Marsellus_H

Well. It's nostalgic for idealized conservative-hierarchical structures in a lot of ways. The whole plot is basically set in a society that has to face change (war, communism) but doesn't want to. To me, the film's message was basically "look how bad it is that we had to change, when we could have just ignored society's problems and continued to live in a suger-coated dreamscape-bubble that is the Grand Budapest." The Grand Budapest basically can be red as Ronald Reagan's shiny city on a hill. Then, there's Zero's work-ethics, which is very ideal towards this whole "Good stuff happens to hard-working people." Also, I'd argue the fact that this film is much more in love with things than it is with peole, like the "Boy With The Apple" painting, or the hotel itself, speak for some pretty materialistic values. In this sense its message can be red as conservative, in my opinion.

Conservative films that are canon-worthy is an interesting thought.... Let's see. Maybe Ben-Hur? I've got a soft-spot for the 1949 film The Fountainhead, although I don't think it's particularly conservative, more of a sappy drama. Also, I guess there could be a case for Ghostbusters, since the main villain is an over-regulating EPA guy. I think with "Grand Budapest Hotel" there's already a pretty conservative film inducted into the canon.

Given the impact that film had on pop culture, music videos and band documentaries, I'd say it's definitely discussion-worthy. Also, I'd love to indulge in random Beatles trivia: Like, uh, that scene with Ringo you're talking about, it was filmed mainly because the other members of the Band were partying too hard the night before, and he was the only one showing up on the set...

I really like that film. I think some of the most poetic shots ever put on film come when the kids are floating on the boat down the stream. great stuff.

I haven't watched this one except for some parts when we tackeled gentrification in geography class. Can't wait to watch it!

Yes. I think Fincher is simply one of the finest craftsmen your country has ever produced. This film shows his best qualities as well as the limitations of them: He will take a pretty standard script and elevate the material with some smart directing choices, without sacrificing its mainstream appeal. I think that works best when the script is part of a clear genre, like here in Seven. While I get some of Amy's criticism, I'd argue that he still manages to make something worth watching out of the limitations he sets for himself. It's tight, it knows what it is, and it moves forward. Maybe, Fincher tackels with this way of working the medium's essence much better than filmmakers like Scorsese or Spielberg: Films aren't magic tricks. They are simply a craft. You go to the cinema, you watch them doing their job, and you move forward with your real life. To me, it's this remarkably modest approach in work philosophy that makes the product enduring. As for the comparisons to CIVIL WAR: If you quote Fincher as your influence, how can you end up with what is basically a 2-hour soap opera special with funny looking people in it, and some fun 20 minutes action sequences tacked to the end? If a film I've seen recently clearly has no idea what it wants to be, it was this one - except for if it wants to be a 2-hour soap opera special with funny looking people in it, and some fun 20 minutes action sequences tacked to the end.

The trick, Doah, is not minding that it hurts.

I give this one a yes. It's fun to watch. It's got a bit of a slow start, but the last 40 minutes are bonkers. There's also kind of a fan theory to it, in which Babe didn't survive the "Is it safe?" scene and everything else is a fever dream in his mind. That's just good enough for the canon. Also, I do agree that 3 great scenes make a at least a discussion-worthy episode, so I totally look forward for Amy to suggest shitty films with three kinda great sequences.

Oh yes! In my books, he belongs to the best directors working today! Don't forget La piel que habito, which is an underappreciated little horror flick i. m. o.

You better bring lube, buddy. Spit won't be enough.

Ok, guys, what leads me to say yes to Brokeback Mountain is simple. I'm pretty much a dude, I go skating, surfing, scuba diving, most of my friends are straight, we watch soccer and movies and drink beer, I'm pretty smart most of the times and really dumb sometimes - and I happen to like guys. I struggeled quite a bit. Part of that struggle came from not having any role models, like at all. To be honest, there still aren't many really good gay films with a positive message or strong characters (or, god forbid, with both of it). Brokeback at lest got the characters-part right. It's probably the only shot we really honestly got of a gay love story with the guys living happy together at least for some time.... The only other discussion-worthy film I can think of would be WEEKEND, a British 2011 film - which was such a small event that the only chance of an episode would probably be if a guest came along with this as a suggestion. Ok, now, with that soul searching stuff out of the way, here are my thoughts on the film making: I've never gotten quite warm with Ang Lee's directing style. I more often than not feel that he's a bit too formulaic for my tastes. This holds true for Life Of Pi, and it also is true to me for this one here, which, had it won best picture, let's be frank, would have probably had a backlash just as much as Dances With Wolves or Chicago. If something makes a film legendary, it's NOT winning these awards. Being the perpetual underdog helped this film to build a reputation that's a bit too large for its own good. I think it's simply a fine small film, based on a really, really well written script with some interesting characters. It is, however, by no means as daring a film as its subject matter. That's certainly a bit of a hard pill to swallow from an artistic point of view, but at the same time I'm pretty sure it's what made the huge success possible in the first place. So, yes, and it was a fun episode as always. Cheers!

You should give it another shot. When I first saw it, the film didn't convince me as being that special. A second viewing did the trick - I could concentrate better and I realized how spot-on the editing and the directing was, how well each scene led to the next one. I know, this sounds kind of elementary, but that isn't easy to achieve.

I don't know, if it's strictly a slasher film, but what about Saw? I think the first one is a bit underappreciated.

Could somebody post that youtube link directly? I wasn't able to find it. Thank you!

This is an idea for an episode that came up at the old forum. Since Pennies From Heaven has been mentioned by Amy during the last episode, and Devin's been going on about having a classical musical added to the canon since the Rocky Horror Show episode, it's about time that we give two of the genre's greatest a shot. Both are undeniably influntial, both for their own reasons: One is the prime example of the streamlined 50s jukebox musicals with the overpowering charme of Gene Kelly, the other one has pretty much invented the "serious subject"-musical, with one of the best scores ever written for the stage. But which one is to be preserved for all eternity? The one that wants to make you laugh, or the one that makes you want to move rhythmically through empty parking garages?

I'm fine with this being an important film, and also being a best picture winner somewhere in the same realm of Gentlemen's Agreement and All The King's Men, but how could this ever win the the Grand Prix at the Cannes film festival? I do think it's a fine viewing in the same way double indemnity is. It's a good film, but minor Wilder. If I can't be passionate about an entry I rather go with a no, although a soft one.

Yes. Fun fact I just found on wikipedia: The guy playing Little John, Alan Hale, already played the same character in the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks film, and would play it again in 1950. Thus, he played the same role for a 28-year-span, making this one of the longest period over which any film actor played the same major role, second only to Stallone's Rocky.

Simply a masterpiece. And it's the film that brought us Vincent Cassel. And funny as hell... J'ai vu une vache. One of my favorite lines in cinema, period.

Thank you so much for your elaborations. I was thoroughly touched by the passion and lenghth of your arguments - a rare feat in here as well as in any forum on the internet, I feel. Right now I don't have neither the time nor the muse to answer in a just way, but let me say so much: I DEFINITELY need to rewatch Grand Budapest, now more than ever.

On a second thought: It would be fun to listen to, but this would imply that either one of them deserves inclusion into the Canon. And as far as Haneke goes, I'm really not sure of that, to be honest...

I second this suggestion, although it would be a painful decision.

I thought I've never watched it, and when I put the film in the dvd player tonight, I found out that I've watched it a long time ago when I was about 10 years old. Funny how things can play out. The thing that impressed me most this time around was the film's length: it clocks in just around 100 minutes. It's really well edited. An epic like this would nowadays be stretched over at least 2 hours... and probably a couple of sequels. Not a trend I appreciate much in modern movies.

You mean, a funny games vs. funny games, u.s., episode? sounds like a great high concept episode.

I vote yes. I wasn't quite sure where I'd land on Slacker, partially because this is such an American film with a very specifically American point of view - which is by no means any negative criticism towards it. It's simply sometimes very hard for me, as a middle European guy, to adjust to it. I often feel like I overlook some small fun details that seem to be like inside jokes in American culture. For example, this doesn't happen in Tarantino movies, which, as he likes to say, are films for the earth, made by a guy from earth that just happens to be American. I feel that Linklater can't really escape his roots. That being said, Amy's and Devin's arguments on the show convinced me in the end, and I'm not going to argue against a film, simply because I don't "get" it fully. Also, the one-take-sequence about 10 minutes into the film, in which this guy drives overhis mother, must have been a small miracle to pull off.

I really, really would love to a Kurosawa episode. Maybe a versus episode with two of his films up against each other could be fun.