becoming a filmie

[robber baron]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't think that Kubrick is all that accessible, and you will certainly turn off a newbie with "Clockwork Orange" or expecially "2001". "Paths of Glory" or "Dr. Strangelove" would probably work, but even they're a little tough.

For all it's brilliance, most people who see "2001" are going to be lost in the first 15 minutes and by the end are going to run screaming from the theater regretting they ever agreed to do this. The average person (you know who I mean) thinks "2001" is crap, or a drug-induced trip at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not consider myself a philistine, yet I do not get 2001. I love Clockwork, Full Metal... I tried to like 2001 but I don't get it. Can you point me to some references or perhaps respond or PM me w/ what I should consider when viewing 2001.

FWIW, I did enjoy the last say 30 mins of the movie, that I liked but the first 3/4 of the movie I just did not enjoy.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't think that Kubrick is all that accessible, and you will certainly turn off a newbie with "Clockwork Orange" or expecially "2001". "Paths of Glory" or "Dr. Strangelove" would probably work, but even they're a little tough.

For all it's brilliance, most people who see "2001" are going to be lost in the first 15 minutes and by the end are going to run screaming from the theater regretting they ever agreed to do this. The average person (you know who I mean) thinks "2001" is crap, or a drug-induced trip at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not consider myself a philistine, yet I do not get 2001. I love Clockwork, Full Metal... I tried to like 2001 but I don't get it. Can you point me to some references or perhaps respond or PM me w/ what I should consider when viewing 2001.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly why Kubrick is a terrible place for someone to start. he's the type of person you have to work up to.

[FortunaMaximus]

2001 is a slow film. I don't know how to better define that.

People make too much of Kubrick being, well, Kubrickian.

Like I mentioned in another thread, I read books, invariably, before I watch films. And this wasn't as much Kubrick as much as it was a very close collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick.

Full Metal Jacket is great entertainment, especially the first hour or so, the stateside sequences. But the entire film becomes more than that. Especially the whole "WTF?" sense you get in the interludes between the battles, the whole sniper scene.

Alex in Clockwork is weird. Saw this film recently, "I'll sleep when I'm dead." Clive Owen, Malcolm McDowell, etc. Very much a revenge flick, but the McDowell scenes, I had the realization he was just being a 70 year old Alex. I don't know.

I enjoy films. I'll watch my share of commerical trash as well as anybody and enjoy them. Because in the end, there is just as much meaning to be gleaned from those films as there are from the high-faultin' Greeks of film.

For in the end, filmmakers tell stories, and they try to do so uniquely. In the retelling and recasting, a story like Hamlet stands the test of time because of the values and moral dilemmas.

I don't get Hitchhock. But that's a matter of taste, ya know?

[colgin]

pryor,

I haven't yet read the other posts (although I intend to after posting) but here are my thoughts.

1. If possible, try to take them to see their first art film at an actual theater. Notwithstanding the convenince of having such an incredible library of films available for home viewing on your DVD player, the experience of this art form is supposd to be projected onto a screen. Moreover, this involves more of a commitment on the part of the friend. For example, my wife is often quick to pass jusgments. At home, it is easy to lose interest in a film at the offset without giving it a full chance (particularly given the distractions available at home-- e.g., phone ringing, etc.) But committing to seeing the whole film avoids this problem (although it doesn't guarantee that they will actually like the movie). Also, seeing a film in a theater is more fun in general.

This should not be too much of a problem in a big metropolitan city or a college town, both of which will have art theaters or revival houses.

2. Film selection. This is key. I would shoot for the more accessible films of some of the bigger name directors but have them be on the shorter side in terms of length. You don't want those first exposures to seem too daunting. Also, try to pick pictures that are somewhat representative of a given school or film movement or era. Also, I would try to pick films where the influences on later movies with which your friend may be familiar is somewhat obvious, so that your friend can discover those influences him or herself without you needing to explain it afterwards. Also, I would avoid heavily symbolic films, such as surrealist films, at first that might play into stereotypes of "art films" being pretentious and inscrutable. Finally, picking films that are fun and/or have some comedic element would be helpful.

So, where do those guidelines leave us.

I think Truffaut's "400 Blows" would be one good choice. It is by a big name director, Francois Truffaut, so now your friend can say he has seen a Truffaut film. It is a seminal French New Wave film. It is accessible and not heavuily symbolic. It's influence is, to a degree, self-evident. If you have ever seen a coming of age story filmed since then you will see the influecne of that movie.

I would pick a films like Godard's Breathless or Band of Outsiders, which show off well what Godard and the New Wavers were doing, are very fun and don't seem heavy-handed; but would avoid something like "weekend" as much as I love that film personally. That is just the type of movie that can cause an iniate to reject all art films out of hand.

Rashomon is a great choice because it is so famous, the story is so compelling, and any viewer will instantly recognize how much it has been copied. Seeing the influence of these older films will be eye opening.

Fellini's 8 1/2, notwithstanding what I said before about surrealism (and the fact that it is a little long), is just so much fun that I would choose that. On the other hand, as far asItalian directos go, I would avoid Antonioni until the person has shown a real interest. His films, in general, would be good examples of films that many will find difficult.

Something like Bergman's "Seventh Seal" or "Smiles of a Summer Night" would be good. "Seventh Seal", while allegorical, is just so famous and fun (as in funny, in my opinion). With one exception, I have never introduced someone to that movie who hasn't really liked it. (I would avoid something like "Crid and Whispers" or "Fanny and Alexander" though fo the reasons stated above.)

I think choosing some silent film masterpieces such as Chaplin's "City Lights" or Keaton's "The Navigator" or "Steamboat Bill, Jr." or "The General" would be great choices. It doesn't (and shouldn't) have to be all foreign films.

Again, for all his greatness I would avoid films by a surrealist like Bunuel until a person was more interested in exploring this further.

3. Discuss the films with your friend afterwards, but don't lecture them. Remember the films should speak for themselves -- that is why you are watching them -- but should not necessarily be explained. This should be a fun experince for your friend, not feel like a class.

Anyway, those are my quicj thoughts.

I will be interested to now read those of others.

[pryor15]

good stuff, colgin

[SilverLining1]

A few films that I could comfortably start them off with:

The Last Detail
Goodfellas
Unforgiven (meh)
25th Hour