Every so often I’ve updated the list of films that I have already seen with brief reviews.  Call it the complete-ist in me, but when I’m done with reviewing each of the films in the book, I’d like to have reviewed every single film in the book.

Anyhow, here’s another batch for you to read.

Enjoy!

Shichinin No Samurai AKA Seven Samurai (1954)

The Seven Samurai is the first movie that I had the pleasure of seeing from the master director Akira Kurosawa, and it is also one of his most praised works. Without a wasted frame, the story takes place over the course of almost 3 hours. Kurosawa, as he does in each of his movies, explores more than just the action and injustice featured in the plot. He is a humanist first and foremost, training his lens on the interpersonal relationships of the characters, tracking growth across this epic. As good as this film is, I would have to say that Kurosawa has numerous films that are even better, check out Stray Dog, Rashomon, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and my personal favorite High and Low.

The Ladykillers (1955)

Existing as a special combination of dark humor, and slapstick farce, The Ladykillers is exceptionally funny and unsettling. Alec Guinness stars as the leader of a group of criminals staying at the home of a hardy, vivacious older lady under the guise of being musicians. The plan is simple, rob a bank, and utilizing the trusting nature of the kindly old lady, and the remoteness of her home to their advantage, get away with it. Easily my favorite of Alec Guinness’ films (thanks in part to the Star Wars prequels that is), The Ladykillers features a solid cast of great actors, including a very young Peter Sellers.

Bob Le Flambeur AKA Bob the Gambler (1955)

My introduction to the fantastic Jean-Pierre Melville, I was captivated immediately by the cool as ice gangster come gambler Bob. This film is filled with signature Melville-isms. Glorious post war street scenes in Paris. Trench-coats. Honor among thieves. And who could forget the caper. To talk too much about this film is to give too much away, and to do that is to ruin it for those who haven’t seen it. Other classics by Melville: Le Cercle Rouge, Le Samourai, and the recently released in the U.S. Army of Shadows. All are fantastic, and deserve to be in this book! Incidentally, Bob le Flambeur was recently re-made into The Good Thief starring Nick Nolte and directed by Neil Jordan, and while I’m not generally a fan of re-makes, I really, really liked this film. Not quite as good as the original, but it was one of my favorite films of 2002.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

The ultimate in hardboiled private eye crime stories, Kiss Me Deadly is a full on assault on decency. Kiss Me Deadly proudly presents itself as a grimy PI story, littered with bodies and intrigue. If you even have a passing interest in film noir, this should be your first stop. Violent, misogynist, brutish, and glorious, Kiss Me Deadly begs to be watched and dares you to look away. I myself, loved it!

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Apparently based on a book, The Ten Commandments is an epic in every sense of the word. Colored in bright explosive candy hues, and featuring huge sets, as well as a cast that number in the thousands, The Ten Commandments is more spectacle than great movie. Certainly not a waste of time, but not my first choice when choosing something light to throw in.

Det Sjunde Inseglet AKA The Seventh Seal (1957)

A classic, and well-loved film by Swedish auteur Ingmar Bergman, The Seventh Seal stars an extremely young Max von Sydow as a knight who faces Death at a game of chess to decide his fate. This film is filled with themes that find their way into each of Bergman’s works, ranging from courage in the face of death, religion, and humanity. The Seventh Seal still holds up to this day, with luminous black and white photography that, thanks to Criterion’s Blu-ray edition, has never looked better.

Note: Don’t be fooled by the similarly themed, but much worse, “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey”

Kumonosu Jo AKA Throne of Blood (1957)

Kurosawa’s retelling of Macbeth set in feudal Japan. Shakespeare has never looked better as it does in the stark black and white, twisting shadows and swirling mists as seen through Kurosawa’s camera. Toshiro Mifune doesn’t disappoint in the lead role, but the real stand out is Isuzu Yamada in the as Mifune’s opportunistic, poisonous wife. The plotting and scheming starts right from the get go, all the way up till the frenzied end of the film.

Touch of Evil (1958)

One of the many trouble spots on Orson Welles’ resume due to studio interference, and financing issues, still Touch of Evil remains as possibly the best B-Movie ever made. Iconic (and sometimes hilarious) performances by Janet Leigh, Charlton Heston (as a Mexican) and Welles himself as the crooked cop willing to do almost anything to ensure justice prevails (just so long as it’s his justice). The movie is almost as famous for its long tracking shot opening as it is for any of the performances, featuring a nearly 4 minute shot done in one take which travels around cars, actors, and buildings. The film The Player, payed homage to it by mentioning it a few times during a similarly complex shot in that film.

Vertigo (1958)

Flopping on its initial release, Vertigo didn’t gain the acclaim it deserved until much later after it was released on video. Vertigo visits themes present in each of Hitchcock’s other works, including the obsession with blondes, innocence tainted with corruption, and the schlub who get in over his head. Jimmy Stewart plays the schlub, Kim Novak plays the blonde, and gloriously technicolored San Francisco plays the innocence and the corruption. Vertigo has a twisty convoluted story with elements of surrealism, an interesting watch.

Mon Oncle AKA My Uncle (1958)

My favorite of Jacques Tati’s Monsieur Hulot films, Mon Oncle was also the first of them that I had seen. Tati, playing Hulot, is a master of visual comedy, and not in the same way as the Three Stooges, or even Buster Keaton. Tati is an artist whose work is appreciated the longer you watch. The plot of the movie is not so much important to the film as it is simply a guide to get our characters into interesting situations so we can watch them get out. If you liked this film, check out other films featuring the bumbling Mr. Hulot, including Trafic, Playtime, and Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot.

Les Quatre Cents Coups AKA The 400 Blows (1959)

My personal favorite of the French new wave movement was this small-scale film, personal piece from Francois Truffaut. Featuring the director’s alter ego, Antoine Doinel, The 400 Blows is the first in a series of movies, each about a different stage of life and the challenges that go along with them. The period from childhood to young adult is covered heart-breakingly here, following Antoine through the rough waters of his home life and his interaction with the outside world. Later chapters deal with finding love, getting married, having children, and growing old, but Les Quatres Cent Coups remains the directors most personal and his best.

North by Northwest (1959)

One of Hitchcock’s best, North by Northwest features Cary Grant, suave as ever, being mistaken for a government agent by a group of foreign spies. Just like in Hitchcock’s most famous works (of which this is one), the witty one-liners, suspense, and drama are heaped on generously. I can’t help but feel sad that a similarly themed, but better film featuring Cary Grant was left off this 1001 list. Charade, also featuring Audrey Hepburn, James Coburn, and Walter Matthau, is one of my favorite movies ever! Check out both Charade AND North by Northwest as a double feature! You won’t be sorry.

Some Like it Hot (1959)

Now this is an example of a classic, well-loved film, with actors that I really love (Jack Lemmon I’m looking at you), a premise that is more than suitable, yet the finished product never really caught me. It’s sort of like Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief. I never really saw what all the hype was about. That being said, I didn’t hate it either. It never made fun of me when I had braces, or turned me down for a date, my affections and this film have just always been mutually exclusive. Perhaps it deserves another watch…then again maybe I should just watch The Last Boyscout again.

A Bout De Souffle AKA Breathless (1959)

Jean-Luc Godard is nothing if not a sacred cow of French cinema, and while I have loved some of his other films (Le Mepris, Bande A Part, and Masculin Femenine), Breathless or A Bout De Souffle never really did it for me. I can still rationalize why it was so revolutionary (use of jump cuts, editing, non-actors, and subscription to the aesthetic of the French new wave style), and see it’s importance, but I prefer other examples of New Wave cinema. If you are interested in seeing a Godard film, try Masculin Feminine, it is just as revolutionary and a bit more accessible.

Psycho (1960)

A prime example of Hitchcock in his prime. Psycho was so good, and so affecting that some of its actors were type cast just on the strength of this one film (Anthony Perkins, and Janet Leigh), so much so that without a little research it’s hard to think of what other films either of them has been in. Psycho may not be as visually shocking and gory as horror films of today, but it still manages to hold up over time and be just as unsettling as it was back in its day. Hitchcock has always excelled at making the comfortable un-comfortable (motels, birds, tea, dreams, the list goes on…), and the subtle touches in this film work perfectly. Consider for a moment that Perkin’s Bates is an amateur taxidermist of birds, and then that Janet Leigh’s name is Marion Crane a type of bird, or the fact before the crime Marion is wearing a white bra and a white purse, while after it she is wearing a black bra and purse. His attention to detail, and knack for foreshadowing is demonstrated in full force in Psycho and remains one of his best films. Despite all the uproar over the Gus Van Sant remake, I thought it actually did some justice to the original film and if nothing else brought it a little more deserved attention.

Note: This film also has the distinction of being the first American film to ever show a toilet flushing on-screen.

Peeping Tom (1960)

Released the same year as Psycho, and dealing with similar subject matter, Peeping Tom wasn’t received with the same acclaim and attention that the former was. On the contrary, Peeping Tom was seen as subversive, perverted, and generally too shocking. The story revolves more around the killer than the victim in this one, whereas Psycho is presented more from the victim’s point of view. Either way, Peeping Tom is a fine film, one worth watching, however it is so similar to Psycho that I’m not sure it needs to be on the list of 1001 films.

The Apartment (1960)

As far as light-hearted, touching movies about someone recovering from a bout of depression, this one is my favorite. Billy Wilder directs Shirley MacLaine and Jack Lemmon in a sweet touching comedy without losing any of his trademark cynicism or the pointedness of his dialogue. The Apartment is another chance for me to champion the somewhat maligned talents of Mr. Fred MacMurray as Lemmon’s boss. MacMurray plays a fantastic creep who really defines the term “heel”.

Spartacus (1960)

Containing almost none of the trademark elements that make up a Stanley Kubrick movie as we know it (Kubrick apparently dis-owned the film before it’s release), Spartacus remains an interesting movie that isn’t great. It is, however, another example of a film that enabled an up and coming filmmaker to gain his voice, and define himself later on in his career. If only for that reason, Spartacus is a great film, but luckily for the studio, it has some other things going for it. Kirk Douglas plays the title role of Spartacus, and despite all the lavish set production, and concentration on spectacle, brings some heart to the slave who defied Rome.

Jules Et Jim AKA Jules and Jim (1962)

One of director, Francois Truffaut’s most well thought of films, Jules and Jim may be the Lost In Translation, or Juno of its time. Viewed from a certain angle, the plot is a completely moving and emotional story that you believe, so much so, that you can see yourself and those around you in the roles that these characters embody. Viewed from another perspective, it can seem a little precious or purposefully manipulative. Depending on what is happening in your life (I’m mostly thinking about whether or not you are in a relationship, and if you are happy), this movie can preach the glory of love and the pain of rejection. On the flipside, if you have shaken free the angsty, teenager-esque feelings everyone has had in their youth, you may feel like you’re being talked down to.

Cleo De 5 A 7 AKA Cleo from 5 to 7

Taking place, as the title suggests, from 5 to 7, we get a slice of the life of Cleo played out before us. Sometimes we, along with Cleo herself, are a voyeurs into the lives of people around her, and other times we are focused on her as she roams around Paris. By and large Cleo lives a carefree, spoiled life, yet we still sympathize with her when times are hard, and cheer for her when they are good. This is a small film in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t impacting and beautiful.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

I have to admit.  I didn’t like Lawrence of Arabia that much.  Perhaps I was too young to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of Lean’s desert panorama camerawork, or just maybe it was the epic length that decided it for me.  One way or another, I didn’t appreciate it as much as everyone else seems to think I should. 

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Overly reliant on gimmicks and quick editing techniques, The Manchurian Candidate doesn’t flesh out the story nearly…wait, no that was the terrible re-make that came out in 2004.  The original 1962 version, is just as taught, and well executed today as it was at its release.  While the story between the two versions remained virtually the same, the consistent building of tension and anxiety, combined with the pitch perfect acting of Lawrence Harvey, Frank Sinatra (yes…Frank Sinatra), and the devilish turn of Angela Lansbury as the Queen of Hearts, makes for a fantastic film.

Lolita (1962)

It took me forever to finally see Lolita.  I have known the basic story (older man, younger girl) but had just never gotten around to seeing it.  And while I’ve been told that the book is much better, I thought the film was pretty good.  Not great, mind you, but definitely solid.  The shocking and controversial nature of the relationship was toned down a bit for the screen, and maybe as a result doesn’t seem all that shocking in today’s day and age.  Memorable turns by Peter Sellers, and Shelley Winters, not to mention it’s an early film of Stanley Kubrick.

The Birds (1963)

Despite being one of Hitchcock’s most popular, I actually think that The Birds is one of his most over-rated.  I think I owe it to myself to give this one another look someday, but right now I feel that it was too heavily based on the gimmick that had to rely on special effects.  Though it is not necessarily the fault of the movie, but the special effects seemed particularly dated and old fashioned.  Worth a watch, but not my favorite by a long shot.

8 1/2 (1963)

Federico Fellini is, by most accounts, a master of cinema.  One, that I have always had a little trouble getting fired up over.  It’s not that I don’t like his films once I’ve seen them, the problem comes in when it comes to motivating myself to see them.  I couldn’t tell you why, but his films consistently get pushed off when they come up on my Netflix Queue or when I see the one or two I have on my shelf.  I shouldn’t feel this way, considering I really loved the moving poetry, and soul baring passion in 8 1/2, yet it still happens.  One very definite reason to watch this film is the man-crushable Marcello Mastroianni, swaggering through as the alter-ego of Fellini himself.  Dealing with all the reservations with women, making movies, childhood, and the future that the director very famously dealt with himself, Mastroianni embodies a certain cool, yet believable character that begs to be watched.  Combined with imagery that leaves the audience wanting more, 8 1/2 is a fantastic film.

Well, that’s it for this time.  Thanks for reading!

I had difficulty selecting a single film for some directors; therefore I selected more than one. These are all directors who have consecutively put out great films; I'm not going to list any directors who have only made a single good film (there are lots of those unfortunately).

Anyway, here are my favorite directors and their best film(s) (in my opinion):

Steven Spielberg:

Best film(s) – Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Martin Scorsese:

Best film(s) – Taxi Driver

Nicolas Roeg:

Best film(s) – Walkabout

Ridley Scott:

Best film(s) – Alien/Blade Runner

Gus Van Sant:

Best film – Drugstore Cowboy

Stanley Kubrick:

Best film(s) – A Clockwork Orange

Werner Herzog:

Best film(s) – Stroszek/Aguirre, the Wrath of God

George A. Romero:

Best film(s) – Martin

David Cronenberg:

Best film(s) – The Dead Zone/Videodrome

Krzysztof Kieslowski:

Best film(s) – Dekalog (TV series)

Tim Burton:

Best film(s) – Ed Wood/Edward Scissorhands

Quentin Tarantino:

Best film(s) – Reservoir Dogs

Jean-Pierre Melville:

Best film(s) – Le samouraï

Frank Darabont:

Best film(s) – The Shawshank Redemption

Hayao Miyazaki:

Best film(s) – Spirited Away

George Lucas:

Best film(s) – Star Wars (episodes IV, V and VI)

Roman Polanski:

Best film(s) – The Tenant

(*NOTE* This blog-post was extracted from this thread of mine on the HikiCulture forums.)

Posted via email from HikiCulture – A Forum For Reclusive People (and Hikikomori) {HikiCulture.Com Site Blog}

En la sesión inicial del seminario, algunos llegásteis a ver distintos temas, bajo la pestaña Aspecto en la columna de la izquierda del tablero.

Por defecto, todos los blogs nuevos salen con el tema llamado Kubrick, de color azul. Es un tema que tiene muchas posibilidades, puedes cambiar el color del fondo, el color de las letras, e incluso te permite poner tu propia imagen de fondo (una foto, un dibujo, …). Este blog tiene este tema, en el que he puesto una foto del estanque de El Soto, Móstoles. Para poner una foto previamente tienes que tenerla en el ordenador para poder cargarla al blog.

Muchos de vosotros habéis preferido cambiar el tema, hay muchos y se pueden ver de tres formas:

• Aleatoriamente.
• Por orden alfabético A-Z.
• Más populares.

O bien puedes buscar temas con determinadas carácterísticas: a la derecha, donde pone filtros característicos puedes seleccionar el criterio de búsqueda.

É Kubrick, acho bobagem falar se é um filme curioso, interessante.

Talvez se fosse outro diretor eu gostasse, mas sendo de quem é, esperaria mais. Mais fotografia, mais desespero nos atores, mais dessa coisa de sentir que o Kubrick é maluco porque é tudo muito perfeito.

Cruise tem uma cara sem emoção, já complica o filme. E é “Cruise – Kidman – Kubrick” a ordem que os nomes são apresentados na capa (os piores vem na frente?).

Trilha sonora com picos. O som de piano dos momentos de suspense é o positivo da onda senoidal.

Quanto a fotografia, nenhuma cena me deixou sem ar, comparando com (insira aqui o título de qualquer outro filme do Kubrick).

Enfim.

Kubrick fala de casamento. Alice (Kidman) ao flertar com um homem numa festa, sendo indagada de por que se casar, – Por que não casaria?

Dr. William (Cruise), que chamaremos de “Dr.” (já que ele insiste em informar sua profissão a qualquer um que passe na rua) beija – mantendo seus olhos bem fechados – Alice, que olha seu reflexo no espelho. O marido fechava os olhos para os defeitos do casamento. Seu casamento era perfeito, sua esposa “You always look beautiful”. Alice talvez entediada com essa ilusão de perfeição, e sentida pela falta de atenção de seu marido – (“Is my hair okay?”, “It’s great”, “You’re not even looking at it.”, “It’s beautiful. You always look beautiful.”), contou ao marido suas fantasias extraconjugais. Ela perturba a visão dele de que mulher procura somente segurança e compromisso. A situação chega a um ponto em que ele não consegue mais justificar, e a razão cínica instrumentalizada do “Dr.” dá lugar a um sentimento de dúvida. De vazio, desencantamento – de pós-modernismo.

E é nesse desmoronamento da sua vida que o “Dr.” consegue entrar numa festa de máscaras, festa proibida com pessoas poderosas praticando orgias sob o esconderijo de máscaras. Como se máscaras os libertassem de quem eles eram, mesmo os participantes sabendo quem estava sob a fantasia. Escondendo seus rostos, escondendo seus pudores, seus preconceitos, seu medo de revelar suas perversões sexuais – e por isso a importância de manter tudo secreto, “apagando” quem pudesse atrapalhar.

Numa última reflexão sobre a relação entre ambos, “Dr.” e Alice resolvem voltar ao casamento. Pois, segundo as palavras do flerte de Alice na festa de início do filme,  “Don’t you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?”.

Um casamento pode ser “tão ruim quanto”, ou “tão bom quanto”, depende do ponto de vista. E acho que o casamento Kubrick – Cruise (já que esse bloco de notas é meu, os melhores na frente desta vez) pesou na parte do ruim. Um filme mediano para os padrões do diretor de tantos filmes perturbadores.

Lolita é o título de um romance em língua inglesa, de autoria do escritor russo Vladimir Nabokov, publicado pela primeira vez em 1955. Foram realizadas duas versões cinematográficas do romance: a primeira, de 1962, realizada por Stanley Kubrick, e a outra, em 1997, dirigida por Adrian Lyne. O livro deu origem a duas gírias de natureza sexual: lolita e ninfeta, significando meninas menores de idade ou pubescentes, sexualmente atraentes e/ou precoces.

Lolita de Stanley Kubrick

Lolita de Adrian Lyne

Minha pretensão com este post era fazer um comparativo entre o trabalho de Kubrick e o de Lyne, mas com que direito posso me atrever a fazer isso se ainda nem cheguei a assistir a versão de Kubrick?

Por isso, deixo aqui os comparativos a cargo de vocês. Primeiro, um pequeno slideshow com algumas imagens dos dois filmes…

Como não tenho a capacidade moral e muito menos intelectual para fazer julgamentos próprios (é mentira, mesmo sem ver o de 62, gosto mais do de 97. E prefiro o livro a qualquer um dos dois), deixo esta honra para alguns cinéfilos que encontrei pela web afora. Alguns comentários pertinentes:

• Apesar das pesadas críticas, gostei do filme, justamente por se encaixar bem na categoria drama, ao retratar as neurose e o terror psicológico sofrido por Jeremy Irons (aliás, ele é sempre ótimo nesses papéis atormentados e sem nenhuma moral). Melanie (oh, pobre Melanie), fraquinha como sempre (ainda bem que morreu no começo!), mas Dominique, a bela Lolita, deu um show de interpretação, que vimos limitadamente imitado no último seriado brasileiro “Presença de Anita”.
• Obra cinematográfica de grande fidelidade a obra literária de Nabokov. Não apenas nos diálogos mas também na interpretação dos atores e na atmosfera de angústia presente ao longo da trama. A primeira versão de Lolita apática, não passa de uma imitação bizarra da verdadeira Lolita de Nabokov.
• A adaptação de obras literárias para o cinema é um processo delicado, pois são formas de arte heterogêneas, para isso só mesmo o talento de um grande diretor; como Stanley Kubrick, de quem, aliás, o diretor dessa vergonhosa versão, copiou. A sutileza, que o original de 1962 trazia, é transformada em uma erotização barata e insalubre.
• Esta segunda versão é um retrato quase inteiramente fiel ao livro de Vladimir Nabokov. Com o perdão da heresia, mas é uma versão superior à do cultuado Stanley Kubrick. Muito embora Adrian Lyne seja sempre massacrado pela crítica (que afinal é mais tola do que o diretor), o filme é cuidadoso e inspirado. Chegou-se a acusar o filme de caminhar em uma tênue e perigosa linha entre o erótico e o pornô. Nada mais justo: esse é o espírito do livro! Jeremy Irons é perfeito para o papel do professor Humbert, com seus olhares de obsessão doce. Dominique Swain é um verdadeiro achado, com uma atuação que recupera a verdadeira Lolita: infantil, tolamente caprichosa, cheia de uma malícia pueril que é o seu poder mas também a sua vulnerabilidade. Recomendo a todos é que leiam o livro: trata-se de uma obra-prima, bem superior a qualquer versão cinematográfica.

E vocês, o que acham?

[Click on the image to uncensor it, i.e. to see it as it was originally intended, but beware the naughtiness within...]

OK, adults only for this one. Spectacular Attractions is usually a family show, but this is a different kind of Friday. Here, go and look at Pinocchio, or possibly the Muppets.

A frame grab from Stanley Kubrick’s final film, Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick died shortly after completing the film, having promised to deliver an R-rated movie (apparently, he watched a bunch of Hollywood’s more sexually explicit films in order to gauge what would be considered acceptable to receive such a rating). The sequence in which Tom Cruise visits a masked orgy was considered to be NC-17 territory, a rating which ostensibly marks something out as unsuitable for children, but which actually decreases its chances at the box office, rejection by self-righteous finger-waggers and unwarranted controversy from a wide variety of spoilsports. However, although MGM surely would have just snipped out the relevant glimpses of humping, they found themselves hidebound by their commitment not to re-edit or cut a frame of Kubrick’s footage. What to do? The simple answer would be to suck it down and release the film unadjusted, take the reduced box office safe in the knowledge that you hadn’t compromised the artistic vision of a man on whose name you’d been happily trading for years. Alternatively, you could take some digital people and graft them onto the film to cover up those dangerous bits of flesh. Very clever – loyal to the exact wording of their commitment to Kubrick, but actually snuffing out the spirit of it in one quick application of polygons. The result can be seen in the image above.

Barbara Creed saw this as an advance notice of the coming age of the synthespian, when human actors would routinely be replaced by digital substitutes. She suggested that as they took over, we might have to change the way we relate to people onscreen, since the virtual actor would have no Unconscious, and thus not be “subject to the same experience as the living star, experiences such as mothering, Oedipal anxiety, hunger, loss, ecstasy, desire, death.” But then, she also predicted that porn stars, already artificially augmented beyond the realms of realism, could be doubled by virtual actors. It all sounded a bit William Gibson to me, and this week’s picture instead made it look as though digital people were just going to show up in films where they weren’t wanted and spoil everyone else’s view.

Geachte heer/mevrouw,

Mijn naam is Marc Trip en ik ben een groot filmliefhebber. Nu is het zo dat iedere filmliefhebber zijn favoriete films misschien nooit op het witte doek heeft mogen bewonderen. Een van mijn dromen is om de, in mijn ogen althans, beste film aller tijden ooit nog eens te mogen bekijken in een bioscoopzaal. Ik heb het hier over Stanley Kubricks “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

Is het mogelijk dat deze film bij u in de bioscoop gedraaid mag worden? Ik durf er heel wat op te zetten dat de zaal minimaal voor 60/70% vol zal zitten als deze klasbak weer op het witte doek zal worden vertoond.

In afwachting van uw reactie,

Marc Trip

==========================================================================

Beste Marc,

Dank voor je mail en tip!
Ik zal kijken wat ik kan doen… We zijn bezig  weer een serie “oude” films te gaan vertonen…  Wanneer dat precies zal gaan gebeuren, kan ik je nu nog niet zeggen, helaas…

Hans Unger

Theatermanager Pathé Groningen

Pitágoras descubrió que existe relación entre la longitud de las cuerdas de la lira y las notas musicales que producen. Por ejemplo, si la nota Do es la unidad, Sol es 3/2 de la misma. Descubrió, por tanto, que el principio de la armonía musical responde a proporciones matemáticas. Entusiasmado con su hallazgo lo extrapoló al cosmos en su totalidad: las órbitas de los planetas están también sometidas a leyes matemáticas, son armónicas, y producen la llamada “música de las esferas”.

Un pitagórico contemporáneo es el compositor de origen griego y nacionalizado francés Iannis Xenakis (1922-2001). Según Xenakis la música ha de obedecer a leyes matemáticas y, más concretamente, al cálculo de probabilidades, como si las notas tuviesen que sonar imitando el movimiento de las moléculas de gas. A esta forma musical la llamó música estocástica de la cual es un ejemplo la pieza Strategie que puedes escuchar más arriba.

En 1972 fundó el CEMAMu (Centre d’Études de Mathématique et Automatique Musicales) dedicado a la aplicación de la informática y las matemáticas a la música. Se trata de crear un reflejo musical a partir de una imagen. Las complejas matemáticas que esto requiere son tarea de la informática. Un buen ejemplo de esta fusión es la pieza Mycenae-Alpha de 1978.

¿Es la música de Xenakis un ruido insoportable, simplemente fea? ¿O es que el oído del espectador no está capacitado para percibir su belleza? ¿Quién sabe cómo sonará la música del Universo? ¿Y tú qué piensas?

En 2001, una odisea del espacio, Stanley Kubrick supo combinar sorprendentemente ambos tipos de música: el lado más clásico de la mano de El danubio azul de Strauss y el lado vanguardista gracias a fragmentos de las obras  de Györgi Ligeti Réquiem, Lux aeterna y Atmosphères. Así, un primer vídeo con las naves espaciales bailando al compás de Strauss y otro con el Requiem de Ligeti acompañado de fotos de la película.

]]> http://infosdux.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/sasha-grey-une-lolita-a-la-kubrick/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:29:35 +0000 Eric de Sutovo http://infosdux.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/sasha-grey-une-lolita-a-la-kubrick/

Sasha Grey en Lolita

Sur le site ci dessous vous trouverez les photos pour Playboy inspiré du Lolita de Kubrick de 1962, lui même inspiré de Vladimir Nabokov… c’est vrai, joli, sexy… et avec Sasha Grey… à quand Dolly Golden en Scarlett O’hara, Aurora Snow en Mary Poppins..?

Sasha Grey en Lolita…

Demorei o máximo que pude para ver esse filme. Para falar a verdade, eu nem queria ver esse filme. A razão? Medo. Meu maior medo era o hype imenso que esse filme carregava em cima dele. A fita nem tinha começado sua vida nos cinemas e todos já diziam que seria “o melhor filme de todos”. Confesso que sou um pouco (pouco é muito e muito é pouco) chato. Principalmente quando gosto de algo. E sempre gostei dos filmes do Tarantino. Não, eu não acho o cara um gênio. Acho um ótimo e divertido diretor. O maior triunfo do Tarantino é saber lidar bem com o clichê. Algo que todos tentam e a maioria fede ao fazer tentar fazer isso. Tarantino trabalhava numa locadora. Ou seja, estava rodeado pelo clichê o dia inteiro. Afinal, os filmes que costumam passar nas televisões das locadoras são, em sua maioria, algo que se tornou clichê com o tempo. Junte se a isso o seu talento e ironia referente à violência e você têm um ótimo diretor. Seu primeiro roteiro foi “Assassinos por Natureza”/ “Natural Born Killers” (com Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr. e Tommy Lee Jones no elenco) o qual Oliver Stone dirigiu. Talvez seu maior roteiro, mesmo sendo bastante revisado pelo próprio Stone.

O primeiro roteiro de Tarantino já mostra o quanto ele é light.

Também não vi Burn After Reading/Queime Depois de Ler pelo mesmo motivo. Muito é falado antes de o filme ser lançado. E também é de um dos meus cineastas favoritos. O fato dos irmãos Cohen terem entrado no mainstream me assusta até hoje.

Assustado com os Irmão Cohen no mainstream!

Quem já acompanha as peripécias deste blog sabe que costumo mais descer o pau do que elogiar: tirando Y: The Last Man, Ren & Stimpy e Billy & Mandy eu fui só reclamações e maldições. Mas de qualquer forma, não fiz tantas resenhas assim…

Então já deve ter alguém pensando: lá vai esse chato descer o pau no filme. Mas…

…o filme é muito bom! É melhor que Pulp Fiction? Não! É melhor que Kill Bill? É igual e diferente do mesmo modo. Ver um filme do Tarantino tem sempre uma sensação parecida, mais ou menos como ver Kubrick pós-Lolita. A sensação é parecida e os filmes não. Tarantino já conseguiu deixar sua marca no seu modo de fazer filmes. Não sei como explicar, mas quem conhece o trabalho dele já sacou o que eu quis dizer. Assim como Kubrick tinha aquele modo de sempre valorizar aqueles sorrisos aterrorizantes, cenas no banheiro e outras coisas. Não me entendam mal. Não estou comparando um com o outro. Kubrick era um gênio. Um dos maiores da história do cinema. Tarantino ainda não o é. É ótimo e divertido. Mas não sei. Ainda falta algo e tive a impressão de que com Bastardos Inglórios ele deu mostras de que está à procura desse algo mais.

Bastardos Inglórios é o chamado Historical Fiction (ficção histórica). A fita se passa na Segunda Guerra Mundial (entendam que esse era mais um dos meus medos: Nazistas de novo?!). Mas Tarantino não esgotou ainda mais o assunto. O nazismo e a guerra podem passar apenas como coisas secundárias.

Agora, para não falar só de Tarantino, o elenco foi muito bem escolhido. Começando com Christoph Waltz (“Ordinary Decent Criminal” / “Um Criminoso Decente” – vejam esse filme também!) no papel de Hans Landa. Waltz é o melhor no filme. Sua atuação é bárbara e mereceu o Cannes de melhor ator. Michael Fassbender (“Bando of Brothers” e “300”) como Lt. Archie Hicox (o inglês que troca tiros na virilha no pub) muito bem também. Eli Roth (demorei a lembrar quem era esse doidão. Ele faz parte do grupo Splat Pack, que é um grupo de cineastas de filmes de terror que decidiram voltar a fazer filmes de terror mesmo – pesados, “Saw”/ “Jogos Mortais” é de um diretor desse grupo. Eli Roth é o diretor de “O Albergue” que, confesso, não sou fã) é Donny Donowitz / O Urso Judeu, impecável sua ultima aparição na qual ele atira em Hitler até o rosto dele virar pedaços de carne moída no liquidificador. Diane Kruger (a Helena em “Troy” / “Tróia” e Abigail Chase em “A Lenda do Tesouro Perdido”) interpreta Bridget von Hammersmark. Diane Kruger já foi uma modelo de sucesso na década de 90, se não estou enganado. Que bom que deixou de ser modelo, parece que sob a correta direção e em um filme bom (diferente dos citados na qual ele atuou) ela tem talento. Daniel Brühl (“Adeus Lênin” e “The Edukators”) é Fredrick Zoller, ou o herói de guerra alemão. O cara é realmente bom. É só ver os filmes que o cara fez. Til Schweiger (“Tomb Raider” e “Rei Arthur”) é  o alemão que muda de lado. O cara no filme é hilário. Não sabia que o cara era bom (afinal olha os filmes que eu citei que ele fez), mas ele o é. Mélanie Laurent faz Shoshana. Essa eu não conhecia, mas também é muito boa. Omar Doom é Omar Ulmer. Gedeon Burkhard é o tradutor dos Bastardos. B.J. Novak (“The Office”) é o Little Man (não lembro bem como ficou em português, se foi Pequenino ou algo do tipo). Mike Myers (o Austin Powers) é o general inglês que comanda a idéia do assassinato de Hitler. Rod Taylor (“A Máquina do Tempo” de 1960, baseado no livro de H.G. Wells) faz o Wiston Churchil. Denis Menochet (“Hannibal Rising”) faz o fazendeiro francês do inicio do filme. Christian Berkel (“Operação Valquíria”) é o barman do pub onde rola aqueles tiros na virilha. Jacky Ido (esse eu não conheço) faz Marcel. August Diehl (“The Counterfeiters” e “The Ninth Day”, ambos alemães) é o oficial da Gestapo, especialista em sotaques, que troca tiros na virilha. Alexander Fehling (“And Along Come Tourists”, também alemão) é o cara que está comemorando o nascimento do filho onde dão tiros na virilha. Sylvester Groth é Josef Goebbels, ministro da propaganda de Hitler. Groth também interpretou Goebbels na comédia My Leader – The Truly Truest Truth about Adolf Hitler (também alemã). Quem também interpretou Goebbels foi Martin Wuttke – que é Hitler no filme de Tarantino – no filme Rosenstrasse (alemão também, mas se tiverem tempo – e paciência para achar – vejam). Julie Dreyfus (Sofie Fatale em “Kill Bill”) é a interprete francesa de Goebbels. O curioso é que parte do elenco desse filme são também diretores. Um exemplo disso é Enzo G. Castellari que no filme é um general nazista. Castellari é um diretor italiano, conhecido pelos seus Spaghetti Western como Any Gun Can Play, Kill Them All and Come Back Alone, Seven Wichesters For a Massacre e,…, The Inglorious Bastards – Quel maledetto treno blindato. Os bastardos de Castellari e de Tarantino são parecidos. Com certeza o filme de Castellari inspirou Tarantino. Os Bastardos no filme de Castellari são soldados americanos que estão sendo levados para uma prisão militar quando um ataque aéreo alemão acaba os “soltando” ao matar todos os guardas. Os soldados decidem fugir e acabam fazendo parte de um plano que consiste em roubar o giroscópio de um foguete V-2 nazista que se encontra em um trem extremamente protegido por nazistas.

The Ingloriou Bastards de Castellari.

Ué, e o Brad Pitt? Bom, Brad Pitt é um grande ator. Quando ele não faz papéis de heróis entediados ou de galã supersexy (como Aquiles em “Tróia” ou Sr. e Sra. Smith) ele manda muito. É só ver filmes como Thelma & Louise, Across the Tracks, Kalifornia (acho que foi aí onde ele aprendeu esse sotaque que ele tem em Bastardos Inglórios), Interview with the Vampire, Lendas da Paixão, Seven (Sete Pecados Capitais), Os Doze Macacos, Fight Club (Clube da Luta), Snatch (mais uma vez ele faz um sotaque genial), Babel, …, deu para entender, né? Ou seja, quando o papel e o filme é bom, ele arrebenta. Por isso não vou ficar falando o quanto ele foi bem nos Bastardos. Tentei falar mais dos outros que, para a grande maioria, são desconhecidos.

Como não poderia deixar de ser…

Pausa para um lanchinho...

…em filme de tarantino nunca falta sangue e nem Samuel L. Jackson. Ele não atua, mas é o narrador. Poucas vezes narra, é verdade, mas ele está lá.

Minha conclusão é: se não viu, veja por você mesmo. Se já viu, sabe do que estou falando.

πολύ καλή ιστοσελίδα αφιερωμένη στην αμφιλεγόμενη ταινία του κιούμπρικ, η οδύσσεια του διαστήματος. προσπαθεί να εξηγήσει τι κρύβεται πίσω από αυτό το ταξίδι στο χρόνο, στο σύμπαν και στο μυαλό μας.

Ik ben afgelopen week dan eindelijk begonnen met het werken aan een analyse van (in mijn ogen) de beste film ooit gemaakt. Het is een redelijk karwei als ik het goed inschat en het gaat op z’n minst nog 3 maanden duren voordat het helemaal af is. De grote lijnen zijn op dit moment in ieder geval uitgezet en het schrijfwerk is begonnen. Hopelijk vergeeft een ieder mij dat hier iets minder wordt geplaatst de komende weken omdat ik een flinke portie van mijn tijd kwijt zal zijn aan dit project.

Als je het een leuk idee vind kun je me altijd laten weten wat jouw gedachten zijn over “2001” en wat jij denkt dat er sowieso in het boekje zou moeten komen te staan. Ik sta open voor suggesties, opmerkingen, vragen en andere dringende zaken die aandacht verdienen omtrent de analyse van deze film.

Heb je de film nog niet gezien? Haal hem dan een keer uit de schappen bij de eerste beste dvd of blu-ray winkel in de buurt. Voor nog geen tien euro heb je hem al te pakken.

Let me know what you think about the project!

Marc

NB: Ik zal af en toe kleine stukjes proberen te plaatsen wanneer ze zo goed als af zijn zodat jullie een goede indruk krijgen van het geheel.

Hola hola hoy les traigo noticias de uno de los mejores juegos y de uno de las animaciones mas vistas me refiero a megaman y astroboy aquí la info:

Más Kubrick Bearbricks! Esta vez de robots del Japón bastante famosos.

El primero es Megaman (Rockman) que viene con cabeza intercambiable y Bearbrick de color azul transparente con el logo de 1Up de Megaman! (una vida, pues).

También esta Proto Man ( Blues) con cabeza intercambiable y con su respectivo Bearbrick:

Y por último Astroboy (Tetsuwan Atom ) también con Bearbrick color rosa:

Son de una altura aproximada de 7 cm. de altura de la marca Medicom Toy, a la venta en 2010.
Que tal están la figuritas yo si las compraría se ven amigables no creen.

Y RECUERDA… SE ANIME100%

BY ROCKLUCHO

yes please €1,500.00

I recently watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, I think for the first time since 2001, actually. I last saw the film in middle school. I’d watched it immediately after reading the book, which was probably in 7th grade, and we also watched clips in my 8th grade science class.

Aside from the obvious, one of the most striking things about viewing this film is the disappointment I felt. There is an unfulfilled promise, for what might have been, if only we’d tried a little harder. One of the things my 8th grade science teacher wanted to highlight about this film is how accurate the science is, and how plausible the technology. All the clips he showed were from the beginning, which deals more with human achievement in the year 2001 with its methodical beautiful images, than with the psychological tension later on. And these scenes were what I found most shocking again on this viewing, eight years after the year 2001.

Of course the themes about alien contact and the personhood of artificial intelligence are noteworthy, but they’re also very memorable- these elements weren’t as striking to me because I remembered them sharply from reading Clarke’s book and its first sequel, and seeing the film before, many years ago (its a strange thing to feel with a twinge that you’re old when you’re 21!).

But the technology is striking because it seems so attainable, in theory. We have some of the little things. There are indeed television screens in the back of our airplane seats, but unfortunately nobody’s casually jetting to space stations (even NASA’s space shuttles are about to be decommissioned). There’s Skype, for Dr. Floyd to communicate with his little girl back home. Just little things. Sure, an alien secret waiting for us to discover it under the surface of the moon is the stuff of fantasy- but isn’t it irksome that even if something were there, we wouldn’t be discovering it anytime soon?

I recognize the arguments about space research being difficult to fund, and exploration by robots being more economical than increasing human presence in space. And I understand that there’s a lot of stuff going on here on earth that’s made massive research investment and the development of new technologies impractical even if technically attainable. I guess that’s precisely what’s bothering me, though, that we have allowed ourselves to get so bogged down in politics and warfare and the such, that no one’s visited the moon in decades: no woman has ever been there! In a more recent hard science fiction film, Duncan Jones’ 2009 Moon, the hope for our near future seems much dampened; if Sam Rockwell’s character came across a monolith on the far side of the moon, do you think he’d have the resources on hand to excavate it? I didn’t think so. I can’t help but feeling that, now that we’re here, the future could’ve been grander. But at least we’ve got Skype.

So, today has started out well. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Does anyone have anything psychotropic I could use to get my head around the ending of that film? No? Well I had to ask.

It starts out insanely and ends insanely. Almost like Kubrick ran out of crystal meth a quarter of the way through filming, and his good mate Spielberg took half of the time it took to shoot the movie to remind his dealer that he was dealing with two scraggly-bearded movie monsters. Monkeys at the beginning, and ludicrous speed at the end. I was half expecting Rick Moranis. I would have enjoyed it more had he shown up.

Not to take the sheen off of a seriously well made film, however. Kubrick and his cinematographer knew what they were doing and they pulled off every shot very, very well.

In truth I think 2001 is more a cinematographers movie than a Screenwriters movie, but then that could also be down to time. 2001, although a classic, isn’t one of the classics that holds its own with modern audiences. Things like The Godfather (made only 4 years after 2001), which has kept its audience and been passed down through the generations, being relevant to each in turn on some level. 2001 sits there on a pedestal of greatness, and alot of people ( I must admit, myself included) seem to have forgotten why its up there.

Ah well. In other news, R.A.G has been cast for ‘Ungry, with my good friend Penny stepping into the role. Only Hot Girl to cast now.

Anyway, off for whackey stick!

I mentioned something about the Where’s the Wild Thing font to Tommy Harden, an editor here at Joint.

I have seen this font in use all over, in ads, on the sides of buses. On books. And not even related to the Wild Things movie.

I figured it was a newer font – maybe 10 years old, that suddenly everyone was using.

I was wrong.

Tommy showed me this.

NCS Preorder Synopsis
«©NCSX» Rockman’s been around for ages but he’s changed through the years with newfangled renditions in Rockman X, Rockman Zero, and Rockman EXE. The upcoming Rockman & 1-Up Bearbrick Set in Medicom’s Kubrick & Bearbrick (#262) product line places the blue knight squarely in his original 8-bit Famicom persona.

Rockman measures 7cm or 2.75″ tall and is tinted two shades of blue. His boxy body is painted a light-blue while his helmet, hands, and feet are colored navy blue. His expression appears to convey angst… or gas. In addition to the Rockman figure, Medicom also throws in a transparent-blue Bearbrick who has a Rockman tattoo on his chest. Preorders are welcome to ship in mid-late January 2010 at JPY2800 or US$40.90 from NCS.

Get it straight rap people : without one 82 y.o playboy, Hip Hop’s favorite actor would have never play in The Godfather…
and all them quotes of Scarface and Carlito’s Way on Ghostface’s albums might as well been from Robert Redford…
I’m kidin, but I’m not.

1973 Golden Palm winner Jerry Schatzberg remembers how he spotted a young comedian named Al Pacino in an off-broadway theater years before they both got into cinema,
and how Panic in Needle Park helped Coppola to hire Pacino instead of Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Warren Beatty to portray Michael “Godfather” Corleone…

Buddy movie at its finest: Scarecrow (1973)

NCS Product Synopsis
«©NCSX» The original collection of MGS Kubricks sold like gangbusters and NCS eventually sold out of complete cases despite the lofty price. Medicom releases a new MGS Kubrick Collection this week and the characters in the new collection are (Left to Right):

Top Row
» Old Snake in Octocamo Facemask [MGS4] Box Ratio: 6/24
» Solidus Snake [MGS2] Box Ratio: 5/24
» Liquid Ocelot [MGS4] Box Ratio: 3/24

Low Row
» Liquid Snake [MGS] Box Ratio: 4/24
» Iroquois Pliskin [MGS2] Box Ratio: 2/24
» PMC Soldier [MGS4] Box Ratio: 4/24

In addition to the standard figures, two secret Chase figures are randomly packaged in the following ratios:

» Naked Snake [MGS3; Clear Plastic] 1:96 (1 in every 4 factory boxes)
» Old Snake [MGS4; Clear Plastic] 1:96 (1 in every 4 factory boxes)

New orders are welcome at JPY23520 or US$239.90 per factory sealed box of 24 figures.

http://fake-doll.com/2009/07/30/mashups-de-posteres-de-cinema/