ol' eddy wrecks

So... Looking ahead to next week, who here has seen Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans? I have, once, a few years ago. I think Amy's, "it's crazy, you're going to love it!" to Paul feels a bit misleading to those who haven't. I have wondered how the main plot point is going to be received here.

I don't think anyone said that it was. Just (historically), it was his breakout film. I think the podcast just simply didn't point out how old he and for how long he had already been directing when he finally broke-out.

Slight disclaimer, I first watched this about 20 years ago, when I was about 20. My opinions of it then were fairly positive, I think. I revisited it a couple years ago while listening to another podcast also covered it. I couldn't help but wince at the main characters. That felt close enough ago, I didn't feel the need to revisit it for this episode.

I might say more later, but along these lines of, "but what does the movie think of them?" - and something independent of it, that era sure seemed to have a number of general plot lines of, "stranger shows up in messed up environment. One where the powers in charge don't deserve what they have for one reason or another. They shake things up. Then they leave (possibly by death*). You see the effect they've left on others." In this case, I think it was Radar mimicking the whistle at the end. *: Usually refered to as a Jesus parable in these cases. I'm just thinking, there was Cool Hand Luke, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and this (off the top of my head). There's probably a few others that I'm not thinking of. Imagining the time I can see why such an anti-establishment archetype seemed appealing to a lot of people. But I have to agree, with what's been said that whatever point it was trying to make didn't seem overly coherent - other than, "our military is fool of buffoons (particularly the leaders), so we should get out of Vietnam,"** and the comic style of people just talking over each other and so many people in a scene that would come to define Altman must have also been very radical. And if this was the only Altman film of that ilk made, that might make it worth consideration... but there are other, better Altman. **: Just a timeline of other related media I can think of that's broaching this subject (main notable difference they're more, looking back at WW2). Catch-22 (book): 1961 dr strangelove: 1964 Slaughterhouse-V (book): 1969 Catch-22 (movie): 1970 M*A*S*H: 1970 Sl.-V (movie): 1972

I will say, I think I'm probably amongst the more mild responses to Parasite, which was, "solidly made thriller with some nice social commentary. Well thought out. Out of what I did see this past year, it was definitely in the category of, 'glad I saw it/did not disappoint nor wanting it to be more - i.e. it was what it was, and did it very well.'" It wouldn't jump to my mind as possible best of the decade as it seemed a number of critics did when talking about it. I wasn't surprised it won BP (just because every movie seemed to have its detractors and Parasite did not), and mildly glad that it did. I don't have much emotion invested in the Oscar's, but it's nice that it finally awarded BP to a foreign language film, though like Justin Chang, I don't have much hope for this becoming a trend of the Academy looking more at international films (I see it more of a reflection as the voting demographic gradually shifting), just because, as he said, it managed to tick off all three checkboxes (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, also mentioned in the thread, did those, just a little too early for the Academy to go that way. So, I don't think it's non-replicable.). So, shrugs. /end of general thoughts on Parasite

Hey, You're back! I have not seen High and Low - I wouldn't describe my knowledge of Kurosawa as complete. But I did wonder about the boy's obsession with Native Americans and having him basically mimic how a lot of Americans have treated the issue up until... actually not that long ago. Tribute to old westerns? Is it the Park's family imitation of how they view America (which given how it's how Americans viewed their own mythology only a few decades ago is also an extra layer of commentary)? Is it just an allusion to other cinema that Bong likes? Reference to the Native American genocide? I don't really track down interviews with the director, but that is definitely something I'd be curious what the authorial intent was.

So, 1964 Oscars would be for 1963, looking it over on letterboxd, English language-wise, I'm seeing The Birds, Hud, The Haunting, and The Lord of the Flies (which, admittedly, I haven't seen). (ETA: so, yeah... I'm having a hard time finding anything there at least amongst what I've seen) Looking over other countries... holy crap: 8 1/2 (Fellini's, I'd say, best!) Contempt (Godard!) Winter Light (Bergman!) The Silence (Bergman!) The Leopard (Visconti!) The Big City (Satyajit Ray!) The Executioner (I can't remember who directed it, but it was pretty damn good!) Muriel, or the Time of Return (Resnais!) Youth of the Beast (Suzuki!) Now, I'm not the biggest on Bergman, and I didn't really get Visconti from the one movie I saw (The Leopard) and sure, Youth of the Beast isn't best picture type of quality, but it just really layers on this was a really rich year for foreign cinema. Fwiw, if I was to pick one from the list I'd suspect you'd like, I'd probably pick The Big City - but you're a little difficult to predict.

And in terms of foreign language films that should have won Oscars (barring competition), the BFI list is full of them (I checked for the year 8 1/2 was up for best foreign film - the US bp nominees..., I'll just say the US bp nominees don't come to mind as essential movie viewing (admittedly, the winner, Tom Jones, is a movie I had not heard of before looking up what won the year of 8 1/2). But related to that point, the BFI list is also full of English language films that "should have won, but didn't", so I feel that makes the initial question of "should have won" ambiguous as to what we're asking. I'm just falling back into the usual wormhole of what does "deserves recognition from recognizing body that it becomes clear I don't fully respect how/what it chooses to recognize."

I don't really follow these things too much and yet I still received the impression that a big reason why Roma didn't win was because of filmmakers, not just Hollywood, having very negative opinions of Netflix - the early availability on such also ironically seemed to be the reason why it was able to gain the word of mouth to be nominated in the first place. Looking at that list on wiki, of the recent nominees, Haeneke's Amour still stands out as the surprising nomination to me (since my general impression is the Academy wants fairly big movies).

Never seen The Sound of Music, so, un-opinionated on the poll. Wrt to the Oscars and foreign language films: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign-language_films_nominated_for_Academy_Awards#Best_Picture I guess it's worth bringing up the list of movies that were nominated. I did check, Z is on the criterion channel (amongst a lot of other things, because, you know, movies exist). I don't really get the issue for some people with subtitles (much like some people unwilling to watch movies that are in black and white). And I will point out, it doesn't really make sense to say, "list of American films... and also any film a separate, local awards organization will recognize regardless of where it's from". However, wrt reading subtitles, one thing I have noticed for myself, if I sit too close to the screen, I'm not being able to keep the screen and text in my field of vision, and my eyes will have to pick which to focus on. So, assuming your not too near-sighted (or at least have glasses), consider sitting a little further back if you're having an issue not being able to follow what's happening on screen because you're reading subtitles.

Should have won is a weird question with the Oscars. I'm trying to think of foreign films that are period pieces about a quasi-famous historical figure that requires wearing a prosthetic, set in LA, that is about movie-making. But can't be too good.

Due to this getting bumped up in the release schedule I haven't watched this yet (I wasn't paying attention at the end of last week, I guess). I suspected it wasn't my type of movie and one there's a good chance that I would think isn't very good. Everything I'm hearing in the podcast and this thread seems to be confirming those beliefs. I'll probably pass on this one since I don't feel the need to be a completist (plus cost of time and money). (abstaining on the vote, fwiw). Sure, it's confirmation bias, but there's a reason why we're succeptible to confirmation bias.

I'd also like to mention the documentary series The Story of Film: an Odyssey* (I always get the second word wrong - apologies if I did so again here). It's on Hulu these days. But one of the early (silent film) episodes, shows the succession of office shots from The Crowd, to The Apartment, to The Trial. (I still haven't seen The Crowd, though it's one of those - I'd like to). Just calling it out because I really like that shot in The Apartment and The Trial. *: Disclosure, I started it years ago, only got a few episodes in, and started it up again recently and haven't yet finished.

I prefer thinking of it as, the guy who thinks he's nice, tries to be nice, but actually causes a lot of harm. Whether that's some commentary on being "a good German," I guess could be a thing (given Wilder's background). Though I'm quite content without taking it that far. I do think the end is a little too Pat and dry. Sheldrake is unrealistically obtuse (even if he doesn't clue in that Baxter likes her, I think most people wouldn't want someone who attempted suicide under such conditions to be brought back to their apartment under the same conditions). I also think the ending would be stronger if they didn't get back together/yaddy, yaddy, yaddy. The broken mirror line always gets me though. The strength of this movie really is McClane's character. Which I don't think is so much her also trying to please, but rather just being stuck/subject to her emotions no matter how much she hates them.

1. Sunset Boulevard 2. The Apartment 3. Double Indemnity 4. Some Like it Hot I still don't really think that much of Some Like it Hot. The other three are in that vague range, "pretty good. Wouldn't feel bad seeing them on a best-of list, but I wouldn't say they're slam dunks. Feels weird seeing all three."

Only 24 minutes into the episode, but wanted to say this before I forget - Paul said when he saw Reservoir Dogs, he'd never seen something like the earcuttung scene before. That came from Django, which, well, was a (Spaghetti) Western set in Mexico that involved a machine gun.

I wonder which one they're going to end on. Casablanca seems like the only high ranking one left (if they want to end on a proverbial, cinematic high note). I was kinda hoping they'd do Butch Cassidy right after The Wild Bunch because they both came out the same year*, both have an element of Americans going down to Mexico and getting in over their heads, having a band of bounty hunters on their tail, but so completely different. * I didn't think to check the release date on these two until this rewatch and realizing it, it just seemed nuts.

Hey @Scottcarberry, could you add the standard poll to the thread? If memory serves you do so by clicking the link that says "content", it'll give you the option to choose either "poll" or "question", and if you do so, it'll show you the options for creating a poll.

Amy & Paul dig into 1925’s chilly Charlie Chaplin comedy The Gold Rush! They wonder whether the Tramp smells bad, learn about the tradition of Christmas crackers, and ask if this is the best Chaplin film on the AFI list. Plus: Composer Cliff Retallick talk about what it’s like to compose for silent film screenings. How would you cast a modern version of The Wild Bunch? Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your answer! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts. Photo credit: Kim Troxall HEAR THE EPISODE

I wish I could have my turning moment on Chaplin that Paul seems to have had with silent films in general, but I think I might just not like Chaplin's style. This is caveated with realizing it's unclear how much Chaplin I've seen. Within the last decade it's been City Lights, twice, and now The Gold Rush. Comedy can be rough if you just aren't laughing. I found The Gold Rush to be sprawling (in a bad, unfocused way). Which is to say, I am echoing @sycasey 2.0's surprise Paul and Amy swooned over this one. At least in terms of wasn't expecting it. Speaking of other acclaimed 1925 silent films (mentioned in the podcast) - I also did not like Battleship Potemkin. It's the only Eisenstein I've seen and it was only once, so it's possible I can be swayed. I am admittedly not that well versed in early silent films, but I've found at least some that I like.

Okay, that's fair. My comments were meant more with the guess that you had voted (and had voted, yes). I've been mostly interpreting the question recently more as, "would it be on your ballot," as opposed to "should it be on the final list," which gives the individual the freedom to say, "this movie just didn't work for me for some reason." Well, I also imposed on myself a "let's make it the top 25 of these movies, so some non-passive decisions have to be made."

Paul & Amy sap your bodily fluids with 1964’s Cold War satire Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb! They unpack how director Stanley Kubrick manipulated his cast to get the best performances, learn the origin of Strangelove’s voice, and play a Strangelove-inspired song by a classic SoCal punk band. Plus: recapping the Golden Globes! What other satires would you add to the AFI list? Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your answer! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts. Photo credit: Kim Troxall This episode is brought to you by Sonos (www.sonos.com).

In terms of re-evaluating pop-horror movies, back in the 70's Warhol (or at least his cadre) seemed big on doing it with the Universal horror movies they grew up with. Though it seemed more in line of re-interpreting or re-creating them, more akin to Tarantino does now with 70's genre films (and Spielberg and Lucas did with the 50s serials for Star Wars and Indiana Jones). The most notable I can think of were the Paul Morrissey movies Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula (sometimes known as Andy Warhol's Frankenstein and Andy Warhol's Dracula. Famouse producers get their names on stuff). But there was also Jack Smith's Normal Love, which admittedly seemed more a mixed media presentation, though maybe I just didn't really get it. But it did trade in imagery and costumes of those horror creatures.

Jaws I never followed up in our conversation in the Star Wars thread (short of time/etc) - but with that question I was just toying with the idea of someone going, "Here's a list of the greatest 100 American Movies of All Time. Included: A comedy that I do not find funny." Admittedly, Strangelove is that odd case where I can imagine a case being argued ("While I found the intended comedy too flat and calculated, I did find the American deterrence strategy terrifying and absurd when thought about. And no other movie I can think of conveyed the stupidity of it, and possible all human extinction, as aggressively as it did." But still, it is odd to see someone say a movie, that to them effectively failed in one of its key presentations - to make the viewer laugh - is better than possibly some other political commentary movies that did not fail in its genre (to the viewer making the list). I'm assuming you voted "yes" in the poll, since no one has voted "no" yet. However, you may have abstained (in which case my comments aren't relevant). It feels like these things ebb and flow. Kubrick himself said he wanted to do a horror movie because these other respected directors had made these great horror movies (I believe Rosemary's Baby, and The Exorcist were the two he was thinking of). And I think The Shining initially had troubles just because it was longer than what the public's attention span had become. Hence the European cut being about 1/2 hour shorter (Kubrick re-cut it after its initial release was disappointing in Europe. Though I've never heard of it struggling in the US like The Thing did). I think the respect the genre had started to gather started to plummet in the 80s with the rise of the slasher franchises. Anyhow, fwiw, on the BFI poll, you don't see any of the non-Pyscho type of horror movies in the top 100, but if you look in the next 100, you see Don't Look Now, The Shining, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre at spots: 127, 154, 183. A little further down still and you see Videodrome at 202 (because I guess The Fly and Naked Lunch are just too mainstream). And on the They Shoot Pictures variant for horror movies, "They Shoot Zombies Don't They - top 1000 horror movies of all time" (which is supposed to be an aggregate of various lists found over the net), up until a few years ago, The Shining was at the top of the list. Then at some point, it slipped to number 2 behind The Exorcist. Me, these days, the Kubrick I put right up next to 2001 as being my choice for best Kubricks is Barry Lyndon. How "American" it is, I'd just leave it to other people to debate.

Do you feel you understand its comic greatness?