Thanks for adding this. I'm hoping to add some more of the "boutique" DVD labels (specifically Artificial Eye, Second Run, Flicker Alley, and Cinema Guild) in the future, once I upgrade my account - though if someone else gets to them first, I won't complain.
The creativity and wit of Norman McLaren never fails to impress me - he is one of the great artists of the cinema, and this is one of his best works.
And Jook - even McLaren's worst shorts are much better than the vast majority of existing things. At his best, he manages to create works of overwhelming beauty and imagination and emotional resonance that are completely unmatched in cinema.
Cuadie - Nearly all your favorites are relatively mainstream, English-language films released in the last 20 years. Hence you probably shouldn't be condemning other people for their presumed mainstream taste because they fail to enjoy what you enjoy.
Anyway - I would never make assumptions about someone's taste based on the fact that they had a very different reaction to a film than me. Nor do I think it matters whether your taste is super mainstream or super obscure - people should like what they like. I'm glad others liked this. I hated it, and I'll stick to the blockbusters outlined on my list of favorites.
I like this movie, but I really hate all the people who feel the need to go around condemning people for not liking the same films as them. Statements like "if you disliked this some part of your soul is dead" or "if you disliked this you have no compassion" or "if you dislike this you hate cinema" are pretty lame. No film is unassailable.
It's probably considered a documentary masterpiece because of the fact that it manages to do in 30 minutes what few films (documentary or fiction) are able to do in four or five (or seven) times that length - there's a lot to be said for brevity, and this film manages to pack an enormous amount of power into its time length and never seems like it's misrepresenting or lessening the true horrors of the Holocaust.
It may also have to do with the fact that it's so very concise - it doesn't try to tackle the entirety of the Nazi machine, and it's better off for it. One still comes away with an incredibly clear view of how horrible human beings can be.
There have been a lot of Holocaust films made since, but few have had its power or immediacy. In 55 years of Holocaust filmmaking since, only "Shoah" has surpassed it.
Unlike so many other films on this important subject, it doesn't cop out. It doesn't interject personal stories or John Williams-esque scores - it simply relies on the inherent horror and tragedy of the subject to make us see and to make us feel. It's not "just not another Holocaust film" - I use that phrase not to suggest that the Holocaust itself could ever be a tired subject, but merely to point out that a lot of filmmakers seem to choose the subject as a shortcut to accomplish their goal of making an Important Film. They bombard us with overly sentimental, overly manipulative stories that are weirdly comforting to the audience – even as they present us with absolute horror they provide a nice emotional catharsis, cause us to think “Oh, it could never happen again” and then the audience feels better after the movie than they did before it started. That’s why so many people can now see a preview for the next Holocaust film and roll their eyes at yet another Oscar-bait film about a Very Important Subject – we’ve become inured to what should always be a raw and visceral reminder of man’s inhumanity.
But “Night and Fog” is different. It distinguishes itself by refusing to give us any comfort, by refusing to rely on cheap emotionalism. Its relentless narrative and carefully selected footage builds to a work of enormous, overwhelming resonance and power. It doesn’t offer comfort, it doesn’t allow us to distance ourselves from what we are seeing – it masterfully combines all the elements of the documentary form to blur the line between past and present, and to move and horrify even the most inured viewers.
So yeah - that's what makes it a documentary masterpiece. That's what makes it one of the two most visceral, groundbreaking, horrifying accounts of one of mankind's greatest atrocities.
While I can agree that the psychological aspects of his films are underdeveloped, and that the plots are quite thin - to me, the high-quality visuals and the marvelously atmospheric nature of many of his films more than make up for those deficiencies. In other words, in spite of the poor plots, budget constraints, etc. - I find most of his films extremely entertaining and even, in some cases, creepy. That alone raises them far above the level of mediocrity, and several of them do, in my opinion, belong on a list of the great films of the era.
And in the latest news, random idiot poster on internet expresses bafflement as to the nature of "Asian people" ("What's up with asian people"), proceeds to declare several billion people a "bounch [sic] of wackos" based merely on their geographic location.
Jonathan - I'm not a fan of this movie either, but the "people only pretend to like [insert popular movie] to look cool" argument gets really old really fast. First, because most anyone you're accusing of having such a mindset would be able to name you plenty of really well-loved movies that they didn't like. Second, because it's arrogant and narcissistic to believe that because you hated a movie everyone else must secretly agree with you but they're too afraid to admit it. That's not a mature thought process.
A vast majority of those claiming to like the film actually do like it, because they enjoy it and because it connects with them.
With that said, it's clear that you're only pretending to dislike the film. You secretly love it but claim otherwise so that you can look cool to all your hipster contrarian friends.
On a broader note, I can understand a lot of the criticisms of the film made by people other than poiatica - much of the film does tread a fine line between "creepy" and "ridiculous," and for some the "ridiculous" is going to overwhelm the "creepy." To me, however, that balancing act is one of the reasons I love the film so much - it acknowledges the basic ridiculousness of the premise, but it manages to convince us and creep us out anyway. It maintains a tonal consistency, and ends with the one of the most memorable, most unsettling, and most perfectly executed endings in film history.
But at the same time I can understand why some would have a hard taking it seriously.
poiatica - Hey, poiatica, your criticisms are idiotic.
"And the whole, I had sex with you while you were sleeping... Hey, Roman Polansky, have you heard of conjugal rape"
Hey, poiatica, do you know anything about the history of laws regarding conjugal rape? Up until very recently (as in the past 20 or 30 years), "conjugal rape" wasn't even a recognized crime in many places in the world, including much of the United States - it was generally believed that the husband had the "right" to have sex with his wife at any time. And even if it was already a law in New York in 1968, there would still have been a lot of women unwilling to prosecute their husbands for it (that's still a problem to this day.)
Besides all that, your "criticism" is made even more nonsensical by the fact that the sleep rape scene is presently as something that is clearly supposed to be frightening and twisted, and it clearly unsettles Rosemary herself. In other words, Polanski, though he is a creep and a rapist, definitely isn't using this film to condone drugging one's wife and then having sex with her (or allowing someone else to rape her.)
Your "argument" that the scene is evidence of Polanski's twisted mind, his creepiness, and his inability to distinguish rape from consensual sex is further demolished by the fact that this scene is not an invention of that "sexist jackass" at all - rather, it's taken very directly from Levin's novel (and there's no prosecution for "conjugal rape" in that one either.)
Even your claim of the film's sexism is rather dubious. Rosemary is naive, yes (but not any moreso than the female and male protagonists of lots of other horror films) - but after all, the full story of what has happened to her is so twisted that it's unlikely anyone would have guessed it. That she figures out as much as she does actually shows her to be quite intelligent.
And in order for claims of sexism to stick, there has to be a gap in the way the men and women are portrayed (men are good and smart, women are dumb and malevolent, etc.) - however, that's not the case with this film. The men and women of the coven are equally conniving and manipulative and evil, and Rosemary's husband is shown to be willing to do anything to have success in his career, even at the expense of others' lives. That's not a positive portrayal of men or women. Additionally, both men and women make up the small group of characters in the film who are good, insightful, and helpful.
Here's the thing: Many valid complaints can be made about the film - yours just aren't among those "valid complaints." You didn't like the film, and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that every bad thing you can think of to say about must be valid.
This is about the point where Pasolini completely loses me. I find most of his work before this great and brilliant, but his last three films are rather hard to take, in my opinion.
It's too bad that, largely in part due to his last few films, he's largely only remembered now as a provocateur, when his early work is so much more complex and compassionate and thoughtful.
"Passolini was a stupid natural born sicko who deserved all he's got."
You overstate things rather drastically.
For one, though Pasolini was a lot of things - not all of them good - he most certainly was not stupid.
And though you seem to want to paint him as someone who constantly sickened audiences with his twisted visions, many of his earlier films are actually quite sane, and rather decidedly not sick or disturbing (and several of them are actually very great.) And while I personally don't like the direction his career took, even this final film (which I kind of hate) is evidence of a deeply empathic individual, one who cannot fully come to terms with a world that allows such evil to occur. It is, in the words of a certain critic, a "howl of rage" at a sickened world.
In other words, I am Miami, your analysis of Pasolini's life and career is full of shit, kind of like this film. It's based on the shallowest understanding of Pasolini's life and his films (and probably only his latter films), and seems a poor excuse to not have to grapple with the works of one of the greatest artists of cinema.
Pasolini was a deeply flawed individual, but he was also very human and often brilliant.
Comments 76 - 100 of 237
Toplist comment on CriterionForum Lists Project - 2000s (Version 2.0)
Timec
This is a work in progress. I will slowly be adding all 350 or so "also-rans" to the list.Toplist comment on The Criterion Collection: Laserdisc Releases (1984-98)
Timec
I was hoping someone would add thisToplist comment on Satyajit Ray Filmography
Timec
Awesome! Thanks for adding this!Toplist comment on CriterionForum Lists Project - 1930s (Version 3.0)
Timec
I'm going to add the 160+ "Also-Rans" to this list some time in the near future.Toplist comment on Mike Leigh Films
Timec
Since you have "Meantime," are you going to add his other TV movies? ("Abigail's Party," "Nuts In May," etc.)Anyways, I'm glad you added this - and I can proudly say that it's the first list on this site, official or unofficial, that I've completed.
Toplist comment on Fritz Lang's Filmography
Timec
Thanks for adding this!Toplist comment on Eureka!'s The Masters of Cinema Series
Timec
Thanks for adding this. I'm hoping to add some more of the "boutique" DVD labels (specifically Artificial Eye, Second Run, Flicker Alley, and Cinema Guild) in the future, once I upgrade my account - though if someone else gets to them first, I won't complain.Movie comment on Cave of Forgotten Dreams
Timec
One of the best and most beautiful theatrical experiences I've had in a long time.It's always fun to be profoundly moved by a film, and then come here to see it called "boring ass shit."
Movie comment on Jag är nyfiken - en film i gult
Timec
Well, it's reassuring to know that someone likes it, since I'll be watching it this week and up until now I'd only heard negative things about it.Movie comment on Öszi almanach
Timec
Well, I'm glad he included it so that it will count as a check when I watch it later this week.Movie comment on Pas de deux
Timec
One of the most beautiful things ever created.Movie comment on Begone Dull Care
Timec
The creativity and wit of Norman McLaren never fails to impress me - he is one of the great artists of the cinema, and this is one of his best works.And Jook - even McLaren's worst shorts are much better than the vast majority of existing things. At his best, he manages to create works of overwhelming beauty and imagination and emotional resonance that are completely unmatched in cinema.
Movie comment on Hard Candy
Timec
Cuadie - Nearly all your favorites are relatively mainstream, English-language films released in the last 20 years. Hence you probably shouldn't be condemning other people for their presumed mainstream taste because they fail to enjoy what you enjoy.Anyway - I would never make assumptions about someone's taste based on the fact that they had a very different reaction to a film than me. Nor do I think it matters whether your taste is super mainstream or super obscure - people should like what they like. I'm glad others liked this. I hated it, and I'll stick to the blockbusters outlined on my list of favorites.
Movie comment on The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Timec
I like this movie, but I really hate all the people who feel the need to go around condemning people for not liking the same films as them. Statements like "if you disliked this some part of your soul is dead" or "if you disliked this you have no compassion" or "if you dislike this you hate cinema" are pretty lame. No film is unassailable.Movie comment on De aanslag
Timec
That goodMovie comment on Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht
Timec
I'm so glad to learn that everything from one of our greatest living directors is "crap."Movie comment on Nuit et brouillard
Timec
It's probably considered a documentary masterpiece because of the fact that it manages to do in 30 minutes what few films (documentary or fiction) are able to do in four or five (or seven) times that length - there's a lot to be said for brevity, and this film manages to pack an enormous amount of power into its time length and never seems like it's misrepresenting or lessening the true horrors of the Holocaust.It may also have to do with the fact that it's so very concise - it doesn't try to tackle the entirety of the Nazi machine, and it's better off for it. One still comes away with an incredibly clear view of how horrible human beings can be.
There have been a lot of Holocaust films made since, but few have had its power or immediacy. In 55 years of Holocaust filmmaking since, only "Shoah" has surpassed it.
Unlike so many other films on this important subject, it doesn't cop out. It doesn't interject personal stories or John Williams-esque scores - it simply relies on the inherent horror and tragedy of the subject to make us see and to make us feel. It's not "just not another Holocaust film" - I use that phrase not to suggest that the Holocaust itself could ever be a tired subject, but merely to point out that a lot of filmmakers seem to choose the subject as a shortcut to accomplish their goal of making an Important Film. They bombard us with overly sentimental, overly manipulative stories that are weirdly comforting to the audience – even as they present us with absolute horror they provide a nice emotional catharsis, cause us to think “Oh, it could never happen again” and then the audience feels better after the movie than they did before it started. That’s why so many people can now see a preview for the next Holocaust film and roll their eyes at yet another Oscar-bait film about a Very Important Subject – we’ve become inured to what should always be a raw and visceral reminder of man’s inhumanity.
But “Night and Fog” is different. It distinguishes itself by refusing to give us any comfort, by refusing to rely on cheap emotionalism. Its relentless narrative and carefully selected footage builds to a work of enormous, overwhelming resonance and power. It doesn’t offer comfort, it doesn’t allow us to distance ourselves from what we are seeing – it masterfully combines all the elements of the documentary form to blur the line between past and present, and to move and horrify even the most inured viewers.
So yeah - that's what makes it a documentary masterpiece. That's what makes it one of the two most visceral, groundbreaking, horrifying accounts of one of mankind's greatest atrocities.
Toplist comment on IMDb's 1940s Top 50
Timec
While I can agree that the psychological aspects of his films are underdeveloped, and that the plots are quite thin - to me, the high-quality visuals and the marvelously atmospheric nature of many of his films more than make up for those deficiencies. In other words, in spite of the poor plots, budget constraints, etc. - I find most of his films extremely entertaining and even, in some cases, creepy. That alone raises them far above the level of mediocrity, and several of them do, in my opinion, belong on a list of the great films of the era.Movie comment on Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom
Timec
And in the latest news, random idiot poster on internet expresses bafflement as to the nature of "Asian people" ("What's up with asian people"), proceeds to declare several billion people a "bounch [sic] of wackos" based merely on their geographic location.Movie comment on Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot
Timec
Painfully funny.Movie comment on American Beauty
Timec
Jonathan - I'm not a fan of this movie either, but the "people only pretend to like [insert popular movie] to look cool" argument gets really old really fast. First, because most anyone you're accusing of having such a mindset would be able to name you plenty of really well-loved movies that they didn't like. Second, because it's arrogant and narcissistic to believe that because you hated a movie everyone else must secretly agree with you but they're too afraid to admit it. That's not a mature thought process.A vast majority of those claiming to like the film actually do like it, because they enjoy it and because it connects with them.
With that said, it's clear that you're only pretending to dislike the film. You secretly love it but claim otherwise so that you can look cool to all your hipster contrarian friends.
Movie comment on Rosemary's Baby
Timec
On a broader note, I can understand a lot of the criticisms of the film made by people other than poiatica - much of the film does tread a fine line between "creepy" and "ridiculous," and for some the "ridiculous" is going to overwhelm the "creepy." To me, however, that balancing act is one of the reasons I love the film so much - it acknowledges the basic ridiculousness of the premise, but it manages to convince us and creep us out anyway. It maintains a tonal consistency, and ends with the one of the most memorable, most unsettling, and most perfectly executed endings in film history.But at the same time I can understand why some would have a hard taking it seriously.
Movie comment on Rosemary's Baby
Timec
poiatica - Hey, poiatica, your criticisms are idiotic."And the whole, I had sex with you while you were sleeping... Hey, Roman Polansky, have you heard of conjugal rape"
Hey, poiatica, do you know anything about the history of laws regarding conjugal rape? Up until very recently (as in the past 20 or 30 years), "conjugal rape" wasn't even a recognized crime in many places in the world, including much of the United States - it was generally believed that the husband had the "right" to have sex with his wife at any time. And even if it was already a law in New York in 1968, there would still have been a lot of women unwilling to prosecute their husbands for it (that's still a problem to this day.)
Besides all that, your "criticism" is made even more nonsensical by the fact that the sleep rape scene is presently as something that is clearly supposed to be frightening and twisted, and it clearly unsettles Rosemary herself. In other words, Polanski, though he is a creep and a rapist, definitely isn't using this film to condone drugging one's wife and then having sex with her (or allowing someone else to rape her.)
Your "argument" that the scene is evidence of Polanski's twisted mind, his creepiness, and his inability to distinguish rape from consensual sex is further demolished by the fact that this scene is not an invention of that "sexist jackass" at all - rather, it's taken very directly from Levin's novel (and there's no prosecution for "conjugal rape" in that one either.)
Even your claim of the film's sexism is rather dubious. Rosemary is naive, yes (but not any moreso than the female and male protagonists of lots of other horror films) - but after all, the full story of what has happened to her is so twisted that it's unlikely anyone would have guessed it. That she figures out as much as she does actually shows her to be quite intelligent.
And in order for claims of sexism to stick, there has to be a gap in the way the men and women are portrayed (men are good and smart, women are dumb and malevolent, etc.) - however, that's not the case with this film. The men and women of the coven are equally conniving and manipulative and evil, and Rosemary's husband is shown to be willing to do anything to have success in his career, even at the expense of others' lives. That's not a positive portrayal of men or women. Additionally, both men and women make up the small group of characters in the film who are good, insightful, and helpful.
Here's the thing: Many valid complaints can be made about the film - yours just aren't among those "valid complaints." You didn't like the film, and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that every bad thing you can think of to say about must be valid.
Movie comment on I racconti di Canterbury
Timec
This is about the point where Pasolini completely loses me. I find most of his work before this great and brilliant, but his last three films are rather hard to take, in my opinion.It's too bad that, largely in part due to his last few films, he's largely only remembered now as a provocateur, when his early work is so much more complex and compassionate and thoughtful.
Movie comment on Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma
Timec
"Passolini was a stupid natural born sicko who deserved all he's got."You overstate things rather drastically.
For one, though Pasolini was a lot of things - not all of them good - he most certainly was not stupid.
And though you seem to want to paint him as someone who constantly sickened audiences with his twisted visions, many of his earlier films are actually quite sane, and rather decidedly not sick or disturbing (and several of them are actually very great.) And while I personally don't like the direction his career took, even this final film (which I kind of hate) is evidence of a deeply empathic individual, one who cannot fully come to terms with a world that allows such evil to occur. It is, in the words of a certain critic, a "howl of rage" at a sickened world.
In other words, I am Miami, your analysis of Pasolini's life and career is full of shit, kind of like this film. It's based on the shallowest understanding of Pasolini's life and his films (and probably only his latter films), and seems a poor excuse to not have to grapple with the works of one of the greatest artists of cinema.
Pasolini was a deeply flawed individual, but he was also very human and often brilliant.
Showing items 76 – 100 of 237