Discussion:
VERTIGO is the greatest film of all time
(too old to reply)
Bill Anderson
2012-08-01 20:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Or so say the critics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)

2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)

3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)

4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)

5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)

7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)

8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)

9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)

10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
William
2012-08-01 20:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Other than 1, 2, and 7 it ain't so bad. I'd go for La Dolce Vita over the other but that's a quibble.
gtr
2012-08-02 15:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Other than 1, 2, and 7 it ain't so bad. I'd go for La Dolce Vita over
the other but that's a quibble.
It's nice to see Sunrise on there. 2001 certainly has cultural
panache, but I'm sure Citizen Kane did too in its time. I find both
generally unwatchable now.
TT
2012-08-01 21:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Three 1920s films in top ten... they sure knew how to do films back
then! :-P
calvin
2012-08-02 01:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Surprisingly, I've seen them all except #8.
William
2012-08-02 01:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
Surprisingly, I've seen them all except #8.
Here ya go:

http://archive.org/details/ChelovekskinoapparatomManWithAMovieCamera
g***@comcast.net
2012-08-02 02:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Bill [and others, too]:

I am nor being contrary, ornery or argumentative; but I've reached an age [darn] where I've shed all the academic baggage I allowed myself to get burdened with starting about 60 or so years ago ... so:

Numbers 5,8 and 9 I put in the "revere 'em before they turn to dust" class;

Numbers 3,4,5,8 and 9 belong to the "old world from which we young and untried novices have much to learn" class,

with number 5 being on the delicate cusp of casting shadows into both classes.

Sixty years ago I'd have subjected myself to some kind of mental purge for not appreciating such accomplishments [as expressed by critics], feeling "How could I be so crass?"

Not any more. There's Hitchcock stuff I prefer to "Vertigo;" and there's Welle's stuff I'm beginning to think is better than "Kane."

As Lina Ellerbee would say, "And so it goes."
Post by William
Post by calvin
Surprisingly, I've seen them all except #8.
http://archive.org/details/ChelovekskinoapparatomManWithAMovieCamera
Post by calvin
Surprisingly, I've seen them all except #8.
http://archive.org/details/ChelovekskinoapparatomManWithAMovieCamera
Post by calvin
Surprisingly, I've seen them all except #8.
http://archive.org/details/ChelovekskinoapparatomManWithAMovieCamera
gtr
2012-08-02 15:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Numbers 5,8 and 9 I put in the "revere 'em before they turn to dust" class;
Numbers 3,4,5,8 and 9 belong to the "old world from which we young and
untried novices have much to learn" class,
with number 5 being on the delicate cusp of casting shadows into both classes.
Makes more sense if you cite the list again.
me
2012-08-02 22:32:41 UTC
Permalink
On 2012-08-02 02:01:59 +0000,
Post by g***@comcast.net
Numbers 5,8 and 9 I put in the "revere 'em before they turn to dust" class;
Numbers 3,4,5,8 and 9 belong to the "old world from which we young and
untried novices have much to learn" class,
with number 5 being on the delicate cusp of casting shadows into both classes.
Makes more sense if you cite the list again.
I didn't bother to cite the films again, because my point was how susceptible we can be [if we allow ourselves to be led] to the knowing, elitist categorization of "QUALITY." Over the years, I've just come to categorize those "knowing categories" themselves. Some others are:

-Hmmm, people left theaters scratching their heads over this one. I'll dissect it to my own satisfaction, making me intellectually supreme. Am I right? Who cares, as long as I am certain.

-The Legion of Decency condemned this one, so it must have some expanded moral significance for us independent free thinkers.

-It's got an anti-hero. He's a septuagenarian; a grandfather ... and a vicious hitman, with bleeding ulcers. He's Scandinavian, too. [Noir reaches new heights].

It's kaleidoscopic, richly layered in texture, text, and nuance. The characters are soooo ... non-sequitur. [It'll take 'em forever to unravel its message ... think "Hanna" on roller blades.
g***@comcast.net
2012-08-02 22:35:51 UTC
Permalink
On 2012-08-02 02:01:59 +0000,
Post by g***@comcast.net
Numbers 5,8 and 9 I put in the "revere 'em before they turn to dust" class;
Numbers 3,4,5,8 and 9 belong to the "old world from which we young and
untried novices have much to learn" class,
with number 5 being on the delicate cusp of casting shadows into both classes.
Makes more sense if you cite the list again.
g***@comcast.net
2012-08-02 22:38:29 UTC
Permalink
On 2012-08-02 02:01:59 +0000,
Post by g***@comcast.net
Numbers 5,8 and 9 I put in the "revere 'em before they turn to dust" class;
Numbers 3,4,5,8 and 9 belong to the "old world from which we young and
untried novices have much to learn" class,
with number 5 being on the delicate cusp of casting shadows into both classes.
Makes more sense if you cite the list again.
Edit: duplication. Sorry
tomcervo
2012-08-02 03:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Bill Anderson
2012-08-02 05:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
The Godfather films I and II are missing, as is SINGIN IN THE RAIN.
Replacing them are MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA and THE PASSION OF JOAN OF
ARC. Guess I need to see MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA if only to figure out
whether it's really MAN WITH THE MOVIE CAMERA as Netflix says.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
notbob
2012-08-02 09:30:48 UTC
Permalink
The Godfather films I and II are missing..........
As they should be, the worst movies ever filmed. But, that's what
lists are about. On most, the GF films are in the top 10. This is jes
another list. A crappy one, at that.

nb
b***@aol.com
2012-08-02 13:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by notbob
This is jes
another list. A crappy one, at that.
The Sight and Sound poll has always been more respectable then most movie lists, but after this they have about as much credibility as the second half of Vertigo.
calvin
2012-08-02 14:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
The Sight and Sound poll has always been more respectable then most movie lists, but after this they have about as much credibility as the second half of Vertigo.
And you thought the first half was credible?
Then tell us, who was the woman in the window of
the old hotel?
b***@aol.com
2012-08-02 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
Post by b***@aol.com
The Sight and Sound poll has always been more respectable then most movie lists, but after this they have about as much credibility as the second half of Vertigo.
And you thought the first half was credible?
Then tell us, who was the woman in the window of
the old hotel?
Mrs. Bates?
SLGreg
2012-08-02 17:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by calvin
Post by b***@aol.com
The Sight and Sound poll has always been more respectable then most movie lists, but after this they have about as much credibility as the second half of Vertigo.
And you thought the first half was credible?
Then tell us, who was the woman in the window of
the old hotel?
Mrs. Bates?
heh heh heh.
--
greg
Rockinghorse Winner
2012-08-04 06:11:33 UTC
Permalink
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by notbob
The Godfather films I and II are missing..........
As they should be, the worst movies ever filmed. But, that's what
lists are about. On most, the GF films are in the top 10. This is jes
another list. A crappy one, at that.
nb
I got bored just reading the list....

Terry
--
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls |/
drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own |/ Gentoo Linux
despair, against our will, comes wisdom through |/
the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus |/
Obveeus
2012-08-02 11:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 œ (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?

Anyone taking the last few decades into account would find at least one
movie from the last 40+ years that would make the Top 10.
moviePig
2012-08-02 12:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 (Fellini, 1963)
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Anyone taking the last few decades into account would find at least one
movie from the last 40+ years that would make the Top 10.
That'd be like drinking 12-year-old whisky: you don't do it in
public...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
William
2012-08-02 13:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
That'd be like drinking 12-year-old whisky: you don't do it in
public...
That "The Conformist" isn't on the list says it all. Brilliant film that kicks the shit out of "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane." (Either of those could be replaced by "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "How Green Was My Valley.")
SLGreg
2012-08-02 15:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
That "The Conformist" isn't on the list says it all. Brilliant film that kicks the shit out of "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane." (Either of those could be replaced by "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "How Green Was My Valley.")
I mean, I like "Vertigo" and all, but what do you suppose constitutes
the criteria for being considered "best of all time?" Writing,
acting, directing, cinematography? What?!
--
greg
William
2012-08-02 15:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by SLGreg
I mean, I like "Vertigo" and all, but what do you suppose constitutes
the criteria for being considered "best of all time?" Writing,
acting, directing, cinematography? What?!
The notion that Hollywood directors were auteurs and that "Vertigo" is Hitch's most European-styled film. (Other than, of course, the films he made in Europe before coming to Hollywood.) That it is also a pretentious film helps as well.
gtr
2012-08-02 15:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by SLGreg
Post by William
That "The Conformist" isn't on the list says it all. Brilliant film
that kicks the shit out of "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane." (Either of
those could be replaced by "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "How Green
Was My Valley.")
I mean, I like "Vertigo" and all, but what do you suppose constitutes
the criteria for being considered "best of all time?" Writing,
acting, directing, cinematography? What?!
In this case, a British filmmaker.
moviePig
2012-08-02 20:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SLGreg
Post by William
That "The Conformist" isn't on the list says it all. Brilliant film that kicks the shit out of "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane." (Either of those could be replaced by "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "How Green Was My Valley.")
I mean, I like "Vertigo" and all, but what do you suppose constitutes
the criteria for being considered "best of all time?"  Writing,
acting, directing, cinematography? What?!
I'll defend VERTIGO (although not to William's face). It's an
absolutely gorgeous 'audience movie' ...with atmosphere, viewer-
engagement, suspense, twists, a sinfully lush Herrmann score, and a
remarkably adequate performance from Kim Novak. (Merely for the
latter, Hitch deserved an Oscar.) For VERTIGO's original audience --
and some of us do yet live -- it's memorable as few movies are.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
William
2012-08-02 21:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
I'll defend VERTIGO (although not to William's face). It's an
absolutely gorgeous 'audience movie' ...with atmosphere, viewer-
engagement, suspense, twists, a sinfully lush Herrmann score, and a
remarkably adequate performance from Kim Novak. (Merely for the
latter, Hitch deserved an Oscar.) For VERTIGO's original audience --
and some of us do yet live -- it's memorable as few movies are.
Look, I realize that a lot of people like "Vertigo." In this particular case, it isn't about the appreciation of the film but that it is considered the "greatest" film of all time (which is an absurd idea to begin with for any film). All I'm really saying is that a similar fanboy sensibility drives "Vertigo" to the top as it drives "The Shankshaw Redemption" to the top of the IMDb list.
moviePig
2012-08-02 21:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
I'll defend VERTIGO (although not to William's face).  It's an
absolutely gorgeous 'audience movie' ...with atmosphere, viewer-
engagement, suspense, twists, a sinfully lush Herrmann score, and a
remarkably adequate performance from Kim Novak.  (Merely for the
latter, Hitch deserved an Oscar.)  For VERTIGO's original audience --
and some of us do yet live -- it's memorable as few movies are.
Look, I realize that a lot of people like "Vertigo." In this particular case, it isn't about the appreciation of the film but that it is considered the "greatest" film of all time (which is an absurd idea to begin with for any film). All I'm really saying is that a similar fanboy sensibility drives "Vertigo" to the top as it drives "The Shankshaw Redemption" to the top of the IMDb list.
And, of course, if we vivisect the universe by cleaving it at exactly
the right point and bias, and then examine the resulting cross-
section ...why, then, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION *is* the greatest movie
of all time.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
William
2012-08-02 21:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
And, of course, if we vivisect the universe by cleaving it at exactly
the right point and bias, and then examine the resulting cross-
section ...why, then, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION *is* the greatest movie
of all time.
But I thought it was VERTIGO? Now I'm confused. I'll be lost if someone doesn't TELL me what to believe.
moviePig
2012-08-02 21:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by moviePig
And, of course, if we vivisect the universe by cleaving it at exactly
the right point and bias, and then examine the resulting cross-
section ...why, then, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION *is* the greatest movie
of all time.
But I thought it was VERTIGO? Now I'm confused. I'll be lost if someone doesn't TELL me what to believe.
You seem to have vertigo, maybe beyond redemption...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
William
2012-08-02 22:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
You seem to have vertigo, maybe beyond redemption...
I hope you mean this one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388367/
moviePig
2012-08-02 22:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
You seem to have vertigo, maybe beyond redemption...
I hope you mean this one:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388367/
It's about time somebody told the story of Stan "Tookie" Williams.
It's hard out there for a Crip...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
2012-08-04 03:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by SLGreg
I mean, I like "Vertigo" and all, but what do you suppose constitutes
the criteria for being considered "best of all time?"  Writing,
acting, directing, cinematography? What?!
I'll defend VERTIGO (although not to William's face).  It's an
absolutely gorgeous 'audience movie' ...with atmosphere, viewer-
engagement, suspense, twists, a sinfully lush Herrmann score, and a
remarkably adequate performance from Kim Novak.  (Merely for the
latter, Hitch deserved an Oscar.)  For VERTIGO's original audience --
and some of us do yet live -- it's memorable as few movies are.
I yet live too. I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
William
2012-08-04 04:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
I yet live too. I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 04:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
I yet live too. I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
We could exercise some literary license and say that he lost them both
running up the bell tower. :-p
--
William
2012-08-04 04:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
We could exercise some literary license and say that he lost them both
running up the bell tower. :-p
If we're going for literary license, then read the book. In the book, the woman is strangled unceremoniously. She fell off the tower to protect James Stewart's image. It wasn't the Hays code, it was the studio. Right then and there the entire film was sabotaged. The film is gutless. BTW, I can provide analysis of the film that "proves" Scotty never left the mental hospital. So much for "literary license."
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 04:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
We could exercise some literary license and say that he lost them both
running up the bell tower. :-p
If we're going for literary license, then read the book. In the book, the woman is strangled unceremoniously. She fell off the tower to protect James Stewart's image. It wasn't the Hays code, it was the studio. Right then and there the entire film was sabotaged. The film is gutless. BTW, I can provide analysis of the film that "proves" Scotty never left the mental hospital. So much for "literary license."
Why should I read the book? If the screenplay is a different story,
then so be it. I'm watching a different story. You can provide
squat. The film speaks for itself.

--
William
2012-08-04 05:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Why should I read the book? If the screenplay is a different story,
then so be it. I'm watching a different story. You can provide
squat. The film speaks for itself.
But the film stutters. That's the whole point. It tells too many different tales and all of them gutless and shallow. If that's your cuppa then suck the dregs and choke on them. Let's face it: You can't handle the truth.
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 05:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
Why should I read the book? If the screenplay is a different story,
then so be it. I'm watching a different story. You can provide
squat. The film speaks for itself.
But the film stutters. That's the whole point. It tells too many different tales and all of them gutless and shallow. If that's your cuppa then suck the dregs and choke on them. Let's face it: You can't handle the truth.
But I can handle a good, suspenseful film that has become a genuine
classic, and that's all I need to know.

Your opinion means beans.
--
William
2012-08-04 05:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
But I can handle a good, suspenseful film that has become a genuine
classic, and that's all I need to know.
And you believe that Dick Clark was an innovator and that sums it up for me. Someone says it's a classic and your critical abilities -- such as they are -- go down the drain. You are a fat sheep ready to be slaughtered, someone who takes stock in "belonging" and is proud to be among them what drive the train to Auschwitz because that's what is popular and meaningful. You are a lost follower and I hope you find a lemming to shadow.
gtr
2012-08-04 16:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
But I can handle a good, suspenseful film that has become a genuine
classic, and that's all I need to know.
And you believe that Dick Clark was an innovator and that sums it up
for me. Someone says it's a classic and your critical abilities -- such
as they are -- go down the drain. You are a fat sheep ready to be
slaughtered, someone who takes stock in "belonging" and is proud to be
among them what drive the train to Auschwitz because that's what is
popular and meaningful. You are a lost follower and I hope you find a
lemming to shadow.
Yikes! Double yikes!
g***@comcast.net
2012-08-04 17:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Attempting to return to some semblance of the thread focus, I have viewed "Vertigo" perhaps five or more times, including my first exposure to it during its original release. My second viewing was a dedicated effort to appreciate that which I might have missed the first time, prompted because I failed to see greatness in either the plot or the execution of the tale.

Over the intervening years, I have watched "Vertigo" more as an exercise in Devil's Advocacy, since the film has somehow managed to attain extremes of "significance" as a filmic masterpiece. FWIW, here are my own responses, not all that different from my initial responses:

1. The very title of the film has little to do with the psychological impairment of the main character. Vertigo is a sense of imbalance, very real and generally much more physical that acrophobia, an acute fear of heights, actually fully realized by the urge to JUMP - to relieve oneself of the the anticipated horror of falling.

2. This disconnect between the purported condition and progress made toward its cure is reduced to comic laughability with Scottie demonstrating his remarkable progress by climbing a three-step, portable ladder - then looking up and down without experiencing total collapse [at an altitude of two-three feet]. He then looks out the widow, a few stories up and goes into collapse. The window is, in fact, a protective "shield" against his acrophobia ... a barrier, which, if removed, would be a different story altogether.

3. The "ghostly" emergence of the re-made "Eurydice" image, rather than being a filmic moment of transformation, always struck me as a bit of overexposed film. By this point in the film, Scottie strikes home as a fixated psychopath and control-freak, who [despite being the injured and sympathetic protagonist] has managed to become the mad professor, toying with his helpless victim.

4. The entire fabric is a Swiss cheese of presumption and supposition:

a. A murderous husband, seeking to rid himself of an unwanted wife, should, if sane and mentally competent, find easier, more direct means of disposal than created biography, dramatic history, and haunting habits for his unwanted mate. Besides, hired doubles do little to ensure perfect execution.

b. One is left to ponder what might have become of such a marriage if Scottie had not so indelibly collapsed in a way that "seeded" the contrivance in the first place.

c. If one takes the time to scrutinize the actual murder, just how efficient is the plotting, setting, execution and high-flight disposal of the body ... too many moving parts.

d. "Vertigo" suffers by comparison with "Dial M for Murder," in which the former tennis pro "works" his old college chum much more credibly than "hubbY' works Scottie.

e. Satchel Paige warned, "Never look back ... something might be gaining on you."
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 18:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Attempting to return to some semblance of the thread focus, I have viewed "Vertigo" perhaps five or more times, including my first exposure to it during its original release. My second viewing was a dedicated effort to appreciate that which I might have missed the first time, prompted because I failed to see greatness in either the plot or the execution of the tale.
1. The very title of the film has little to do with the psychological impairment of the main character. Vertigo is a sense of imbalance, very real and generally much more physical that acrophobia, an acute fear of heights, actually fully realized by the urge to JUMP - to relieve oneself of the the anticipated horror of falling.
2. This disconnect between the purported condition and progress made toward its cure is reduced to comic laughability with Scottie demonstrating his remarkable progress by climbing a three-step, portable ladder - then looking up and down without experiencing total collapse [at an altitude of two-three feet]. He then looks out the widow, a few stories up and goes into collapse. The window is, in fact, a protective "shield" against his acrophobia ... a barrier, which, if removed, would be a different story altogether.
3. The "ghostly" emergence of the re-made "Eurydice" image, rather than being a filmic moment of transformation, always struck me as a bit of overexposed film. By this point in the film, Scottie strikes home as a fixated psychopath and control-freak, who [despite being the injured and sympathetic protagonist] has managed to become the mad professor, toying with his helpless victim.
a. A murderous husband, seeking to rid himself of an unwanted wife, should, if sane and mentally competent, find easier, more direct means of disposal than created biography, dramatic history, and haunting habits for his unwanted mate. Besides, hired doubles do little to ensure perfect execution.
b. One is left to ponder what might have become of such a marriage if Scottie had not so indelibly collapsed in a way that "seeded" the contrivance in the first place.
c. If one takes the time to scrutinize the actual murder, just how efficient is the plotting, setting, execution and high-flight disposal of the body ... too many moving parts.
d. "Vertigo" suffers by comparison with "Dial M for Murder," in which the former tennis pro "works" his old college chum much more credibly than "hubbY' works Scottie.
e. Satchel Paige warned, "Never look back ... something might be gaining on you."
Methinks the world is too much with you.
--
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 17:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
But I can handle a good, suspenseful film that has become a genuine
classic, and that's all I need to know.
And you believe that Dick Clark was an innovator and that sums it up for me. Someone says it's a classic and your critical abilities -- such as they are -- go down the drain. You are a fat sheep ready to be slaughtered, someone who takes stock in "belonging" and is proud to be among them what drive the train to Auschwitz because that's what is popular and meaningful. You are a lost follower and I hope you find a lemming to shadow.
And you are a fat pig who belongs in the line to be slaughtered. You
have no credibility in this group because of your obnoxious nature.
It's time you grew up, Porky. When I think of you (seldom) I see the
Ned Beatty character in his underpants. "Come on, Willy, squeal for
us!".
--
--
William
2012-08-04 17:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
And you are a fat pig who belongs in the line to be slaughtered. You
have no credibility in this group because of your obnoxious nature
It's time you grew up, Porky. When I think of you (seldom) I see the
Ned Beatty character in his underpants. "Come on, Willy, squeal for
us!".
So juvenile. Hey, here's an idea you dumb fuck: Don't read my posts. Is that so hard? I mean really, what's your problem?
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 18:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
And you are a fat pig who belongs in the line to be slaughtered. You
have no credibility in this group because of your obnoxious nature
It's time you grew up, Porky. When I think of you (seldom) I see the
Ned Beatty character in his underpants. "Come on, Willy, squeal for
us!".
So juvenile. Hey, here's an idea you dumb fuck: Don't read my posts. Is that so hard? I mean really, what's your problem?
Come on, Willy, squeal for us like the fat piggy that you are.

--
William
2012-08-04 18:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Come on, Willy, squeal for us like the fat piggy that you are.
That's it? That's what you got? Recycled juvenile humor that you've ripped off from your own post based on some movie quote? Tried, empty and predictable. Yet, you, too, have become obsessed with me and have some weird need to try and insult me -- which might work if I were 12-years-old and this was a schoolyard in hell -- and you fail miserably while humiliating yourself. Works for me.
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-04 19:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
Come on, Willy, squeal for us like the fat piggy that you are.
That's it? That's what you got? Recycled juvenile humor that you've ripped off from your own post based on some movie quote? Tried, empty and predictable. Yet, you, too, have become obsessed with me and have some weird need to try and insult me -- which might work if I were 12-years-old and this was a schoolyard in hell -- and you fail miserably while humiliating yourself. Works for me.
Soooooooooie!

Come on, Willie, keep squealing.........
trotsky
2012-08-04 23:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
Come on, Willy, squeal for us like the fat piggy that you are.
That's it? That's what you got? Recycled juvenile humor that you've ripped off from your own post based on some movie quote? Tried, empty and predictable. Yet, you, too, have become obsessed with me and have some weird need to try and insult me -- which might work if I were 12-years-old and this was a schoolyard in hell -- and you fail miserably while humiliating yourself. Works for me.
Soooooooooie!
Come on, Willie, keep squealing.........
Ned Beatty called--he wants his part from "Deliverance" back.
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-05 00:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
Come on, Willy, squeal for us like the fat piggy that you are.
That's it? That's what you got? Recycled juvenile humor that you've ripped off from your own post based on some movie quote? Tried, empty and predictable. Yet, you, too, have become obsessed with me and have some weird need to try and insult me -- which might work if I were 12-years-old and this was a schoolyard in hell -- and you fail miserably while humiliating yourself. Works for me.
Soooooooooie!
Come on, Willie, keep squealing.........
Ned Beatty called--he wants his part from "Deliverance" back.
I once saw Gilbert Gottfried do a schtick where he pretends to be
Ned's agent calling him to tell him about this part he's got in
"Deliverance".

It was ad lib and never recorded, and I only ever found one other guy
who had seen it - a fellow who posted to an archery forum.

"Yes, that's right, Ned, then you get down on all fours and squeal
like a pig......I said 'pig', Ned.....in your underpants."
trotsky
2012-08-05 11:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by trotsky
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by William
Post by Mack A. Damia
Come on, Willy, squeal for us like the fat piggy that you are.
That's it? That's what you got? Recycled juvenile humor that you've ripped off from your own post based on some movie quote? Tried, empty and predictable. Yet, you, too, have become obsessed with me and have some weird need to try and insult me -- which might work if I were 12-years-old and this was a schoolyard in hell -- and you fail miserably while humiliating yourself. Works for me.
Soooooooooie!
Come on, Willie, keep squealing.........
Ned Beatty called--he wants his part from "Deliverance" back.
I once saw Gilbert Gottfried do a schtick where he pretends to be
Ned's agent calling him to tell him about this part he's got in
"Deliverance".
It was ad lib and never recorded, and I only ever found one other guy
who had seen it - a fellow who posted to an archery forum.
"Yes, that's right, Ned, then you get down on all fours and squeal
like a pig......I said 'pig', Ned.....in your underpants."
Gottfried is *way* underrated as a comedian.
calvin
2012-08-04 04:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
I yet live too.  I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
OR

You don't know squat about how to communicate
(in particular, discuss movies) with people.
William
2012-08-04 05:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
Post by William
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
OR
You don't know squat about how to communicate
(in particular, discuss movies) with people.
Or, you don't have a credible response. Been deconstructing your tricks for far too long. There was nothing rude or even aggressive about my post. It contained information. I didn't call you a moron or any other names. I simply called you on your lack of understanding on this film. Your response is to make me an ogre and you a victim and any prudent person reading the posts will see it as such. Since you don't have a response, you claim to be attacked or some such nonsense and it won't wash in this case. Next you'll call me a critic or a liberal. That is your stock-in-trade. Let's face it, calvin, you come to the defense of Woody Allen or Alfred Hitchcock and yet you really don't understand their films. They're beyond your less than basic grasp of human behavior. So, you try and turn the tables by blaming the messenger and all you do is fall to the floor sputtering nonsense. It's truly sad.
calvin
2012-08-04 05:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
Post by William
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
OR
You don't know squat about how to communicate
(in particular, discuss movies) with people.
Or, you don't have a credible response. Been deconstructing your tricks for far too long. There was nothing rude or even aggressive about my post. It contained information. I didn't call you a moron or any other names. I simply called you on your lack of understanding on this film. Your response is to make me an ogre and you a victim and any prudent person reading the posts will see it as such. Since you don't have a response, you claim to be attacked or some such nonsense and it won't wash in this case. Next you'll call me a critic or a liberal. That is your stock-in-trade. Let's face it, calvin, you come to the defense of Woody Allen or Alfred Hitchcock and yet you really don't understand their films. They're beyond your less than basic grasp of human behavior. So, you try and turn the tables by blaming the messenger and all you do is fall to the floor sputtering nonsense. It's truly sad.
William, if you really think I'm too stupid to understand
the plot of Vertigo, then you are so wrapped up in yourself
that you can't bother to gather even the most basic truths
about the people with whom you interact. I am not going
to engage in some sort of argument in which I try to
convince you that I understand the plot of such a movie.

If the movie was, say, Mulholland Drive, then yes, I could
use some help in trying to understand that plot, and would
be quite willing to try and discuss it with you.
William
2012-08-04 05:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
William, if you really think I'm too stupid to understand
the plot of Vertigo, then you are so wrapped up in yourself
that you can't bother to gather even the most basic truths
about the people with whom you interact. I am not going
to engage in some sort of argument in which I try to
convince you that I understand the plot of such a movie.
Nice try. I never said you were stupid. I said you didn't have a credible response to what I wrote. What I wrote was that you didn't understand what happened in the film based on what you wrote. So, instead of anything else, you attack me. And the above post from you continues your tradition of how I'm arrogant or "wrapped up in myself" and other such nonsense. What you wrote was wrong in terms of what happened in the film. That has nothing to do with me and instead of saying "what I meant was" or "I got it wrong but . . ." you blame it on me. This is why it is utterly worthless engaging you in conversation. I may be an asshole but I'm honest. You are also an asshole but you're a coward who doesn't even know the basics of a film he's trying to defend. So fuck off, my pathetic friend who envisions victimization where none exists.
calvin
2012-08-04 06:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
William, if you really think I'm too stupid to understand
the plot of Vertigo, then you are so wrapped up in yourself
that you can't bother to gather even the most basic truths
about the people with whom you interact.  I am not going
to engage in some sort of argument in which I try to
convince you that I understand the plot of such a movie.
Nice try. I never said you were stupid. I said you didn't have a credible response to what I wrote. What I wrote was that you didn't understand what happened in the film based on what you wrote. So, instead of anything else, you attack me. And the above post from you continues your tradition of how I'm arrogant or "wrapped up in myself" and other such nonsense. What you wrote was wrong in terms of what happened in the film. That has nothing to do with me and instead of saying "what I meant was" or "I got it wrong but . . ." you blame it on me. This is why it is utterly worthless engaging you in conversation. I may be an asshole but I'm honest. You are also an asshole but you're a coward who doesn't even know the basics of a film he's trying to defend. So fuck off, my pathetic friend who envisions victimization where none exists.
Sir, if you will go back and look at the context of my post,
after moviePig had just posted about being old enough to
remember the movie when it first came out, you will see
that I followed up on that theme, and told my impression of
it when it first played in my hometown back in the fifties. I
was not talking about my comprehensive views of the movie
today, which are of a far more subtle movie than it seemed
when I was first so entertained by it in my youth.

I shouldn't have to point it out, but my impression was that
from Scottie's point of view, he lost the same woman in the
same way twice. Of course he knew when he lost her the
second time that it had been another woman the first time,
and the first time he thought she had jumped, and the
second time he knew that she has slipped. But it is just
being pedantic to force what I said into all that. I was making
a pithy point, and then you came along and pissed on it.
William
2012-08-04 06:07:46 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 2:04:49 AM UTC-4, calvin wrote:

I was making
Post by calvin
a pithy point, and then you came along and pissed on it.
I'm so bad and really I feel terrible about it when I get over the laughing fits. calvin, I am not so stupid as to have a prolonged conversation with you about much of anything. Believe whatever the fuck you want. I don't care.
calvin
2012-08-04 06:27:32 UTC
Permalink
 I was making
Post by calvin
a pithy point, and then you came along and pissed on it.
I'm so bad and really I feel terrible about it when I get over the laughing fits. calvin, I am not so stupid as to have a prolonged conversation with you about much of anything. Believe whatever the fuck you want. I don't care.
Typical, that when I went back and carefully explained it,
as you had been requesting, you could no longer support
your actions so you bowed out by dropping everything I
said but quoting the last line, and dismissing it all. You are
pathetic in your inability ever to be corrected, always a
spoiled brat in the end.

If anyone else has read this exchange, he or she sees quite
well how it went I wonder if moviePig will have the courage
to buck you on this tomorrow. I doubt it, because there's
something about you that he values and doesn't want to risk
losing.
William
2012-08-04 15:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
Typical, that when I went back and carefully explained it
as you had been requesting, you could no longer support
your actions so you bowed out by dropping everything I
said but quoting the last line, and dismissing it all. You are
pathetic in your inability ever to be corrected, always
spoiled brat in the end.
If anyone else has read this exchange, he or she sees quite
well how it went I wonder if moviePig will have the courage
to buck you on this tomorrow. I doubt it, because there's
something about you that he values and doesn't want to risk
losing.
Maybe you and trotsky can get a group rate at a mental health facility. Neither of you know jack about films and both of you are obsessed with proving that. It is you that can never admit you were wrong and just like a psycho the idea is to turn the tables and accuse your imagined foe of what you have done. Anyone with any experience with you knows that.
calvin
2012-08-04 16:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Maybe you and trotsky can get a group rate at a mental health facility. Neither of you know jack about films and both of you are obsessed with proving that. It is you that can never admit you were wrong and just like a psycho the idea is to turn the tables and accuse your imagined foe of what you have done. Anyone with any experience with you knows that.
You need to look at yourself honestly
instead of looking at others dishonestly.
David O.
2012-08-06 01:56:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 23:04:49 -0700 (PDT), calvin
I was making a pithy point, and then you came along and pissed on it.
Should be:

"I was making a pithy point, and then you came along and pithed on
it."
calvin
2012-08-04 17:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
I yet live too.  I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
William, let's return to your first response for a moment.
Post by William
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular
interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls.
Why didn't you stop there and let me respond?
Post by William
If you mean going off the tower is the "same way twice"
you totally missed the point of the film.
Or, why didn't you stop there and let me respond?
Post by William
And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously --
the second woman who went off the tower.
Or, why didn't you stop there and let me respond?
Post by William
You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock
but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
You reached this conclusion based on nothing but what
you had said previously, with no pause for a response
from me.

Do you really not understand why that would anger me
and lead me to say you don't know squat about how to
communicate? You really don't get that? C'mon.

And, with only a moment's reflection, you should have
concluded that I am not so stupid as to not have known
the basic plot points that you mentioned. You may like to
think I'm that stupid, but you know I'm not.

And last, why didn't the context, my first viewings of the film
more than 50 years ago, enter into your thoughts? That
context was the whole point of my original post.
William
2012-08-04 18:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
Do you really not understand why that would anger me
and lead me to say you don't know squat about how to
communicate? You really don't get that? C'mon.
calvin: I don't care. First off, you really don't care about the film, you only care about how you are being perceived. As a result, every conversation about any film becomes a conversation about you and your imaginary slights. I can't believe you're still going on about this. The whole point is that you were wrong about the basic plot of "Vertigo" and you make it into how I fail to communicate because I don't understand how something or other would anger you. Who gives a shit? Here we go again, yes, it's all my fault and I didn't check the calvin dossier to see how what I wrote might anger the twisted litte fuck. Get over it.
calvin
2012-08-04 18:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
Do you really not understand why that would anger me
and lead me to say you don't know squat about how to
communicate?  You really don't get that?  C'mon.
calvin: I don't care. First off, you really don't care about the film, you only care about how you are being perceived. As a result, every conversation about any film becomes a conversation about you and your imaginary slights. I can't believe you're still going on about this. The whole point is that you were wrong about the basic plot of "Vertigo" and you make it into how I fail to communicate because I don't understand how something or other would anger you. Who gives a shit? Here we go again, yes, it's all my fault and I didn't check the calvin dossier to see how what I wrote might anger the twisted litte fuck. Get over it.
[sigh] Well, nobody can say I didn't try.
Howard Brazee
2012-08-05 00:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
I yet live too. I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower
is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman
who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
I don't think that's what he meant "by the same way". The same way
to me means "lost because I was too weak to save her".
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
William
2012-08-05 00:34:07 UTC
Permalink
I don't think that's what he meant "by the same way". The same way
to me means "lost because I was too weak to save her".
But that isn't the case the second time. No way was the studio going to let Jimmy Stewart be in any way complicit in her death. There was nothing he could do.
calvin
2012-08-05 01:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
I yet live too.  I saw the movie at least twice when it
first showed for three or four days in my hometowm.
With nary a thought about it's place on lists of great
movies, or about Hitchcock's personal hangups over
blondes, or about what critics might think, it was just a
gripping new Hitchcock movie in which he posed and
solved the problem of how to get the same man to
lose the same woman in the same way twice.
Huh? The first time she's murdered (if you believe the popular interpretation) and the second time she trips and falls. If you mean going off the tower
is the "same way twice" you totally missed the point of the film. And, the first woman who went off the tower isn't -- obviously -- the second woman
who went off the tower. You might claim to understand and defend Hitchcock but apparently you don't know squat about the film.
I don't think that's what he meant "by the same way".    The same way
to me means "lost because I was too weak to save her".
What I meant was that from Scottie's point of view he
lost a woman from the top of the tower down onto
the roof below; and then the woman that he had thought
that it was when it happened, later came down from the
tower to her death on the roof. Both times he thought
that it was the character played by Kim Novak. The
loss each time to him was the same, even though he
had been deceived the first time. I still think it was
perfectly proper, and pithy, for me to say that
Hitchcock gave us a story in which the same
man lost the same woman in the same way twice.
However, that was my teenage self's viewpoint. In
later viewings I came to realize that there was a lot more
depth to the movie than merely that fascinating plot.
David O.
2012-08-06 01:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by SLGreg
I mean, I like "Vertigo" and all, but what do you suppose constitutes
the criteria for being considered "best of all time?" Writing,
acting, directing, cinematography? What?!
Stature. It's just a reverence for the canon.
David O.
2012-08-06 01:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
That "The Conformist" isn't on the list says it all.
I love THE CONFORMIST, too.

Do you like Bertolucci's BEFORE THE REVOLUTION?

What about one of my favorites of all time—Bellocchio's CHINA IS NEAR.
Rockinghorse Winner
2012-08-04 06:15:01 UTC
Permalink
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by tomcervo
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ? (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Anyone taking the last few decades into account would find at least one
movie from the last 40+ years that would make the Top 10.
Not a single comedy. Really.

Terry
--
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls |/
drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own |/ Gentoo Linux
despair, against our will, comes wisdom through |/
the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus |/
moviePig
2012-08-04 19:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rockinghorse Winner
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by tomcervo
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ? (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Anyone taking the last few decades into account would find at least one
movie from the last 40+ years that would make the Top 10.
Not a single comedy. Really.
Top of my head, there are at least 2 deliberate gags in 2001:ASO.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Bill Anderson
2012-08-04 19:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rockinghorse Winner
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by tomcervo
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ? (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Anyone taking the last few decades into account would find at least one
movie from the last 40+ years that would make the Top 10.
Not a single comedy. Really.
Top of my head, there are at least 2 deliberate gags in 2001:ASO.
Tell, tell! And potty humor doesn't count.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
calvin
2012-08-04 20:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rockinghorse Winner
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by tomcervo
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ? (Fellini, 1963)
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Anyone taking the last few decades into account would find at least one
movie from the last 40+ years that would make the Top 10.
Not a single comedy. Really.
Top of my head, there are at least 2 deliberate gags in 2001:ASO.
Tell, tell!  And potty humor doesn't count.
Wait, let us guess for a little while. One is 'Daisy, Daisy',
another is taking the picture and waving the subjects closer
together in front of the monolith on the moon. Poole
talking to his parents after exercising (lame). The unappetizing
food on the moon bus (lame). [Lame as examples, not lame
scenes.] The Russians not buying the lies they just heard (lame).
Poole saying "I resign" after he's already been beaten at chess
by HAL. HAL professing a 'stimulating' relationship with the
two humans. HAL blaming stuff on human error. And of course
the masterstroke of a shot just before the intermission.
g***@comcast.net
2012-08-04 21:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.

Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
Bill Anderson
2012-08-04 22:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.
Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
Threads that hang around long enough generally morph into something the
OP never expected. In this case I was being ironic when I gave the
thread its subject line. I was hoping to illustrate the absurdity of
even suggesting that a particular movie is the "greatest film of all
time," and in fact I believe someone raised that issue early on, but it
was mostly dropped in the discussion..

I think the Sight and Sound list is fun, and in fact very useful, as it
can bring to our attention excellent films we may never have
experienced. But c'mon, the greatest film of all time is VERTIGO?
Seriously? It's an excellent film and I enjoy watching it -- maybe not
quite as much as some people, but I like it very much. Still, it's just
one of many excellent films on the list. Calling it greatest film of
all time is a joke.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
2012-08-04 22:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by g***@comcast.net
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.
Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
Threads that hang around long enough generally morph into something the
OP never expected.  In this case I was being ironic when I gave the
thread its subject line.  I was hoping to illustrate the absurdity of
even suggesting that a particular movie is the "greatest film of all
time," and in fact I believe someone raised that issue early on, but it
was mostly dropped in the discussion..
I think the Sight and Sound list is fun, and in fact very useful, as it
can bring to our attention excellent films we may never have
experienced.  But c'mon, the greatest film of all time is VERTIGO?
Seriously?  It's an excellent film and I enjoy watching it -- maybe not
quite as much as some people, but I like it very much. Still, it's just
one of many excellent films on the list.  Calling it greatest film of
all time is a joke.
Well, *believing* it is, anyway. And I thought VERTIGO was smashing.

My two 2001:ASO gags (which I didn't intend as a riddle, btw) are the
potty humor you mentioned -- aka the zero-g toilet -- and the
scientists gathering for their "Grand Canyon" photo. Admittedly, the
latter resonates with the man-as-monkey theme, but it was also a well-
measured punchline in the script.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Bill Anderson
2012-08-04 22:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by g***@comcast.net
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.
Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
Threads that hang around long enough generally morph into something the
OP never expected. In this case I was being ironic when I gave the
thread its subject line. I was hoping to illustrate the absurdity of
even suggesting that a particular movie is the "greatest film of all
time," and in fact I believe someone raised that issue early on, but it
was mostly dropped in the discussion..
I think the Sight and Sound list is fun, and in fact very useful, as it
can bring to our attention excellent films we may never have
experienced. But c'mon, the greatest film of all time is VERTIGO?
Seriously? It's an excellent film and I enjoy watching it -- maybe not
quite as much as some people, but I like it very much. Still, it's just
one of many excellent films on the list. Calling it greatest film of
all time is a joke.
Well, *believing* it is, anyway.
Well, I intended it as a joke. And I do think the very idea is funny.

And I thought VERTIGO was smashing.

And I thought it was extraordinarily good.
Post by moviePig
My two 2001:ASO gags (which I didn't intend as a riddle, btw) are the
potty humor you mentioned -- aka the zero-g toilet -- and the
scientists gathering for their "Grand Canyon" photo. Admittedly, the
latter resonates with the man-as-monkey theme, but it was also a well-
measured punchline in the script.
If you ever come to visit, remind me to show you a Skylab defecation bag
with its attached government form to be completed upon ... completion.
I think it's much more amusing than that set of instructions in 2001.
Ever considered that handrails might be a requirement? Newton and all.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
2012-08-04 23:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by g***@comcast.net
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.
Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
Threads that hang around long enough generally morph into something the
OP never expected.  In this case I was being ironic when I gave the
thread its subject line.  I was hoping to illustrate the absurdity of
even suggesting that a particular movie is the "greatest film of all
time," and in fact I believe someone raised that issue early on, but it
was mostly dropped in the discussion..
I think the Sight and Sound list is fun, and in fact very useful, as it
can bring to our attention excellent films we may never have
experienced.  But c'mon, the greatest film of all time is VERTIGO?
Seriously?  It's an excellent film and I enjoy watching it -- maybe not
quite as much as some people, but I like it very much. Still, it's just
one of many excellent films on the list.  Calling it greatest film of
all time is a joke.
Well, *believing* it is, anyway.
Well, I intended it as a joke.  And I do think the very idea is funny.
And I thought VERTIGO was smashing.
And I thought it was extraordinarily good.
Post by moviePig
My two 2001:ASO gags (which I didn't intend as a riddle, btw) are the
potty humor you mentioned -- aka the zero-g toilet -- and the
scientists gathering for their "Grand Canyon" photo.  Admittedly, the
latter resonates with the man-as-monkey theme, but it was also a well-
measured punchline in the script.
If you ever come to visit, remind me to show you a Skylab defecation bag
with its attached government form to be completed upon ... completion.
I think it's much more amusing than that set of instructions in 2001.
Ever considered that handrails might be a requirement?  Newton and all.
For every defecation there is an equal and opposite fecation.

Objects at a restroom tend to remain at a restroom (...causing a
waiting line).

F = m * a. (Substitute scatological nouns of choice.)

Daisy... Daisy...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
2012-08-04 22:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Threads that hang around long enough generally morph into something the
OP never expected.  In this case I was being ironic when I gave the
thread its subject line.  I was hoping to illustrate the absurdity of
even suggesting that a particular movie is the "greatest film of all
time," and in fact I believe someone raised that issue early on, but it
was mostly dropped in the discussion..
I think the Sight and Sound list is fun, and in fact very useful, as it
can bring to our attention excellent films we may never have
experienced.  But c'mon, the greatest film of all time is VERTIGO?
Seriously?  It's an excellent film and I enjoy watching it -- maybe not
quite as much as some people, but I like it very much. Still, it's just
one of many excellent films on the list.  Calling it greatest film of
all time is a joke.
Not only that, but as others have pointed out,
and you said in the previous paragraph,
there is no greatest film. The best that can be
done is to list a set of favorite movies.
Rockinghorse Winner
2012-08-05 17:26:23 UTC
Permalink
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by g***@comcast.net
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.
Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
Threads that hang around long enough generally morph into something the
OP never expected. In this case I was being ironic when I gave the
thread its subject line. I was hoping to illustrate the absurdity of
even suggesting that a particular movie is the "greatest film of all
time," and in fact I believe someone raised that issue early on, but it
was mostly dropped in the discussion..
I think the Sight and Sound list is fun, and in fact very useful, as it
can bring to our attention excellent films we may never have
experienced. But c'mon, the greatest film of all time is VERTIGO?
Seriously? It's an excellent film and I enjoy watching it -- maybe not
quite as much as some people, but I like it very much. Still, it's just
one of many excellent films on the list. Calling it greatest film of
all time is a joke.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Vertigo is very good. However, it is not a film I personally enjoy coming
back to time and again. For one thing, Jimmy Stewart has always put me to
sleep.

Terry
--
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls |/
drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own |/ Gentoo Linux
despair, against our will, comes wisdom through |/
the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus |/
calvin
2012-08-04 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Boy, I'm certainly glad I posted my thoughts on "Vertigo" at exactly the same time that William posted his last bit.
Just goes to show: The threat isn't about "Vertigo" at all. Is it?
William has nothing to teach anybody about 'Vertigo'.
But he has the jaws of a mad dog, so post about a
Hitchcock movie at your own risk.
William
2012-08-04 22:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by calvin
William has nothing to teach anybody about 'Vertigo'.
But he has the jaws of a mad dog, so post about a
Hitchcock movie at your own risk.
Well, he does know how many women died in the same spot and apparently you don't. To point that out to you "causes you harm" as you said in a different thread. I caught you in a mistake and you have begun to hound me with a thread dedicated to what a piece of shit I am and call me a "mad dog." Get help, calvin. Victims anonymous might be a good start. And, for the record, you were wrong about your beloved Hitchcock because you can't even follow a simple plot. Plus, there are two other threads about Hitchcock films and I haven't posted a word. Your embarrassing gaffe demanded a reply and you're still crying about it. My god, for a conservative, you sure are a pussy.
trotsky
2012-08-04 23:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
William has nothing to teach anybody about 'Vertigo'.
My god, for a conservative, you sure are a pussy.
This is the single most idiotic thing you've ever said, sir william.
How many cowardly piece of shit chicken hawk "conservatives" have you
ever heard of that have deferments from the military? All of them?
Gore Vidal just died, and you just made him vomit.

Kudos.
calvin
2012-08-04 23:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by calvin
William has nothing to teach anybody about 'Vertigo'.
But he has the jaws of a mad dog, so post about a
Hitchcock movie at your own risk.
Well, he does know how many women died in the same spot and apparently you don't. To point that out to you "causes you harm" as you said in a different thread. I caught you in a mistake and you have begun to hound me with a thread dedicated to what a piece of shit I am and call me a "mad dog." Get help, calvin. Victims anonymous might be a good start. And, for the record, you were wrong about your beloved Hitchcock because you can't even follow a simple plot. Plus, there are two other threads about Hitchcock films and I haven't posted a word. Your embarrassing gaffe demanded a reply and you're still crying about it. My god, for a conservative, you sure are a pussy.
All right, William, I admit it. You caught me. I thought Madeleine
died, and then came back to life so she could die again. I'm so
dumb, and you're so clever. It was just too embarrassing to admit,
but now I have to. Next, I want you to explain the plot of Psycho
to me. I mean, what ever happened to Norman's mother? After
she killed two people she just disappeared. And then they arrested
Norman. It made no sense.
David O.
2012-08-06 01:47:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 20:46:49 -0700 (PDT), tomcervo
Post by tomcervo
I thin they're just shuffling the cards--aren't these the usual top
ten for the last few decades?
Yep.

It's weird seeing such obvious canon formation in an age that's
supposed to be anti-canon (and anti-canon formation).

It's also the age of resentment, as Harold Bloom has dubbed it. So
where are all the films from post-colonialists, black lesbians, and
Arab springers?
hislop
2012-08-02 03:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
I remember a list in the People's Alamanc 2 that included
The Crowd and The Bicycle Thief.
b***@aol.com
2012-08-02 04:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Vertigo over Citizen Kane?! As Col. Jessup would say, "YOU JUST FUCKED WITH THE WRONG MARINE!!"
mikeos
2012-08-02 13:17:31 UTC
Permalink
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)>
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)>
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)>
4. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)>
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)>
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)>
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)>
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)>
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)>
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Why is Ishtar not in there?
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-02 15:31:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:46:58 -0400, Bill Anderson
Post by Bill Anderson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
(cut)

I don't think it's so much of discussing the merits of the films, but
what factors cause the rankings to change? If "Citizen Kane" has been
# 1 for five decades, why has it now been replaced by "Vertigo"?

The poll is taken every ten years, and this year the panel consisted
of 846 distributors, critics and academics. Why should "Citizen
Kane" a traditional standard be suddenly toppled from its # 1 spot -
and so forth? What are the cultural factors that may have influenced
the changes?

--
William
2012-08-02 15:37:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:31:31 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:

What are the cultural factors that may have influenced
Post by Mack A. Damia
the changes?
To me, the question isn't why one replaced the other but why are either on the list. It's utter nonsense.
Ralph
2012-08-02 16:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Sight & Sound The Critics’ Top 50 Greatest Films of All Time

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
11. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925)
12. L’Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934)
13. Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)
14. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
15. Late Spring (Ozu Yasujiro, 1949)
16. Au hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)
17. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa Akira, 1954)
17. Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)
19. Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974)
19. Singin’ in the Rain (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1951)
21. L’avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)
21. Le Mépris (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)
21. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
24. Ordet (Carl Dreyer, 1955)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai, 2000)
26. Rashomon (Kurosawa Akira, 1950)
26. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)
28. Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)
29. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
29. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
31. The Godfather Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
31. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
33. Bicycle Thieves (Vittoria De Sica, 1948)
34. The General (Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926)
35. Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
35. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
35. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal
Akerman, 1975)
35. Sátántangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)
39. The 400 Blows (François Truffaut, 1959)
39. La dolce vita (Federico Fellini, 1960)
41. Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954)
42. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955)
42. Some Like It Hot (Billy Wilder, 1959)
42. Gertrud (Carl Dreyer, 1964)
42. Pierrot le fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
42. Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967)
42. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
48. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
48. Histoire(s) du cinéma (Jean-Luc Godard, 1998)
50. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
50. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi Kenji, 1953)
50. La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)


The Directors’ Top 10 Greatest Films of All Time

Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1980)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Mirror (Tarkovsky, 1974)
Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
moviePig
2012-08-02 21:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
Sight & Sound The Critics’ Top 50 Greatest Films of All Time
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
11. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925)
12. L’Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934)
13. Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)
14. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
15. Late Spring (Ozu Yasujiro, 1949)
16. Au hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)
17. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa Akira, 1954)
17. Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)
19. Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974)
19. Singin’ in the Rain (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1951)
21. L’avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)
21. Le Mépris (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)
21. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
24. Ordet (Carl Dreyer, 1955)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai, 2000)
26. Rashomon (Kurosawa Akira, 1950)
26. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)
28. Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)
29. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
29. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
31. The Godfather Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
31. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
33. Bicycle Thieves (Vittoria De Sica, 1948)
34. The General (Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926)
35. Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
35. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
35. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal
Akerman, 1975)
35. Sátántangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)
39. The 400 Blows (François Truffaut, 1959)
39. La dolce vita (Federico Fellini, 1960)
41. Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954)
42. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955)
42. Some Like It Hot (Billy Wilder, 1959)
42. Gertrud (Carl Dreyer, 1964)
42. Pierrot le fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
42. Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967)
42. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
48. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
48. Histoire(s) du cinéma (Jean-Luc Godard, 1998)
50. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
50. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi Kenji, 1953)
50. La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
The Directors’ Top 10 Greatest Films of All Time
Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1980)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Mirror (Tarkovsky, 1974)
Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
Directors mean lots more to me than critics... and I think I haven't
seen MIRROR...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
David O.
2012-08-06 02:01:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:00:36 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by moviePig
Directors mean lots more to me than critics...
They probably do to a lot of people. But why?

Don't tell me you buy that old canard about needing to know how to
make a movie in order to criticize it?
Lewis
2012-08-06 15:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David O.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:00:36 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by moviePig
Directors mean lots more to me than critics...
They probably do to a lot of people. But why?
Because too many reviewers are just hacks assigned to review movies by
someone else. Or hacks who wouldn't know a good movie if their eyes were
stapled open.

There's no qualification to be a reviewer, so there is no quality in
aggregating reviews haphazardly.
--
Would you say you worship Satan, or do you simply respect his
no-nonsense approach to discipline?
William
2012-08-06 15:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Because too many reviewers are just hacks assigned to review movies by
someone else. Or hacks who wouldn't know a good movie if their eyes were
stapled open.
The funny thing is that directors choose such odd films. Ever see a list of Godard's favorite films? One great scene from the annals of directors as critics is Fritz Lang chewing out Jacques Rivette for giving Lang's "Human Desire" a GOOD review. Lang couldn't believe anyone could like his remake of "La Bête Humaine" and frankly, I think he's right.
moviePig
2012-08-06 16:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David O.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:00:36 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
Post by moviePig
Directors mean lots more to me than critics...
They probably do to a lot of people. But why?
Don't tell me you buy that old canard about needing to know how to
make a movie in order to criticize it?
Why directors mean more to *me* is that I look to movies to make me
feel something ...and the something is (quite) often "ineffable". And
I think good directors have better instincts than critics about such
things. It's what makes them good directors (...not the other way
round, btw). So, e.g., when a consensus of directors (say, the DGA)
finds particular reward in a particular movie, I have extra confidence
that I might, too, if I keep hunting.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

poisoned rose
2012-08-04 06:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
15. Late Spring (Ozu Yasujiro, 1949)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai, 2000)
29. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
35. Sátántangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)
41. Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954)
42. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955)
42. Gertrud (Carl Dreyer, 1964)
42. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
48. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
48. Histoire(s) du cinéma (Jean-Luc Godard, 1998)
These are the ones I haven't seen.

Is "In the Mood for Love" really so great? I've read about it and can't
quite find a reason to make it a must-see.
William
2012-08-04 06:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by poisoned rose
Post by Ralph
15. Late Spring (Ozu Yasujiro, 1949)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai, 2000)
29. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
35. S�t�ntang� (B�la Tarr, 1994)
41. Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954)
42. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955)
42. Gertrud (Carl Dreyer, 1964)
42. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
48. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
48. Histoire(s) du cin�ma (Jean-Luc Godard, 1998)
These are the ones I haven't seen.
Is "In the Mood for Love" really so great? I've read about it and can't
quite find a reason to make it a must-see.
As a dedicated Asian film fan, I'm lost as to the significance of Wong Kar-wai. I liked Chungking Express and maybe one other of his films. Also, I was underwhelmed by Close-Up and I really like some of the stuff coming out of Iran. What I have seen on your list and would recommend is The Battle of Algiers, Pather Panchali, and Late Spring. As for the Godard and Dreyer, I'd watch their films at the drop of a hat.
Rockinghorse Winner
2012-08-05 17:33:14 UTC
Permalink
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Post by poisoned rose
Post by Ralph
15. Late Spring (Ozu Yasujiro, 1949)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai, 2000)
29. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
35. S?t?ntang? (B?la Tarr, 1994)
41. Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954)
42. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955)
42. Gertrud (Carl Dreyer, 1964)
42. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
48. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
48. Histoire(s) du cin?ma (Jean-Luc Godard, 1998)
These are the ones I haven't seen.
Is "In the Mood for Love" really so great? I've read about it and can't
quite find a reason to make it a must-see.
Shoah works on account of it's length. By the end, you are simply
emotionally exhausted. I think it is an important document, and prolly
needed to be as long as it is simply to get on film the eyewitness accounts
of people who were already elderly when this film was made. However, I
think it would be a better 'movie,' if it was edited down to 180 min or
less. JMHO.

Terry
--
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls |/
drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own |/ Gentoo Linux
despair, against our will, comes wisdom through |/
the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus |/
Mack A. Damia
2012-08-02 17:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
What are the cultural factors that may have influenced
Post by Mack A. Damia
the changes?
To me, the question isn't why one replaced the other but why are either on the list. It's utter nonsense.
First observation:

Suggested: the majority of raters are baby boomers. If you break it
down by decade, the 1950s has 12 entries in the top fifty, the 1960s
has 15 entries and the 1970s has 7 entries.

Not so much to do with the quality of the film; rather, the era in
which it was released.
--
Loading...