AlmostAGhost

Is @kateacola around? Did you get to see your pick?

Yea that's more or less where I'm at. I just prefer fiction. I'm not necessarily skeptical (I definitely am about documentaries though), but a film about a true story seems to be shortcutting a little bit what I want to get out of my movies (which I think I sort of treat as I would literature). I still fall on the side of this movie, for using cinema to tell a true story in about as perfect a way as possible, so I hold it high on this list we're doing. At the very least, I guess I just hold true stories to a higher bar for greatness. That may even include films that use real settings even if they're not true stories: Vietnam War, World War II, Titanic, etc. are generally in the bottom half of my list. I like some of them but President's Men was the one that really jumped up the list.

Completely surprised at the indifference Paul and Amy had to this movie. I also disagree that Pakula's direction is "unshowy." There's a lot of interesting creativity in there, and the ability to make clear sense of this story is also terrific, let alone to make it so entertaining. It does lead me to something I was wondering: does being a "true" story affect your views on its greatness (either positively or negatively)? I personally do tend to lean to fiction in movie preferences, in general, though I do think this movie is amazing and one of my favorites of this series so far. We're all used to these AFI movies now, and they all have a certain conceit of drama and I was vastly entertained by this one not having some of those things. Not getting typical drama stuff like Woodward and Bernstein's personal lives or whatnot really made this stand-out among the bunch we've seen.

Never heard of these, but going by that little info, they sound like they'll be amazing shows

I took it as she was washing and fondling that giant steak in the sink of a mobile home while Norman tried to shower, which is a weird sentence to write, and something you're definitely not ever supposed to do: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/washing-food-does-it-promote-food-safety/washing-food Food is so important to the story lol

Oh I believe it. Kristofferson makes numerous comments about Streisand's ass quite directly in the '70s one...

Oh I didn't remember that. All the versions are melting together in my mind

The beginning! OMG haha I feel like you guys really should check the 70s one and laugh since we all like bad movies

Haha this line is in every version of the film. I can buy it when the first guy says it right before sacrificing himself into the ocean, but a couple of the others just do it because they're horny and it's cheesy. (Unsure when Bradley says it.)

Hm sorry yea, there were like 4 new posts as I was writing mine. But what I mean, I don't think the waitressing bits were supposed to be 'poor.' She was impressing people with her impressions. It does feel a little dated though since I don't know who she was supposed to be imitating... You're right he never saw it though. Still, his elevation of her worked and she won an Oscar. His instinct was right, on her at least. That doesn't bother me. And it implies the bit that luck does play in becoming a success, which is pretty fair for a movie like this.

I think we do a little - there's that scene when she's waitressing and doing all those accents/impersonations. I think that was supposed to be a glimpse of her talent.

Oh, one interesting thing I noticed. In the 1937 version, we see the work -- take her name change, for instance. We see a bunch of studio folk trying to figure out the best sounding name, and an (albeit, tame) struggle to try to get it right and figure it out. We also see her practicing acting, and things like that. In the 1954 version, Judy Garland just shows up to get her paycheck and they tell her she has a new name. It's just thrust right on her, done. Streisand didn't change her name at all, if I recall. Maybe it's a minor nitpick but I think it really shows off the differences between the movies. (I really should watch the 2018 version.)

I watched the first 3 versions and have not seen the new one. (Hopefully this week.) I would say this '37 version is my favorite, easy. It has the best humor mixed in with the dramatic story. It's just the most likable if you ask me. Interestingly, the '54 version literally uses the same dialogue, scenes, shots as the first for like the last quarter of the film. They knew the first one got it right, I think, and that also makes this version feel pointless. Even if it has some great songs. I've found all the acting to be pretty solid -- it's a natural story for great acting I guess. The '70s version is ridiculous though, and the writing is pretty bad. The music is weirdly bland and generic. I think I generally consider it to just be a story about Esther, and more or less ignore Norman haha. It's her life, and the relative success of the picture depends on how much you get a sense of her full arc. The '37 version gives it all from start to finish, from her just being a fan of the movies to her massive success to even the little coda. Judy Garland is already sort of a success at the start of it, she just switches careers because the guy says so. Streisand isn't, but she doesn't seem to want to be where she ends up either, which changes the arc a lot.

I mean I think that's the answer, right? It's a list of the 100 greatest, not "100 good, maybe not great" films. I voted that it shouldn't be on the list, and that's exactly why. It's better than good, I'll add, but I'm not sure it gets to great.

If anyone wants to read the original short story it's here https://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm053.html Also here's this week's poster - I had to look closely to realize it was Paul and Amy lol

This 1937 one isn't a musical at all! but it's definitely making me want to watch the later more musical ones

Well like I said, it's borderline. It's very close to the puritanical "don't enjoy any pleasures" theme that's in Pinocchio. That the food here is from a stranger is more reasonable, sure. But I mean, she dies later from food from a stranger, so why do we need Grumpy wagging his finger and being a scold? Maybe if we're arguing the age range of this movie is for like 5-9 year olds or something, this is a perfectly fine message for a film. But we're not, we're considering it as elevated, better than a kids' movie, and for all ages. I'm certainly not arguing against the message in of itself, I'm no heathen saying 'indulge yourself always'. But why does it need to be here at all? In a semi-scolding, patronizing way too, no less? Is that the best way to teach kids? *shrug* I mean whatever, most kids' movies have junk like this in them -- for whatever reason adults have always felt it was required to scold kids in entertainment made for them. And it will always annoy me haha.

The foreshadowing is cool, but that's the type of "don't indulge in the simplest of pleasures, kids!" moralizing that really hurts these early Disney films for me. I guess b/c its unknown origin food, it's fine, but I still find it pretty borderline as a message.

I started the same thing not long ago, I'm not that far into it yet, but yes Pinocchio is trash. I can't get over how much so, actually. It's fascinating to me that so much of it is so engrained in culture. Forget if it was Paul or Amy, but one of them said something about Snow White being about "learning to be an adult" and that's what Pinocchio is, but it extends the unfun moralizing so much further.

Also FYI, Fantasia was on the 1998 list (#58) but dropped off entirely for the one we're using

Yea I'm not sure how I feel about it. Those are good points. I don't think Snow White should be on here by itself, if you divorce it from its pioneering status. It feels to me voters may have been, "I can't decide which Disney movie so let's go with the prototype" and that has led to its elevation over all the others. I mean, we could easily argue for at least 6-7 others, right? So then you're in a situation where the top-100 has like 5 similar animated Disney movies on it, or none at all. But I liked Amy's comment right at the end about leaving "first" culture. The next iteration of a list should indeed make the tough choices and decide which are the best.

The other idea I think Snow White does encompass (and maybe perfectly?) for the AFI list is that it represents "all Disney." I personally think that a few other early ones are better too, and even closer to "great", but Snow White may be the best representation of Disney as a genre. It's a stand-in for all the great Disney movies at once. And I think to some extent that's what puts this on the list.

Twitter confirmation 4/11 - All The President's Men 4/18 - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

The pod description says next week is 4/11 - All The President's Men so I don't know what happened to The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre, which was previously announced for next week will try to find out