Films

Oscars - Best Picture - The Kings Speech (7/4 Coral, BlueSquare, 2/1 Bodog)
BAFTA - Best Supporting Actor - Pete Postlethwaite (9/2 Paddy Power)
 
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest hardly left everyone feeling warm inside! I'm sure if I had the time and the inclination, I'd find quite a lot of Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning films which hardly fit your rather generalised swipe, Hamm. True, Hollywood does churn out a lot of escapist fare, but then so does Bollywood and South American, Italian, Spanish and French cinema. I don't think you could possibly put Monsieur Hulot's Holiday or Chocolat in the 'left wing drivel' arena, either, Clivex. You two are so entrenched in attaching political views to everything!
 
Hamm; I've never heard of Eric Rohmer, but I 've just wickipedia'd him; sounds fascinating. I'm very much into films with subtitles at the moment, because I actually have to concentrate on them [concentration being one of the things that goes out the window with age..]
 
He sounds light and frothy, not at all 'left wing'... what do you make of Ken Loach and his ilk, then, Clivex? Is it 'gritty realism' when it's British, and 'left wing drivel' when it's French?
 
Hamm said:
The Oscars is generally for films Americans find easy to understand; those films generally have a linear beginning-middle-end structure; dialogue that leaves nothing which can be misconstrued; music which ensures the audience definitely feel the building of tension (they may not get there alone); subtlety is banned; as are unresolved parts of a film (ending must ensure audience leave with no questions in their 'heads'); film should make people feel warm inside/better about themselves and not challenge accepted ideas; ideally be about a historic figure and be biased so as not to disturb the feel-good factor; the actors should all have shiny white teeth and perfect smiles - in general, good films need not apply.

I however think it's all a farce.
Click to expand...

I think that's very harsh. Like Clive says, The Hurt Locker certainly did not fit that description and neither did Slumdog Millionaire the year before. Both won the Best Picture and both were brilliant films.
 
Gamla Stan said:
Saw 127 Hours last week and thought it was excellent, could have easily been a boring dragging film until the inevitable moment but in a similar way to Slumdog Millionaire, Boyle really kept the viewer up with the pace until the gory but satisfying conclusion.
Click to expand...

The last part of your sentence sums it up for me (it being my point about Oscars/Hollywood) - why should a film have a satisfying conclusion? It makes no sense. Or, what I should say is why should every film have a conclusion?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
And what tickles the cannes judges is left wing drivel :)
Click to expand...

There is not one film that has won this award in the past 25 years which fits into this - I don't believe film has a politics, or at least a politics serious enough to influence the Palme D'or.
 
Last edited:
moehat said:
Hamm; I've never heard of Eric Rohmer, but I 've just wickipedia'd him; sounds fascinating. I'm very much into films with subtitles at the moment, because I actually have to concentrate on them [concentration being one of the things that goes out the window with age..]
Click to expand...

There are some lovely DVD sets of his which are quite cheap. If you can't find them online, drop me a pm as there's a shop in London which does a few box sets of his at reduced prices.
 
Hamm said:
The last part of your sentence sums it up for me (it being my point about Oscars/Hollywood) - why should a film have a satisfying conclusion? It makes no sense. Or, what I should say is why should every film have a conclusion?
Click to expand...

127 Hours won't win a major award at the Oscars though and it's directed by a Brit too though.

The film is also based on a true story so the conclusion is known beforehand anyway... :whistle:

Edit: It's not just directed by a Brit but produced by a Brit and the adapted screenplay (based on an autobiography) is by Brits too.
 
Last edited:
I think films, books, or plays all need satisfying conclusions - which is not the same thing at all as having everything resolved. A satisfying conclusion, which is merely the end of the running time or the pages, can be a complete resolution of the issues/mystery or it can be open-ended, either posing further questions of the reader or audience, leaving the ending open to interpretation - the good old did he/didn't he conundrum.

What most people mean by satisfying is usually 'neat resolution' - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. If the consumer leaves the subject feeling more engaged than when he started it, that surely is satisfying? If I'm reading a light novel (on any subject), I probably expect to have all the ends neatly tied up, as I would of a film of similar ilk. If I'm reading something by a more intellectual writer, I might find that the main character is just left in the middle of the subject, with no 'finish' in sight. If he's left with several options of recourse, then it leaves me pondering which he's most likely to take, with what outcome. That can be just as satisfying (because it's allowing me to have an imagination) as the main character winning the girl's heart/making a million/avenging a wrong, etc., and drawing the issue to a close.

If it's a fully factual book or film, I don't expect the facts to be fictionalised - we know that the Titanic doesn't limp back to port, we know that the Hindenburg wasn't retired in 1950, we know that Bluebird's run ended in fatal disaster. So there's always that certainty of ending. What would make for a satisfying ending (and start and middle) would then hinge on performances, dialogue, production values and overall veracity. Wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Gamla Stan said:
127 Hours won't win a major award at the Oscars though and it's directed by a Brit too though.

The film is also based on a true story so the conclusion is known beforehand anyway... :whistle:

Edit: It's not just directed by a Brit but produced by a Brit and the adapted screenplay (based on an autobiography) is by Brits too.
Click to expand...

Hollywood (for me) doesn't refer specifically to the location, more to the style of the film (or maybe I should say it refers more to the production company).

If someone wants to go and watch a formulaic, cheesy film for 2 hours, showing the hero overcoming his obstacle, followed by a happy ending (cheesy lines throughout) then I presume this is the perfect film for them. They will leave with not a thought in their head. If someone wants to watch a film that will have them thinking, discussing and pondering in the hours after, then something else is better. As you know, I watch both (we all need comfort in our lives) but I would prefer less of the former and more of the latter, but most of all that people can see that the former (and by association, the Oscars) is for the most part a pile of rubbish! :D
 
Last edited:
He sounds light and frothy, not at all 'left wing'... what do you make of Ken Loach and his ilk, then, Clivex? Is it 'gritty realism' when it's British, and 'left wing drivel' when it's French?
Click to expand...

I wasnt being entirely serious Krizon (and Hamm)

Ken Loach is a fine filmmaker (mostly). But when someone opens their mouth in one of his films, you know exactly whether they are a "Goody" or "baddy". And hes just as prone to pidgeonholing as any cheap hollywood director. Frankjly hes a left wing bigot, but ive enjoyed a number of his films

I agree that open (ish) endings can be more thought provoking but at the same time you can have endings which are neither happy or open, but simply bittersweet.

The greatest film of all, Casablanca, would certainly fall into that catergory
 
Would agree about your general point about Ken Loach - The Win that shakes the Barley is one of the most cringeworthy and biased films I've seen - I was shocked it won the Palme d'Or after watching it.
 
Hamm said:
If someone wants to go and watch a formulaic, cheesy film for 2 hours, showing the hero overcoming his obstacle, followed by a happy ending (cheesy lines throughout) then I presume this is the perfect film for them. They will leave with not a thought in their head. If someone wants to watch a film that will have them thinking, discussing and pondering in the hours after, then something else is better.
Click to expand...

127 Hours does not fit this description, it's a true story and directed by not someone who fits this description either judged by his other films.

Watching someone saw their own arm off with a blunt knife after being trapped for hours leaves plenty of thoughts in your head and myself and my girlfriend managed to chat about for most of the way home.

You've not even seen it anyway :p
 
I was actually referring to the Kings Speech...

But that is another point - most Hollywood films have to be sensational, or based on something out of the ordinary. Why? Life isn't sensational, and they take the extraordinary stories that are real (or else make them up) and focus on these. I find it strange. It boils down to the fact they know an American audience won't have the patience to sit through a film if there is nothing sensational or exciting happening.
 
Another example - one of the best gangster/cop films I have seen in recent years was the Hong Kong made Infernal affairs. Very good film (for the genre it is). It is then re-made as the Departed as most people find it too much to watch a film with subtitles. Despite the fact that it is a pale imitation with embarassing attempts at Irish accents by Damon and di Caprio, and lacking all the tension and subtlety of the original, it wins Oscars for best picture and best director. That sums it up for me.
 
Hamm said:
I was actually referring to the Kings Speech...

But that is another point - most Hollywood films have to be sensational, or based on something out of the ordinary. Why? Life isn't sensational, and they take the extraordinary stories that are real (or else make them up) and focus on these. I find it strange. It boils down to the fact they know an American audience won't have the patience to sit through a film if there is nothing sensational or exciting happening.
Click to expand...

Apologies, thought you were still referring to my post on 127 Hours, not seen the Kings Speech.

I do think you're being a tad harsh on Americans in general. The vast majority of British audiences would probably fit the same description but to tar the whole industry with the same brush seems a bit of an over reaction.
 
This is the Britain where Britain's Got Talent is one of the most watched programmes every year right?!

You live in a bubble because you will only attend poncey cinemas! :p Head down to the VUE on Purley Way and you'd see a different British cinema audience. :D
 
Back
Top