unique "at the time" that it should be considered important for the next person as a stepping stone. Hence, Essential.

Okay, I can see that. Essential in a 'links in the how we got from there to here chain' works. I had a sense that's more or less what you initially meant but wasn't entirely sure.

I tend to use essential in a narrower, more literal 'without A, B or C film would be radically different' sense and in that sense not a lot of individuals make the cut.

I think true innovation is pretty rare and most of what we (rightly) look on as major influences or innovations tend to be relatively incremental changes to what was already being done.

That's not to downplay the creativity or talent of the people moving the chains. Some of those people were huge but I think even their contributions were more incremental/evolutionary than not.

[i've got an ambien starting to kick in and this looks like an okay stopping point - if it turns out i've typed this all in romulan or something, well, trust me, it's all brilliant]

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by 24framesasecond

My humble opinion: Audrey Hepburn's best movie was The Nun's Story.

Here's a trivia question for you: what is the only movie Warner Bros. ever made that doesn't have music at the film's end? That's right--The Nun's Story. I won't give away the ending to those who haven't seen it, but when you do, I'm sure you'll agree that the choice not to have music at the end was the wise one.

Heburn and Finch are excellent. That's one of her films which often gets overlooked (along with the superb Children's Hour).

[ShellOilJunior]

My June 2011 Predictions:

Black Moon (Malle)
A Brighter Summer Day (Yang)
M. Hulot’s Holiday (Tati)
Kiss Me Deadly (Aldrich)
Hiroshima Mon Amour (Resnais) (I’m going to keep predicting this until it becomes reality)

[Antonmassacre1]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

One thing that kinda confused me... in one of the first scenes when she is in the French police's office being questioned, he pulls out a cigar and she tells him not to, which led me to believe she hated smoking. Then the next scene shows her with a cigarette in her mouth!

I'm not of that era either but I believe it may be a matter of etiquette.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Yep. My brother was telling me about some girl he knew who got a film degree from NYU. She was practically only interested in film circa 2000 to present.

That only means that she paid NYU to have some film geek show her films and give his/her opinion of them.

Most of us do that for free and post our opinions here!

If she is the product of a filmmakers degree...then I'm really worried!