Recommendations for personal film appreciation course

Cafe Society
1

I would love you to recommend one or two films which you think represent an outstanding example of some aspect of film making. It is really important that you explain why you are recommending the particular film and to what aspect you think I should pay particular attention. I don’t just want a list of good films.

Background: I have spent decades only seeing films as a brief distraction from work and family and everyday stresses, so only saw them as entertainment. I have taken almost no notice of the director, producer, actors or any other of the professionals involved. When I read a book I really like, I then read everything by the author and find out about them. I want to learn how to appreciate a really good director, say, and then explore the work of that director or explore a particular aspect of direction in films. It doesn’t matter if I have seen the film before, I will happily watch it again from the video shop so I can stop and start the film to appreciate all aspects of the art of film making at a gentle and reflective pace.

Small issue: If you are recommending a film with a rating for violence, then I really need a very good reason to put up with the nightmares which will follow.

2

Well if I am running the course the first thing you have to do is read William Goldman’s Adventures In The Screen Trade.

3

You should check out Roger Ebert’s Great Films. He has all of them listed on his website. Plus each one has an easy written by Ebert that explains the context of the film and why it is important.

I would recommend you start with Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and The Godfather. The Ebert pieces will help you understand what is important about each of those films better than I could in this post.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=REVIEWS08

4

My recommendations here are basically for films that are essentially films, meaning that they challenge the grammar and conventions of cinematography, pursuing its potentials, thus being works that could not be presented in any other medium. Lots and lots of films are really “just” adaptations of novels or plays - basically something that has been “thought” as literature; these films are more than that (IMO) and represent art uniquely pertaining to the darkness of the cinema halls:

Alain Resnais’ Last Year in Marienbad IMDB.
Andrei Tarkovsky’s The Mirror IMDB.

I could name more, but you asked for one or two. I find these two to be some of the most beautiful, evocative films ever made - and fascinating to watch because of the “filmic” feel i described above.

I just remembered one more that I really like for its cinematographic qualities - not because it challenges the grammar of the medium like the above-mentioned, but because it utilizes it beautifully. Every shot, every angle, every tone in this film has been thought through, making it a truly beautiful film:

Satyajit Ray’s Pater Panchali IMDB.

I am sure Roger Ebert has something to say about these as well. Enjoy.

5

Given my screen name it’s not going to surprise many people when I choose to plug the works of Hayao Miyazaki.

I’ll be honest: I like animation. I think it’s fun, and attractive (when well done) and that as an art form it can tell stories just as complex and “real” as any other medium. It burns me when people tell me that animation is just for children’s stories. So, then I challenge such persons to watch something like Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away.

I can’t pretend that either film has affected movies, in general, since their release. At least, my casual knowledge doesn’t really bring up anything that I’d consider a derivative work.

However both films bring absolutely stunning artwork to the screen; Have excellent, well-plotted stories, and often feature ambiguous characters.

The sorts of things that I’d suggest looking for in either film: Check out the use of foreshadowing in both, and how it’s used to tell a more complete story cycle. Similarly, ask yourself whether any of the characters in either film can be viewed as villains. One more question: can you imagine either film being convincing, as shot, as a live action/CGI film?

6

Singing in the Rain, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Groundhog Day. Very different films, obviously, but each is a near-perfect example of pure film-making, with barely a wasted moment in any of them. Singing in the Rain is probably the acme of pre-1970s Hollywood - I must have seen it 20 times and am still spotting new things in it.

7

My Cousin Vinnie. Every stray plot point or bit of dialogue has an unforeseen impact later in the movie.

Peter Jackson’s King Kong. There were so many reasons not to make this movie, and I’m so glad he did it anyway.

8

The Big Sleep (1946) is a detective movie where the crime doesn’t matter, and Ocean’s Eleven (2001) is a heist movie where the robbery doesn’t matter. Both of those movies have great characters and clever, snappy dialog. The scenes I remember best are just two people talking, and being as smart and witty as most people can only dream of being. Also in Ocean’s Eleven notice how the director is able to tell a store with 13 characters and keep them all distinct and important. When they’re buying the vans for the getaway, we haven’t seen Frank Catton (Bernie Mac) on screen for a while; he gets that scene so the audience won’t forget him.

9

The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, by Werner Herzog. The film is deeply spiritual and it will arouse your emotions (MOST of them) while forcing you to think about major issues in life. It’s emotionally raw and visually beautiful. Absolutely, everyone should see it.

10

The Casablanca and Citizen Kane DVDs have commentary tracks by Ebert that do a nice job of explaining their significance. I recommend watching each movie first without the commentary track, and then again with it on. (For example, a lot of people don’t understand the praise that Citizen Kane gets. Ebert’s commentary explains how innovative the film was, so that in its own way, it was as much of a special effects extravaganza as Star Wars.) Be careful when shopping, though, because I think both movies were released on DVD multiple times, and I think the commentary tracks are only on one version of them.

11

Agreed. Even the alternative title Every Man for Himself and God Against All should be enough to make anyone curious. A great film! The actor who plays Kaspar Hauser (Bruno S) also plays the lead in Herzog’s Strozek.

12

Thank you for such a variety of suggestions. Books, websites and films - wonderful stuff to follow up on. I am really looking forward to a lot more film watching.

I just watched two films recommended by a close friend which I had never heard of and woud not have watched unless they were drawn to my attention: Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. They featured almost entirely two characters talking and were the most beautiful films I think I have ever seen. I watched them giving them my total concentration and ended up with experiences I have reflected on a great deal since. The discussion of their lives and feelings as their relationship grew from nothing to what it became - initially in a single night spent wandering the streets of Vienna - was just sensational. I want to discover films which do more than just entertain - although pure entertainment is just fine as well!

Thank you for your suggestions and reasons. Any more would be very welcome. I will follow up on those so far with pleasure.

13

Heh, can’t help but comment when you pick out my favorite romance (movie) of all time. I think I have ended up liking everyone I’ve met who enjoys those films, and I think it’s because they cater to a fairly specific type of person…

Anyway, to answer the OP, I would recommend Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. In this film, I would pay attention to the multiple plotlines and how they criss-cross with each other in very clever ways. Also note how the pace of the movie always seems quick, but never hurried. I think that has to do with exactly when the director chooses to open and cut a scene, and how scenes transition from one to the next. I’m no film buff, but the skill and artistry that went into this movie are quite apparent, even to me.

14

Time to thank you again. I have now compiled a huge list of films - including Ebert’s 100 classics, all those given here and others recommended to me privately into a long list to take with me to the video shop and other sources. Forget the ‘one or two films’ in the OP. I was just trying to be kind and not ask you for long lists. Long lists would be fine and help me prioritise.

I have started on the films and am enjoying myself immesnely. I found the comments you made about why to watch them intriguing.

OtakuLoki, I am really pleased to have been pointed to animation - an area I wold not have considered and am keen to learn more about.

Two and a Half Inches of Fun, I have seen those you recommended before, but not Casablanca, which surprises me. I will rectify that immediately. But I want to revisit them all in my new ‘study as well as enjoy’ mode.

Panurge, you have named films I have never heard of, and so will take me in directions I don’t know. That is exciting. I will better understand your comments when I have seen them. I am not sure how available they will be from our local video shop, but can search further.

don’t ask, I have ordered Goldman’s book. It will be here next week. Thank you.

Le Comte de Mortain - I think I know Singing in the Rain off by heart I have seen - and enjoyed- it so often. Hence I will take your other recommendations very seriously! I am very fond of musicals being a passion I shared with my late father while he played the tunes on the piano. Any more musicals you would rate as classics?

Robot Arm, Crime is another interest of mine - what I read and what I am writing as my second novel - in between the non-fiction which I write most. Any more classic crime movies would be much appreciated.

**Krokodil **- two really interesting reasons. Must see.

Oregon sunshine - I had never heard of Herzog, but the that has now changed. Your comments and those added by Panurge make him sound intriguing. Sometimes I feel really ignorant.

Dewey Finn - you talk about commentary tracks on DVD’s which reminds me of the other ‘extras’ I have noted on DVD’s but not taken much notice of. I have looked at some ‘making of’ segments, such as for Narnia and Lord of the Rings. I really appreciate your comments on that and think I will go back to a few films I have watched before and look for the extras and commentaries. Should help my endeavour to be better informed a great deal.

Windwalker - thank you for the comments and follow up to the two Befores. I just saw Julie Delpy’s 2 Nights in Paris and really enjoyed it. I actually think it is her version of a third in the series, with enough changed (names and Jesse’s child) to make it a non-sequel. I’d be interested to know if anyone else thinks the same.

I have now compiled a booklet of your recommendations, others I have received, all the comments and the list from Egbert. I am also compiling a Word document of the iMDB entries and other comments or references as I watch each film. I will be ending up with my own personal textbook! I feel I am embarking on a course now and your recommendations have been hugely appreciated.

Now I just need to decide which film is next!

What intrigues me is that none of you said to ‘see anything that So-and-so Actor is in’. Yet I often get the idea from the media that the actors are almost all that matters.

Would you recommend Woody Allen’s films? I have been meaning to see them for ever so long but never got around to them. Do you see them as classics and if so, which would you recommend I see first?

Thank you all so much!

Lynne

15

I think in general, good acting is probably the most obvious indicator of quality. Most people will be able to distinguish good acting from bad acting, subtle emoting from chewing the scenery. We may not know exactly how they are achieving a convincing portrayal (is it tone of voice, or slight facial movements, or body placement, or hand gestures, etc.), but we’re all programmed, at least to some degree, to detect how well people are lying (acting) to us.

Other aspects of film-making require close examination to really understand why they’re so effective, methinks. I know that I’d have a hard time telling you why Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind delivered on so many levels for me, as I was just enjoying the ride, and don’t have a film-maker’s eye.

16

Ok, watch Babe.

Take note, as you watch the film, of the relative position of the head of James Cromwell, the farmer and his wife, especially how they appear in realtion to the other people’s heads.

This is a film maker using composition to help tell the story.

17

98% of my own film education can be traced back to this article, published in *this *newspaper. In the ten years I’ve spent checking off this list of films–and following up on obvious tangents, like other films by these directors, etc.–I’ve given myself an immensely valuable (not to mention enjoyable) film education.

18

In keeping with my earlier suggestion - Goldman is a great writer and his book will tell you a lot about what film makers are doing and why they do it, try watching these:

10 minute film school and Part 2, in which director Robert Rodriguez gives you a look at the nuts and bolts of making a cheap movie. It is very cheap but all the story telling elements are there.

19

You guys are in my really good books! I just watched Groundhog Day, a film I would never have selected from the description or trailers. I loved it. What that proves to me is that my assessment of films from the blurbs is no good.

In my personal text book, I have now added Babe and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind along with your comments. Isn’t cut and paste wonderful? The article is there two, lissener - skimming it made me want to go out and get 100 films now.

I am really interested in your comments about actors, Windwalker - does that mean that you don’t think actors are a good guide to the quality of the film? Or are some actors very good at picking their parts and hence are a good guide. If so, do you have any examples?

I was thinking of the British actor, Nigel Hawthorne, and the fact that I loved everything I saw him in - mostly TV. [she disappears off into another window]. OK, just checked iMDB and it seems I have only seen a fraction of his work, so don’t take that comment too seriously.

So much fun to be had!

20

Ah, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I just meant that most people are able to detect good acting and bad acting, at least to some degree. And in a movie like Before Sunrise, the acting is absolutely vital, since the entire movie essentially consists of two people talking. In other movies, not as important.

But anyway, it’s just like with music; the singing is something most people can have an opinion on, but the less prominent things (like use of syncopation, counterpoint, etc.) are harder to actually talk about, even though most can appreciate them.

As for actors being a good indicator of film quality, I would agree to a certain extent. If I see that Johnny Depp is in a movie, I’d be fairly sure that it won’t be a total stinker, based on his past choices and the fact that his acting resume is as impressive as I’ve seen; I don’t recall a bad performance.