303 Bad Timing
- jorencain
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am
All I can do is second that. I bought "The Man Who Fell To Earth" on Tuesday, loved it, and felt that I had to buy "Bad Timing" also. I picked it up today and was also blown away by it (and Criterion's presentation of both films, of course). These are the only Roeg films I've seen, so I'm sure "Walkabout" is in my near future as well.
I love that these films force the viewer to be involved from beginning to end, and they keep you captivated throughout. While Art Garfunkel may not be a great actor, he doesn't really need to be, since Theresa Russell is able to carry the film, and Roeg's direction and editing are top-notch...as Rip Torn says on the TMWWT disc (I'm paraphrasing), "All the actor needs to do is show up and stand there."
Great films, and I have to say that Theresa Russell is a total MILF. Sorry, but it's true.
I love that these films force the viewer to be involved from beginning to end, and they keep you captivated throughout. While Art Garfunkel may not be a great actor, he doesn't really need to be, since Theresa Russell is able to carry the film, and Roeg's direction and editing are top-notch...as Rip Torn says on the TMWWT disc (I'm paraphrasing), "All the actor needs to do is show up and stand there."
Great films, and I have to say that Theresa Russell is a total MILF. Sorry, but it's true.
- justeleblanc
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
- Location: Connecticut
I would say watch DONT LOOK NOW over WALKABOUT. The editing in WALKABOUT is just a bit too obvious to me.jorencain wrote:All I can do is second that. I bought "The Man Who Fell To Earth" on Tuesday, loved it, and felt that I had to buy "Bad Timing" also. I picked it up today and was also blown away by it (and Criterion's presentation of both films, of course). These are the only Roeg films I've seen, so I'm sure "Walkabout" is in my near future as well.
I love that these films force the viewer to be involved from beginning to end, and they keep you captivated throughout. While Art Garfunkel may not be a great actor, he doesn't really need to be, since Theresa Russell is able to carry the film, and Roeg's direction and editing are top-notch...as Rip Torn says on the TMWWT disc (I'm paraphrasing), "All the actor needs to do is show up and stand there."
Great films, and I have to say that Theresa Russell is a total MILF. Sorry, but it's true.
I can't wait to see BAD TIMING though. That's the only Roeg film I still haven't seen.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
-
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
Would they have had to get his permission to include the now-infamous deleted footage of him full-frontal? I seem to remember MGM weren't able to include certain bits of cut footage on Last House on the Left due to the actresses involved not being happy with their content and refusing to sign releases, but that might have been a one-off.peerpee wrote:I wonder if Funk Garbuncle declined to be involved with the disc?
- the dancing kid
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:35 pm
I watched this earlier tonight, and like everyone else, I was completely blown away by it. I actually thought Garfunkel was ok in his role, and I loved his constantly wandering eye. I don't know if that was something he was consciously doing, but it really fit with the whole "spy" thing that character was speaking about during the lecture. A lot of the film was shot in a very voyeuristic manner as well, such as the camera lingering on various objects and guiding the audience's gaze. Great stuff.
- Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
- Contact:
I watched the first hour of this and was quite impressed. Art G is a lot better than I was lead to believe and Harvey K as the inspector is marvelous. I watched some of the extras and was impressed with the interviews how they put the movie into context. It's nice to see Nic Roeg alive and well. I must agree with oldshephard about Theresa Russell. Not only gorgeous, but spirited. It's a pity we don't have more actresses like her. Instead, we get the Gwyneth Paltrows and Kate Hudsons to "entertain" us. Criterion really went all-out on this one. I went in thinking I'd hate the movie, but it's very, very enjoyable. The signature style of Roeg editing was welcome as well. I think I may venture on to Roeg in the '80s. Can anyone give any opinions on Eureka?
- editman
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:13 pm
Just finished watching the Criterion DVD. Is there anyone else who's really bothered by the colour temperature change within some scenes, particularly during the scene Linden leaves Netusil after signing his witness account (Chapter 7, about 31 minutes into the movie)? You can see very clearly that the colour changes from a cold bluish tone of a Garfunkel close-up to a warm reddish tone of Keitel close-up. (I don't remember exactly but I think that's where the reel changes.)
I have just watched the same scene on the R2UK DVD. The colour temperature of that scene from Keitel's close-up onward is still in a bluish tone, similar to the former part of the scene pre-Garfunkel's close-up. Though slightly not matching, the colour balance's definitely not changing drastically as on Criterion.
I hardly doubt that the change in colour temperature is intentional. It'd be very disappointing if it's due to Criterion's overlooking during mastering.
And the original theatrical trailer on the Criterion is truncated compared to the one on the R2UK DVD, which is almost twice as long. But it may be out of Criterion's control and it's not the first time they features a truncated version of an original theatrical trailer.
On the up side, the deleted scenes and the Theresa Russell interview are the real gems. In fact I would go so far to say that interview is probably one of the most informative (about the actual production) and, to some extent, entertaining (certainly very watchable) pieces of DVD bonus materials on any Criterion DVDs since Thompson's commentary on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. (Compared to hers the Roeg and Thomas piece is such a bore.)
I have just watched the same scene on the R2UK DVD. The colour temperature of that scene from Keitel's close-up onward is still in a bluish tone, similar to the former part of the scene pre-Garfunkel's close-up. Though slightly not matching, the colour balance's definitely not changing drastically as on Criterion.
I hardly doubt that the change in colour temperature is intentional. It'd be very disappointing if it's due to Criterion's overlooking during mastering.
And the original theatrical trailer on the Criterion is truncated compared to the one on the R2UK DVD, which is almost twice as long. But it may be out of Criterion's control and it's not the first time they features a truncated version of an original theatrical trailer.
On the up side, the deleted scenes and the Theresa Russell interview are the real gems. In fact I would go so far to say that interview is probably one of the most informative (about the actual production) and, to some extent, entertaining (certainly very watchable) pieces of DVD bonus materials on any Criterion DVDs since Thompson's commentary on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. (Compared to hers the Roeg and Thomas piece is such a bore.)
- denti alligator
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
- editman
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:13 pm
In the middle of a scene?
I did consider the idea that it might actually be intentionally disorienting, but I found no solid reason for the change in colour temperature at that point other than a colour-balance mismatch between reels.
To me, at least for the first half of the film, the flashback sequences always have a warm reddish tone while the scenes in present time looks colder. So the scene in question should be in blueish tone throughout, and it doesn't make sense that it suddeny becomes warm. If the colour temperature should change it should wait until at least Alex gets to the bridge and dissolves into Milena.
Besides there's no other prominent example throughout the film with such an abrupt change in colour temperature within a scene. In the scene in which Alex and Milena are in bed in Chapter 11, you can tell the close-up 2-shot is slightly warmer (more reddish tone) than the frontal ws. But that's changing (mismatch?) between shots, not in the middle of a scene, and certainly not as apparent (and the flashback scene overall is still warm).
The 'director approved' label is really baffling, especially when it's a Nic Roeg movie. Frankly I've come to believe the approval label is not as significant as it used to be - didn't someone mention that DTS or the other audio track on Fear and Loathing (which is supposed to be approved by Gilliam) is screwed up?
BTW forgot to mention in my previous post: my favorite moment in the film is probably in the Morocco hotel room scene. After Alex tells Milena about the old building in NY, she abruptly breaks the tender moment hitting herself in the neck to squash a bug, sprays the insecticide, then violently sneezes. The way Theresa Russell performed is pure comic gold in perfect timing. Always cracks me up.
I did consider the idea that it might actually be intentionally disorienting, but I found no solid reason for the change in colour temperature at that point other than a colour-balance mismatch between reels.
To me, at least for the first half of the film, the flashback sequences always have a warm reddish tone while the scenes in present time looks colder. So the scene in question should be in blueish tone throughout, and it doesn't make sense that it suddeny becomes warm. If the colour temperature should change it should wait until at least Alex gets to the bridge and dissolves into Milena.
Besides there's no other prominent example throughout the film with such an abrupt change in colour temperature within a scene. In the scene in which Alex and Milena are in bed in Chapter 11, you can tell the close-up 2-shot is slightly warmer (more reddish tone) than the frontal ws. But that's changing (mismatch?) between shots, not in the middle of a scene, and certainly not as apparent (and the flashback scene overall is still warm).
The 'director approved' label is really baffling, especially when it's a Nic Roeg movie. Frankly I've come to believe the approval label is not as significant as it used to be - didn't someone mention that DTS or the other audio track on Fear and Loathing (which is supposed to be approved by Gilliam) is screwed up?
BTW forgot to mention in my previous post: my favorite moment in the film is probably in the Morocco hotel room scene. After Alex tells Milena about the old building in NY, she abruptly breaks the tender moment hitting herself in the neck to squash a bug, sprays the insecticide, then violently sneezes. The way Theresa Russell performed is pure comic gold in perfect timing. Always cracks me up.
- ogygia avenue
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:51 pm
- sevenarts
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
- Contact:
I've got to register a dissenting opinion on this one. Damn, I haven't been this burned by a blind buy in a long time. A lot of it was the acting, to be sure -- and watching it in the same night as a Pialat film, with its realistic acting style, probably didn't help. But I found all the performances, including Theresa Russell's, to be wholly unconvincing, overwrought, and really aggravating. Even Harvey Keitel was pretty blah, although he was certainly still more fun to watch than Garfunkel and Russell put together.
But I would probably be able to get around the lousy acting if there was more to the film, but there really wasn't. The characters had nothing to say to each other than stock cliches -- I really winced at some of the sappy nonsense coming out of Garfunkel, and not just because his acting is so bad. The dialogue was about on the level of a generic Hollywood romance, and if this film was somehow meant to be a subversion of that genre, it didn't play with conventions nearly enough to be a succesful one. And the plot, other than the time jumping, was utterly pedestrian. A lot of people complained about this kind of narrative gimmickry in films like Memento, but at least there it served a real narrative and metaphorical point; here it seems to be solely for the purpose of obscuring the narrative's essential emptiness.
I will say, on a positive note, that the ending sequences had some power that was lacking in the rest of the film, even if a lot of it was based on the shock value of Garfunkel humping the comatose Russell. It also struck me that David Fincher is probably a fan of this film, I detected echoes of the suicide phone call in Fight Club, and of Keitel's "sewer" monologue in Seven. Not that that means anything, good or bad: just an observation.
Anyway, I'm really confused about the rave reactions this one is getting. Based on reviews and summaries I figured I'd really enjoy this one. But if this indicative of the quality of Roeg's work, I'll certainly be avoiding him from now on.
But I would probably be able to get around the lousy acting if there was more to the film, but there really wasn't. The characters had nothing to say to each other than stock cliches -- I really winced at some of the sappy nonsense coming out of Garfunkel, and not just because his acting is so bad. The dialogue was about on the level of a generic Hollywood romance, and if this film was somehow meant to be a subversion of that genre, it didn't play with conventions nearly enough to be a succesful one. And the plot, other than the time jumping, was utterly pedestrian. A lot of people complained about this kind of narrative gimmickry in films like Memento, but at least there it served a real narrative and metaphorical point; here it seems to be solely for the purpose of obscuring the narrative's essential emptiness.
I will say, on a positive note, that the ending sequences had some power that was lacking in the rest of the film, even if a lot of it was based on the shock value of Garfunkel humping the comatose Russell. It also struck me that David Fincher is probably a fan of this film, I detected echoes of the suicide phone call in Fight Club, and of Keitel's "sewer" monologue in Seven. Not that that means anything, good or bad: just an observation.
Anyway, I'm really confused about the rave reactions this one is getting. Based on reviews and summaries I figured I'd really enjoy this one. But if this indicative of the quality of Roeg's work, I'll certainly be avoiding him from now on.
-
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 am
- Location: Florie-dah
I think you'd be foolishly depriving yourself of some great cinema if you didn't see Walkabout and Don't Look Now before deciding Roeg's not for you. Bad Timing's plot may be somewhat pedestrian, but Roeg's camera elevates it far beyond what it should be.
But it's not exactly "Roeg In A Box", so I can't say if the things that irritated you about Bad Timing will irritate you in subsequent Roeg outings. I can say that I don't think you'll find anything in Don't Look Now or Man Who Fell To Earth (the major Roeg I don't especially like) especially typical of the genre they exist in, however.
But it's not exactly "Roeg In A Box", so I can't say if the things that irritated you about Bad Timing will irritate you in subsequent Roeg outings. I can say that I don't think you'll find anything in Don't Look Now or Man Who Fell To Earth (the major Roeg I don't especially like) especially typical of the genre they exist in, however.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
sevenarts' response to the film is similar to my own (previous page), though I still enjoy the movie as an editing exercise (though the editing doesn't seem to be much more than an exercise). I don't even find the visuals that distinctive, especially when you compare this film with what came before it.
However, Roeg is definitely one of the most interesting directors of the 70s, and you shouldn't let this experience turn you off him entirely. Probably the best point of re-entry is Walkabout, which is miles away from Bad Timing and shows off the director's visual strengths to great effect. After that, Don't Look Now is unmissable. If you like those two, Performance might edge you back into Bad Timing territory, but I think it's a more substantial film. I'm also a bit of a Man Who Fell to Earth skeptic, and given your response to Bad Timing wouldn't recommend it until you're thoroughly indoctrinated.
However, Roeg is definitely one of the most interesting directors of the 70s, and you shouldn't let this experience turn you off him entirely. Probably the best point of re-entry is Walkabout, which is miles away from Bad Timing and shows off the director's visual strengths to great effect. After that, Don't Look Now is unmissable. If you like those two, Performance might edge you back into Bad Timing territory, but I think it's a more substantial film. I'm also a bit of a Man Who Fell to Earth skeptic, and given your response to Bad Timing wouldn't recommend it until you're thoroughly indoctrinated.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:20 am
- Location: Providence, RI
I assumed it was a sly joke, a bit of wordless wordplay that's just perfect for a film about psychoanalysis. You know that the procedure that's supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening is called "color timing," right? So: this is a case of bad timing.editman wrote:I did consider the idea that it might actually be intentionally disorienting, but I found no solid reason for the change in colour temperature at that point other than a colour-balance mismatch between reels.
-
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:45 pm
Recently on the IMDB's classic film board a thread was started with the subject 'Dour, joyless films, without an ounce of humour'. One nomination each was allowed. My nomination was Bad Timing. There was nothing in the film for me, I couldn't sympathise with the characters, the storyline was fragmentary, the direction awful, i felt it was trite and pretentious. Harvey Keitel's awkward (method) over-acting was cringeworthy. No more movies with psychoanalysis PLEASE. (Spellbound was bad enough, no-one had any excuse after that).
Of course trying to view Roeg's filmography as a cohesive body of work is a mistake. The Man Who Fell to Earth is one of my personal favourites. And Don't Look Now and Walkabout were ok.
Of course trying to view Roeg's filmography as a cohesive body of work is a mistake. The Man Who Fell to Earth is one of my personal favourites. And Don't Look Now and Walkabout were ok.
-
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:45 pm
I'm a notorious anti-Bressonian (don't get me started), but just so you know that I will watch dour films here are 5 from my top 20
1. SÃlenà / Lunacy (2005 - Jan Svankmajer)
4. Dai-bosatsu tôge / Sword of Doom (1966 - Kihachi Okamoto)
11. l'Armée des ombres / Army of Shadows (1969 - Jean-Pierre Melville)
12. Les Amants réguliers / The Regular Lovers (2005 - Philippe Garrel)
13. Der Siebente Kontinent / The Seventh Continent (1989 - Michael Haneke)
But if a film handicaps itself from the start by being dour, it has to be mighty good to register on the richter scale. Bad Timing doesnt.
1. SÃlenà / Lunacy (2005 - Jan Svankmajer)
4. Dai-bosatsu tôge / Sword of Doom (1966 - Kihachi Okamoto)
11. l'Armée des ombres / Army of Shadows (1969 - Jean-Pierre Melville)
12. Les Amants réguliers / The Regular Lovers (2005 - Philippe Garrel)
13. Der Siebente Kontinent / The Seventh Continent (1989 - Michael Haneke)
But if a film handicaps itself from the start by being dour, it has to be mighty good to register on the richter scale. Bad Timing doesnt.
- denti alligator
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
- Baron_Blood
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:12 am
- Location: Existential Hell
I love me some dour films. I think all my favs are dour in some way or another. Here are only 5 (I could name tons more), which I'd consider extremely dour but also amazing...
Rabid Dogs (M. Bava)
Eugenie De Sade (Franco)
The Story of Sin (Borowczyk)
Through the Looking Glass (Middleton)
Spell (Cavallone)
Rabid Dogs (M. Bava)
Eugenie De Sade (Franco)
The Story of Sin (Borowczyk)
Through the Looking Glass (Middleton)
Spell (Cavallone)
- dad1153
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: 303 Bad Timing
Saw this last night on Criterion DVD, my third Roeg movie after "Walkabout" and "The Men Who Fell To Earth." You can feel Nic's confidence and skill in his filmmaking grow with every movie (and yes, I know I'm missing his best in-between work in "Don't Look Now"). That skill, along with some great performances (Russell, Elliot) and cast-against-type performers (Garfunkel, Keitel), elevate "Bad Timing" above cookie-cutter sexual thrillers more concerned with the plot mechanisms than the inner-workings of the minds of obsessed people. That's the beauty of Roeg using his considerable editing skills (along with Tony Lawson's) to fashion an out-of-order flashback narrative. It's not only cinematically more entertaining to watch Alex & Milena's "relationship" through this prism than the typical A-to-B-to-C storyline (not to mention to noir-like foreshadowing from the start that things went terribly wrong), but it mirrors the rambling jumble of memories and recollections that an obsessed lover that has just done something horrible would be experiencing as he's questioned by the police about his alibi. In fact I love to think of "Bad Timing" as everything that's running through Alex's conflicted mind (which he would never admit to anyone is in turmoil, not even himself) in real-time as he asks himself 'how did I end up here?' I was surprised that Garfunkel delivered the goods acting-wise but his limited range totally suits Alex Linden's personality and profession (having grown as the son of a psychologist that was the willing guinea pig to many an exercise I should know). By contrast Theresa Russell is like those broaches she keeps wearing on her lapel: colorful, eye-catching and as easy to replace as the emotions (and men) she wears out. Roeg maybe lets Russell run a little too wild and over-the-top but it never reaches scenery-chewing silliness; Theresa gives it her all and her director responded in kind. I like Keitel's performance (he's more audience surrogate than police detective trying to figure out what's Dr. Linden's deal) but it seems to have been lifted from an entirely different movie that was being shot simultaneously at Pinewood that week. Within the realms of what's plausible or not in a Roeg movie I just bought Harvey's act and kept watching,
In real-life Russell's character would have been diagnosed as a bi-polar substance abuser and be given an intervention by someone that cares for her well-being (Denholm Elliott shines in his few scenes as someone that actually cared for this troubled woman). But, this being an arthouse 'erotic thriller' (a pretty tame one compared with something like "In the Realm of the Senses"), Alex cares for Milena but only in that he wants to posses and control her like he does his outward personality. I haven't seen a more cinematic fucked-up representation of the true meaning of one-on-one rape (the debased humiliation over a defenseless human being by exerting total physical control over that person's body) than what Alex does to Milena at the end of "Bad Things." And no, I haven't seen "Deliverance" yet (it's sitting on my HD-DVD kevyip pile). It's a much more psychologically dense and cinematically well-crafted $20 blind buy than I was expecting from Roeg. I liked it, and there's the bonus features, booklet and eventual rewatch to look forward to. Money well spent.
In real-life Russell's character would have been diagnosed as a bi-polar substance abuser and be given an intervention by someone that cares for her well-being (Denholm Elliott shines in his few scenes as someone that actually cared for this troubled woman). But, this being an arthouse 'erotic thriller' (a pretty tame one compared with something like "In the Realm of the Senses"), Alex cares for Milena but only in that he wants to posses and control her like he does his outward personality. I haven't seen a more cinematic fucked-up representation of the true meaning of one-on-one rape (the debased humiliation over a defenseless human being by exerting total physical control over that person's body) than what Alex does to Milena at the end of "Bad Things." And no, I haven't seen "Deliverance" yet (it's sitting on my HD-DVD kevyip pile). It's a much more psychologically dense and cinematically well-crafted $20 blind buy than I was expecting from Roeg. I liked it, and there's the bonus features, booklet and eventual rewatch to look forward to. Money well spent.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: 303 Bad Timing
Venture out of the Collection and see Don't Look Now and Performance