The All-Time List Discussion Thread (Decade Project Vol. 3)

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#51 Post by Tommaso » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:02 pm

swo17 wrote:It may actually help the '20s films perform better on the overall list, since there will be less "vote splitting" in a sense. Who knows? Any fancy math I could do to accommodate this issue would sacrifice the simplicity of the "two top 10 mentions" idea. In fact, 17 of the 20 films that made my top 10s for those first two periods are eligible now. I've got as much or more to choose from there as I do for any other period.
Yes, you're right. The same goes for me. I guess my point also came from a phenomenon that I think others may have encountered, too. I made a provisional list of my Top 50 from the films that are eligible, and it's already so crammed with masterpieces from all decades that I could hand in the list right now and would probably entirely satisfied with it in six months, too. Very little incentive to search out something I haven't yet seen when I have a list that currently relegates Dreyer's "Jeanne d'Arc" to position 23 or Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" to position 31 (both films I absolutely adore). But perhaps/hopefully other people are more adventurous than I am, though certainly I will also check out some of the films on the list that are unknown to me...

Well, in any case I now have the chance to put one film in the Top 10 of my list which I simply hadn't seen when the 1950s list was made. :-)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#52 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:07 pm

I mean, everything will come down to individual tastes, but I would reckon without actually doing a full count that I probably dislike at least half of the films on this list, and the good discoveries were far outweighed by the painful and interminable ones while playing catch-up, and yet I don't regret committing to seeing these films anyways, because it's always good to get out of your comfort zone (at least enough to see this many films-- I'm surely not signing up for any Yevgeni Bauer classes in the future) and this is such a wide swath of film choices and a weird mix of canonical and obscure that it's been an interesting peek into the forum's less-than-hivemind. So yeah, my overall list hasn't changed at all, but I saw a lot of films I wouldn't otherwise have bothered with, moved up some films I would have gotten to eventually, and did see enough good stuff to make it worthwhile, or at least able to participate in future convos here or elsewhere.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#53 Post by swo17 » Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:19 pm

If you've already seen a majority of these films, odds are that your list won't change much after seeing the rest. But remember there was a time when you hadn't yet seen most of your favorite films. When I was twelve, I might have told you "Why do I need to watch any more films? I already have Gremlins 2." And perhaps I would have been right. But there is no shame in finding your next favorite film via the cold machinations of this project--no more shame than, say, finding a mate through an online dating site, and I don't think I'm allowed to say that that's shameful in America in 2016.

Like I said in the first post, every film here is kind of like a spotlight title. Behind every single one of them, there are at least a couple of boosters that, more or less, think it's the best film of whatever year it came out, and they're hoping that you'll get in line along with them. For a handful of these titles you are that person. You're probably hoping that people will go into that film with an open mind, and not just think "Why bother? I already have a solid top 50." Speaking for myself, I already saw most of these films during the respective decades projects, but many of the ones that ended up making my top 10s at the time (and showing up as eligible here) were discoveries during those projects.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#54 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:34 pm

For me, the most interesting part of this project won't necessarily be the discoveries but the re-evaluation and reconsideration of classic, all-time films I haven't seen in some time, especially when it's so easy to sloppily throw so many of these films in the bucket of general greatness but much harder to pit them against each other with any precision for precious list spaces.

Take 1960: if you asked me individually on five different days whether La dolce vita, L'avventura, Breathless, Psycho, and The Apartment were among the 50 best films of all time, I'd probably reflexively say "Of course!" to each one despite not having seen any of them for 10-15 years. But am I really going to devote 1/10th of my list to films released in a single year? Maybe! But I honestly won't know until I revisit them in the context of pitting them against each other and a few hundred of their peers in a way I never have before. That honestly seems easily as much fun as - and maybe more fun than - discovering a handful of new gems, as I'm sure I will.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#55 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:02 pm

I'm coming in having seen just under half of these, such that even if I watched a movie from the list every day (which is tricky to fit in with my schedule) and didn't watch any I'd seen before I STILL wouldn't finish by the end of this- but I'll do my best, and at least get that much closer. I'm also going to avoid writing any kind of provisional list until I'm getting nearish the end, hopefully to privilege the newer discoveries a bit- because even out of my mere ~300 titles seen, I could certainly come up with a list of 50 that would leave out several of my precious babies.

I started off with The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, which is the first Demy I've gotten the chance to see (and I think the first Catherine Deneuve performance!) I was certainly taken with it- it comes off at first as though it will be a sort of young film fan's take on a Gene Kelly musical, all bright primary colors and emotions and music that seems somewhat of a pastiche, and allowing itself a few moments of the ecstatic joy that is the core of Kelly's dancing, only here it is the camera that dances. I was shocked to find out the whole thing was filmed on location, as I was positive that the movie was luxuriating in the artificiality of its sets during those scenes- only to find out from the extras that the artificiality itself is a façade, with the bright colors being lain over the real walls of a town that, by the time the leads must say goodbye to one another, has become very grey and misty.

That pallor hangs somewhat over most of the rest of the film, with the motif of I Will Wait for You hanging over the two separated lovers like a ghost- but though Deneuve's character seems to grow increasingly resigned and depressed, losing herself in losing her connection to her beloved (an arc that felt reminiscent of Hiroshima, Mon Amour- "I would have died for him. Why aren't I dead?" carries something of the irony that animates that movie) the overall film never loses a sense of exuberance, even when bogged down a bit in the somewhat tired narrative of manipulative mother pushing her daughter away from love and into security.

The third section recovers it, certainly, and though the film critic who comments on the Criterion blu implies that the ending is a warning to those who allow themselves to lose their faith in love, I think that only really applies to Deneuve- there's a sweetness, and a maturity, to the story of the veteran getting back his hope and building a new life with a woman who has demonstrated a nearly-heartbreaking level of steadfastness in the years over which the story takes place. The very ending feels Sirkian to me- tinged with melancholy and irony, and taking place against an inky sky and fragile snowscape, the two find out how much they have or have not moved on when confronted with one another- but while Deneuve seems tinged with regret, or worse still, unable to feel much in any direction, Castelnuovo seems merely caught in the moment, fascinated by the emotional memories it brings, but still warmly embraced by his family for the final shot of the film.

If the movie seemed to be judging Deneuve more harshly, I would like it less- though I suppose her behavior isn't terribly romantic, she has committed at worst the crime of choosing the Ralph Bellamy, one that carries its own punishment, and I don't think one need read into her situation anything much worse than a sort of steadily humdrum life. And even there, the operatic nature of the film gives her an inner life that feels as though it could still push through- a moment of quiet reflection to end the film on, rather than one of great tragedy or comedy. It works very well, I think, and the soundtrack means I will likely have it live in my mind longer than other movies that I might have enjoyed more on first blush.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#56 Post by swo17 » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:32 pm

OK, new thing: If you write more than 500 words about a film I will link to your contribution in the first post. Congrats to matrix and Satori for being the first inductees.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#57 Post by knives » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:42 pm

I really like that idea just to put that out there. I guess I'll have to expand what I just put down for To Sleep with Anger which at the moment is just half that.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#58 Post by movielocke » Sat Jun 04, 2016 1:17 am

DarkImbecile wrote:For me, the most interesting part of this project won't necessarily be the discoveries but the re-evaluation and reconsideration of classic, all-time films I haven't seen in some time, especially when it's so easy to sloppily throw so many of these films in the bucket of general greatness but much harder to pit them against each other with any precision for precious list spaces.

Take 1960: if you asked me individually on five different days whether La dolce vita, L'avventura, Breathless, Psycho, and The Apartment were among the 50 best films of all time, I'd probably reflexively say "Of course!" to each one despite not having seen any of them for 10-15 years. But am I really going to devote 1/10th of my list to films released in a single year? Maybe! But I honestly won't know until I revisit them in the context of pitting them against each other and a few hundred of their peers in a way I never have before. That honestly seems easily as much fun as - and maybe more fun than - discovering a handful of new gems, as I'm sure I will.
I agree. For instance, last weekend my wife and I watched "Bringing Up Baby" for the first time for her and I was blown away more so this time at how flawless it is. I'd kind of cooled on the film in the ten or so years since I'd last seen it as the details of it faded into the ether of memory, and now it is fresh it'll almost certainly make my top thirty.

On the other hand a few months ago we watched "the apartment" also a first for her, which she enjoyed but she couldn't believe it was one of my top ten of all time films, and while it still is, the film has lost some of its stinging resonance when I have the love of my life and am not perpetually lovelorn. What I noted this time that I had never seen before was just how the building characterizations and the line "shut up and deal" both imply it isn't a happy ending, just the brief respite before the inevitable breakup. that Fran and C.C. are just not very suited to each other for the long term but each other is what they need in the now moment of their lives.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#59 Post by Satori » Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:49 am

The Seventh Victim (Mark Robson, 1943)
Melancholy is the dominant affective mood in all of Lewton’s work, but nowhere is it more pervasive and all-encompassing than in The Seventh Victim.

As is always the case in Lewton, the side characters are tremendously important in fleshing out the dark world of the film. There is one of particular interest: the sad poet who frequents the café where Jacqueline has rented her secret room. We learn over the course of the film that he wrote an acclaimed book years ago and has suffered from writers block after a woman he was in love with disappeared (later we learn she was actually insane). After meeting and falling in love with Mary—who is friendly, but not attracted to him—he overcomes his writer’s block and produces a new book. Dr. Judd (a parallel universe version of the character in Cat People, also played by Tom Conway) agrees to show the new book to his publisher but warns him that he doubts it will find the same success as his older book: the times have changed. Perhaps the poet was an inter-war high modernist and Judd realizes that the time has passed for that kind of art for its own sake. Or perhaps the poet is too sensitive, too romantic for these cold times. Either way, here is Lewton, perhaps autobiographically, interrogating the possibilities of art in an age of commercialism: the commercialism of Judd himself, with his popular psychiatry books which have replaced his actual practice, or the beauty products sold by the film’s cult, which, like Balzac’s Thirteen, seem to be comprised of the rich and powerful.

As my earlier comparison with Balzac’s thirteen—and hence with Rivette—suggests, though, I think the film is most interesting as a conspiracy film prefiguring Pakula’s 1970s films in which a dark truth exists under the surface of everyday reality (or, in keeping with the horror genre, Rosemary’s Baby, a comparison critics have made already because of the satanists). =
Last edited by Satori on Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#60 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:31 pm

Image

OUT OF THE PAST
Jacques Tourneur 1947


“What is Film Noir?” has jumpstarted many long-winded arguments and essays you’d never want to read, but so much time has been spent on a question with a simple answer: Out of the Past. Whenever I teach my genre studies class on Noir, I don’t even bother to start working towards a definition until we’ve all seen Out of the Past first. The film is an encyclopedic blueprint of one of Hollywood’s most iconic and influential genres, a genre that is scarcely represented by this collective list (but my two favorite examples, this and Whirlpool, are eligible). “Why is Out of the Past a great film?” is asking the same question as “Why is Film Noir a great genre?” And the answer is, I think, not summed up by glib examinations of aesthetics (“Look, shadows. Look, they filmed on the actual street,” &c) but rather at the tone and heart of the picture and all great noir pictures, that sinking feeling in your gut when you know you’re on the wrong side of success, victory, and a happy ending. Never forget James Ellroy’s perfect two word summation of the entirety of the genre (in what is the only other definition that can compete with this film): “You’re fucked.”

And boy is Robert Mitchum fucked in Out of the Past. Not just when he falls for Jane Greer’s icy, reference-quality femme fatale, but from the moment he agrees to take the sketchy sleuthing detail Kirk Douglas throws his way. Nothing is ever simple in noir, and the more mundane the gumshoe’s charge appears, the more sinister its purpose. The great tragedy of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is the same thing that makes it so relatable and relevant hundreds of years later, the compounding of understandable mistakes, and great noirs borrow freely from this tradition. Every move here is the wrong one, and there are seemingly no right ones available. Options are limited when your field of reference is obscured. “All I can see is the frame,” as Mitchum says late in the picture, and even when he’s two steps ahead of Douglas and crew in the last act, he still can’t outrun his old mistakes or the trust he foolishly imparts on Greer and Douglas, even after all evidence to the contrary is exhibited. Even doing the right thing, performing his civic duty in the end, becomes a suicidal act. There is no hope for Mitchum, as there is no hope for all the shell-shocked GIs returning to an American existence they no longer recognize. The abstract strangeness of the familiar, the recontextualizing of a man’s darkest fears, the gnawing knowledge that life is the proverbial poker hand: every table has a sucker, and if you look around and can’t spot him, you’re it.

And all this would be well and good if cinema existed only to contextualize society, but Out of the Past benefits from all the myriad charms the studio system could afford. Sure, it’s smartly paced and acted, and the film is beautiful to look at, but above all else, this film is working off a terrifically witty script, filled with some of the greatest lines of dialogue ever written. Who can think of Jane Greer’s character here without remembering Robert Mitchum’s response to being told no one can be all bad? “No, but she comes closest.” I must confess I think little of Jacques Tourneur as a director outside of this film, but there is no arguing with the results he achieves with all the working parts here. Admittedly, while it’s a stunning exemplar of the genre, no one film can really contain the entirety of something as complex and multifarious as the Film Noir movement. But Out of the Past comes closest.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#61 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jun 04, 2016 1:42 pm

Image

THE BAND WAGON
Vincente Minnelli 1953

When Eric Rohmer compiled his All Time Top 10 for Sight and Sound in 1962, he justified his picks by reasoning, "These are those films which, as I see it, should cinema disappear, would give the most exact idea of its best successes, amidst its highest ambitions." The Band Wagon is how we as a culture could explain and preserve the American Film Musical, the most cinematic and alive of all film genres, for future generations. Not just because it’s a good musical, though it is (I’d argue it’s indeed the best), but because it’s every kind of musical. Rick Altman divided all Hollywood Musicals into three categories: Folk, Fairy Tale, and Show Musicals, and while technically the Band Wagon is the last one, it occupies at various times all three. Here the set-savvy “That’s Entertainment” rubs elbows with the cornpone “Louisiana Hayride.” We get a ballet (“Girl Hunt”), we get a drinking song (“I Love Louisa”), we get a hilarious novelty number (“Triplets”— which has yet to leave my head all these years since my first viewing). The film is a series of “Oh, this is my favorite” numbers, until it’s over and you just want to hit “Play” again.

Like all movie musicals, the Band Wagon is by nature self-reflexive, but Minnelli’s film pushes audience awareness of distancing techniques right out of the gate by tapping its nose at the then-outré status of Fred Astaire’s genial hoofing musicals with Ginger Rogers via Astaire’s thinly-veiled portrayal of himself. The film is smart and holds its audience in the highest esteem, and it justifies the vitality and worthiness of the musical as a cinematic art form by delivering everything the genre does well. We have all markers of the joys of a movie musical from the start, from feats of dance ingenuity to the candy-colored set design, as “Shine on Your Shoes” moves from a small ditty into a freewheeling work of pop sensationalism. It’s not just a catchy number, it’s a mission statement: Here is one of the, if not the, greatest dancers and movie star personalities. Get on board or get left behind. Astaire isn’t really “by himself,” as the opening number claims. Rather, he’s establishing dominance. The Band Wagon, like Singin’ in the Rain, is an almost aggressively great musical, determined to prove relevancy by delivering what the genre at best promises and then some.

And what does it promise? “Entertainment,” of course. Not just in performances but in performance: Not just Astaire, but Cyd Charisse, who between this and Silk Stockings was arguably an even better partner for Astaire than Rogers, brings the right level of aloofness; Nanette Fabray and Oscar Levant give us their winking take on the musical’s authors, Comden and Green; Jack Buchanan blows hard and lampoons the self-serious theatrical perspective that would go on to seep into and poison much of American cinema and almost all of television drama for the latter half of the 50s. But while the Band Wagon isn’t a serious or self-consciously Important film, it isn’t flippant either. The film is alive with necessity, with the “Now” of musicals as an art form. Here in theatrical trappings, but transported and made relevant solely through the tools of film. How many moments in life have ever been as gloriously well-conceived and relayed as Astaire and Charisse’s mating dance of “Dancing in the Dark”? Musicals require an intelligent viewer capable of sustaining the simultaneous suspension of disbelief with the requisite self-reflexive alienating, audience-addressing aspects. They invite us to be part of the experience, to acknowledge the illusion. The Band Wagon inspires reactions that double as dubious-sounding pull-quotes because even the most effusive language just doesn’t seem like enough to relay cinematic magic of this nature to words. And as Claude Chabrol once memorably said, that’s why films cost so much. The Band Wagon beggars belief. It is the possibilities of cinema made actual.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#62 Post by knives » Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:10 pm

Since everyone else is doing the bartman.

To Sleep With Anger
It's practically stupid how good this film is. I've seen Killer of Sheep before which is good, but doesn't really stand out in a crowd of similar movies. Perhaps because there's such a filmic drought of this sort of story, obviously theater and literature is filled to the brim with these black christian morality tales, is why I'm in awe of what Burnett does here but that's the only reservation I have with my praise. The film's closest cousin, I'm aware of, is van Peebles more comedic and even lower budget Don't Play Us Cheap. That film is very explicit about its visitor being the devil trying to ruin the saved characters (I hope I'm using all of the terminology correctly). Burnett alternatively shows a lot more discipline as a director and storyteller particularly with his actors which resulted in my favorite small moment of the film.

Near the end when things finally open up beyond the world of the family the brothers finally bond over a joke derived from a nurse mentioning the full moon. Had the acting gone too much one way it would have underlined the social significance of the scene too much leaving it awkward, had they gone another way the reconciliation might have felt cheap, and had they gone another way it might have played too much into a minstrel show atmosphere which this subtly religious film does risk without a deft hand. It also is a scene that in story stands out and calls attention to itself through how different it is from the rest. In addition to not being at the house the scene features the first white characters in the film and the only montage. That montage is important because it suggests that outside of their world these characters are ignored. They need their world, and if I may be so bold they need that religion that is casually a part of the text, to give them some private importance. Basically the scene should not work, but the subtle sweetness of the performances sell every piece of subtext I just mentioned plus plays as a genuine moment between real brothers. That Burnett returns to this idea once more without conclusion with the removal of Glover makes me want to give more importance to the racial element then is probably there. After all this is a film that across its whole is more of a religious film and I guess you can do some James Baldwin type of psychoanalysis on the relationship between race and religion and how it affects the film but I am far too inadequate in my knowledge of Christianity to actually work through that.

I wonder what motivated Burnett to keep Glover's character so vague. It plays a little coy to have all of these what I assume are superstitions alluded to and even explicitly mentioned in the scene between the old woman and the wife and yet leave him as just human leaving even with a mundane additional explanation. It works insofar as text and subtext remain clear, but there's no obvious reason for Burnett to play the whole film like The Shining (though Burnett is much more successful at the will they won't they aspect). The only reason I can conceive is that it goes back to that nurse scene and the need to highlight that whatever moral or religious convictions of the film it isn't a superstitious one and neither are the characters.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#63 Post by Satori » Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:51 am

To Sleep with Anger is indeed brilliant.

I think your invocation of Baldwin is really interesting and might be a way of approaching your question about the ambiguity of Harry. Like Baldwin, the film does seem to be thinking through the relationship between spirituality—not just Christianity, but also all the folk traditions and superstitions mentioned throughout the film—and identity. So all the theological issues of the film also play out in a social register too: the relationship between black traditions and the contemporary moment, the degree to which these traditions are threatened through assimilation to white middle-class values, and how gender roles are constructed by these various traditions (here the supporting character Hattie seems very important). I’m not sure the film has any specific answers to these questions, but they are all brought up at various points in the film.

Maybe by keeping Harry ambiguous, Burnett can better generate all these social questions without immediately folding them back into the theological framework.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#64 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:35 am

Great write up of The Seventh Victim, Satori! Have you seen Dario Argento's Inferno? I have a theory that Argento is paying a kind of tribute to The Seventh Victim in particular here with the witchcraft elements and rushing towards death ending.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#65 Post by Satori » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:28 am

Oh, that’s really interesting! I completely agree with your reading of the progression from Suspira to Inferno. That is indeed more or less what I was thinking with the progression from the earlier Tourneur Lewtons, in which the eruption of despair and death were localized, versus Seventh Victim in which it seems all-encompassing. I also am now very interested in thinking about Argento’s films in terms of a kind of conspiracy narrative, one that progresses from a localized point in the earlier giallos to the metaphysical itself in Inferno (so too with the Fulci films you discuss, with the progression from Zombi 2 to the 80s “Gates of Hell” trilogy).

I feel like there is also an analogy between All the President’s Men, in which the conspiracy has a localized point, and Parallax View, in which it feels much more all-encompassing (of interest here is that Pakula reverses the order, as if he is retreating from the total conspiracy back to an easily definable one). And maybe even Rivette, with the change from Paris Belongs to Us to Out 1 and especially Le Pont du Nord. It’s a bit more complicated since the conspiracies in Rivette are always more ambiguous, but Le Pont du Nord feels much more totalizing—as if the Maxes or even the evil of the Paris itself in the early 1980s are leading toward the tragic ending of one of the lead characters. This is essentially the argument made by Alison Smith and Douglas Morrey in the “conspiracies” chapter of their Rivette book

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#66 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:22 pm

Thinking of Argento's films in the context of conspiracy is interesting as Argento's films are also about competing patterns of order. In a conspiracy, the pattern of order we take to be our every day reality hides a second, more controlled pattern guided by a specific (tho' often unknown or unknowable) meaning that imperceptibly guides and influences the order of our reality, replacing benign chance with the sinister and highly structured meaning that propels the conspiracy. A conspiracy attempts to replace one order with another without seeming to do so. A conspiracy film is about a character stumbling on that transition in progress, suffering a breakdown of perception following the realization that reality, whose order the character had taken for granted, now has another order, then attempting to piece together the meaning suggested by this second order and either exposing it or not.

Argento's giallos have a similar structure: they are about a character stumbling on the killer's violent attempt to reorder the world into a pattern that expresses the trauma they are locked within. The killer's murders are always fetishistic because they are constructing a pattern of meaning out of private symbols, a pattern more important to them than any other meaning the world might contain. The Argento protagonist stumbles on these symbols, suffers a breakdown in perception (perceiving some detail that cannot be decoded), then slowly piecing together the symbols to arrive at the entire pattern, simultaneously revealing the killer's identity and returning the protagonist to perceptual clarity. Argento often visually pairs the actions of the killer and the protagonist to emphasize how both are obsessed with patterns of meaning, one with making them and the other with decoding them.

Suspiria takes the Argento pattern and develops it towards the conspiracy film, in that instead of a killer using violence to replace, publicly, the usual order of things with their own private order, it's about the usual order hiding a second order that is a surreptitious influence on it. In Suspiria, the conspiracy is straightforward: the non-magical seeming world is a veneer hiding the presence of black magic, a presence the practitioners use murder to keep secret. Indeed, the conspiracy movie shares a basic theme with a lot of fantasy: there is a world under the world.

Inferno develops the theme of competing patterns of order to its limit, however, not only by having a false order crumble into an essential order, but by making the order of daily life--the thing we assume ought to be fought for--be the conspiracy. All the patterns, all the meanings, every bit of significance gone into building our world is a conspiracy to ignore the fact that everything lies on top of a void. Meanings and patterns are themselves the conspiracy; the only true meaning in the world is death. Death cannot be fought or overcome, and the world cannot be repaired to its true order or the hero returned to a point of perceptual wholeness. So Mater Tenebrarum raises her arms in triumph at the end: she has won; death will always win. The impulse to order and meaning shrivels against the fundamental terror that everything ends and emptiness remains. The movie's nihilism makes even conspiracy futile, merely feeble attempts to feel like control and stability are possible. Inferno rejects the idea of meaning entirely, a bold move for a filmmaker who had a career obsession with building patterns that end in meaningful revelations.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#67 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:41 pm

That also makes an interesting link between Lewton and Argento in the sense that both started off making films with, for the lack of a better word, 'tangible' threats but quickly move beyond that into wider existential issues. Even within individual films themselves there's a familiar mysterious narrative framework and then the real preoccupation that the films appear more interested in. In the run of horror pictures that Lewton produced something like the cat woman curse becomes less important than the desire for sex/fear of what sex will do in a wider and more disturbingly nebulous way (and then becomes entirely metaphorical as its own threat from the long buried past hovering over a nuclear family in Curse of the Cat People); the immediate threat of a mindlessly threatening seeming zombie becomes an exploration of the voodoo forces that drove someone catatonic, or could save them (but do we want them saved when it is perhaps better for all to allow the doomed lovers to die together? But who is making that decision, and taking responsibility for it, or is a conscious decision being made at all? Is it all just fate?); the killers and their motivations switch in The Leopard Man (much as they do in Agento's Tenebrae, but I also wonder whether the early shot of the eyes of the leopard glinting in the darkness inspired the almost disemodied watching eyes of the killer in Argento's Suspiria!); the battle over notions of sanity and a sense of self become externalised in Bedlam; the insane captain in The Ghost Ship is far less terrifying than the crew who mutely enable his behaviour and self-created (almost illusory) notions of righteousness and justice shattered into pieces by becoming a pariah; and so on.

I kind of think The Seventh Victim is this pushed as far as it will go in the form of the two sisters embodying two paths, one taking the standard and accepted path to solving the mystery, getting the guy and taking her first steps into a new life all whilst the other is seemingly tormented and hounded to her pre-prepared suicide. What feels so audacious about this film (and there are hints of this in I Walked With A Zombie and the other films) is the way that both exist in the same world. The light mystery and meet-cute set against, and in some senses only existing because of, the utterly bleak sense of futility. Perhaps it all comes down to a particular character's perspective on their situation, of whether they can see a way out of their predicament, or not.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#68 Post by Satori » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:44 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:The movie's nihilism makes even conspiracy futile, merely feeble attempts to feel like control and stability are possible. Inferno rejects the idea of meaning entirely, a bold move for a filmmaker who had a career obsession with building patterns that end in meaningful revelations.
This is great reading. A conspiracy is terrifying, but not nearly as terrifying as the thought that there is no conspiracy (or that, whether there is a conspiracy or not, it doesn't fundamentally matter). Conspiracies then are not just about knowledge (whether or not one exists) but about providing a meaning to the world. In All the Presidents Men, the knowledge of Watergate also gives meaning to the world: the politicians really are corrupt, and thus we should struggle against them. The teletype revelation of Nixon's impeachment in the final seconds of the film even restores a certain kind of order to the world (albeit one undercut by the fact that we can never trust those in power again). When Suzie discovers the truth of the coven, it not only solves the problem but also gives her a task: to destroy it. Much more terrifying would be the revelation that there was no coven; that, as the occult expert tells her earlier in the film, "there are no broken mirrors, only broken minds."

Perhaps this idea speaks to this point:
colinr0380 wrote:The light mystery and meet-cute set against the utterly bleak sense of futility. Perhaps it all comes down to a particular character's perspective on their situation, of whether they can see a way out of their predicament, or not.
For Mary and the other characters, they have "solved" the conspiracy insofar as they have discovered its existence. The film offers no real hope that they can do anything about it—the conspirators are far more powerful than they—but they have at least solved the epistemological problem of the cult’s existence.

Jacqueline, in contrast, is not concerned with the problem of knowledge but of meaning. She realizes the satanic cult is not all-powerful after they have been reduced to begging her to kill herself. When she joined the cult, she thought it could provide her with meaning. That it would give her a reason to postpone her trip to her secret room. When she realizes retrospectively that it never could, she only has the void.
Last edited by Satori on Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#69 Post by knives » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:47 pm

Satori wrote:To Sleep with Anger is indeed brilliant.

I think your invocation of Baldwin is really interesting and might be a way of approaching your question about the ambiguity of Harry. Like Baldwin, the film does seem to be thinking through the relationship between spirituality—not just Christianity, but also all the folk traditions and superstitions mentioned throughout the film—and identity. So all the theological issues of the film also play out in a social register too: the relationship between black traditions and the contemporary moment, the degree to which these traditions are threatened through assimilation to white middle-class values, and how gender roles are constructed by these various traditions (here the supporting character Hattie seems very important). I’m not sure the film has any specific answers to these questions, but they are all brought up at various points in the film.

Maybe by keeping Harry ambiguous, Burnett can better generate all these social questions without immediately folding them back into the theological framework.
I like that explanation of Harry. Certainly the film's whole approach to religion is rather ambiguous to the point where it is easy to not notice many parts. In fact I was thinking along similar lines where, like in Allen's Cassandra's Dream, by allowing him to be human it emphasizes the moral questions at play without having to really do any world building or have narrative questions. It's a nicely lean film on the story level which really gives room for the thematic element to be boisterous (well at least according to the tone of the rest of the movie which is amazingly chill). Hattie was indeed another part that fascinates me though I couldn't figure out what exactly it is. It's easy to see the whole group of friends as a damned lot (aren't they described as resurrected at one point) so her as the saved one who really pushes the family to divorce themselves from Harry is interesting since Harry brought her as well as the others. Was it to get her to renounce her moral evolution? I don't know.

I also find your separation of christianity from folk tradition really fascinating. Pardon the ignorance, but is that the norm? Looking at it from the outside and being familiarized pretty exclusively from media and Mexican style Catholicism I assumed all the superstitions and folk traditions are fairly normal for American style Protestantisms and rather inseparable. So that makes reading them as the evolution of some cultural stew unique to the American part of the diaspora begs a few different readings particularly in how the film's approach to race is from what I was spitballing above.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#70 Post by Satori » Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:46 pm

knives wrote: I also find your separation of christianity from folk tradition really fascinating. Pardon the ignorance, but is that the norm? Looking at it from the outside and being familiarized pretty exclusively from media and Mexican style Catholicism I assumed all the superstitions and folk traditions are fairly normal for American style Protestantisms and rather inseparable. So that makes reading them as the evolution of some cultural stew unique to the American part of the diaspora begs a few different readings particularly in how the film's approach to race is from what I was spitballing above.
I'm certainly no expert either, but the film does seem to draw somewhat of a distinction in that Harry adheres to many of the folk beliefs (like the thing with the broom) but doesn't go to church. It is my understanding that the black church, particularly in the South, incorporated black cultural traditions originating from outside Christianity which white mainline Protestantism wouldn't have. So the film does seem to be thinking through the complexity of these religious and spiritual issues in a way which is inseparable from race (which is why your Baldwin reference struck me as a really productive insight).

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#71 Post by knives » Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:04 pm

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that was another reference to Harry as devil. I think that the broom thing, maybe the bed thing also, specifically are folk legends of the christian imp?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#72 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:35 pm

The lengthy essay on To Sleep With Anger in the Norton Anthology of Film Analysis touches on these religious and cultural issues in its reading as well, for those curious. It's actually how I first heard of the film back in college

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#73 Post by knives » Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:46 pm

The Smith essay in this book?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#74 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:11 pm

Yes. It's in the first edition too (blue cover), because that's the one I have

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The All-Time List Discussion Thread

#75 Post by knives » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:18 pm

Thanks.

Post Reply