Every time I watch something from my non-functional youth I of course get more out of it. Besides knowing more now that I did then, i think part of it the nature of films. An hour and a half/two hour movie can provide clues but if everything was more than flagged, well, then, you get inflated, unwieldy beasts. Or god help me, look at Gone With the Wind for one: Stuffed story, yet pretty damn superficial. So there's a lot of filling in for the audience member to do if able and willing. And if not, the movie can still work. (or, of course, not.)
Meanwhile, on the superficial level, there's my first three viewings of the OG Star Wars when it frst came out. First viewing bored: It seemed awfully plodding. Loved it some weeks later on second viewing. Third time was after work so I dozed off.
But that reference to Dede Allen and Bruce Surtees of course begs questions that tend to be ignored outside movie-making school: How much heavy lifting does or can an editor do? Ralph Rosenblum famously took credit for making Annie Hall and The Night They Raided Minsky's much, much better than what he was given -- as in he's the one who deserves credit. (There's a chuk of that with Marcia Lucas and OG Star Wars.) And as for Surtees, I don't know that when a movie works visually, it's not the cinematographer's framing and lighting that make it art as opposed to, you know, directing. Then again, Citizen Kane's look was in large part dictated by neither director nor cinematographer but it's restrictive budget... Too, I'm getting on that third rail of the eternal question of just how much. director contributes to a final production.
“Night Moves” had great snappy dialog as I remember it and you sampled. One that stuck with me was, Harry: “I saw an Erich Roemer movie once. It was like watching paint dry.” Haven’t been able to watch Roemer since. I will say, regarding rewatching a movie, that after the tenth viewing of “Master of Disguise” with the boys I realized that absolutely nothing in it is funny.
Not a movie, but the HBO series Rome. Mrs. Derelict and I watched it when it came out and thoroughly enjoyed it. Watched it again last fall, and we were blown away by how good it really is. Second viewing allowed us to luxuriate in some of the tiny but vital details that went completely unnoticed the first time, but would have made the whole thing much more bland and conventional were they not there. A prime example: When Vorenus and Pulo return to Rome after having walked all the way from Gaul, they're dirty, as you would expect--but the makeup artists put the "dirt" into the natural folds and crevices of the actors' skins, exactly how it would be in real life. You wouldn't notice it on first viewing, but you would miss it if it weren't there.
The original "Karate Kid" from 1984. When I watched it in the theater at 19 I was enchanted. When I watched it years later, "Daniel-san" came off as an instigating dick. 😀
Thanks for this. Too many things on my plate today/tomorrow/next week, but for right now:
– that screen shot completely flipped for me when you stated where the film supposedly takes place. That is, first I saw a cabin in the Sierras, with just the right California sunlight comin' thru, and the stairs maybe a little ragged (so be careful sittin' 'cause splinters)...but as soon as you mentioned Florida suddenly I saw the rot under the painted wall, and how the stairs were part/parcel with the elevated shack, a push-back against the encroaching tide. And then I thought I'm being unfair to Florida, that wood rot is common enough in the oldish cabins and cottages in California, and then I thought 'Yeah, but Florida, man...'
And your bit about the working life of detectives reminded me of the fine article "Nobody gives a shit" by Radley Balco, an interview with Andrew Sowards, a retired detective, and his description of what it is actually like working in an office full of detectives. Definitely worth a read.
Night Moves is a great film. What a great Hackman performance!- I believe it's on Tubi or one of the other apps for free.
Penn doesn't get thought of much as an action director - I guess he's seen perhaps as more serious than that. Which is crazy.- Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man are great action films.
I didn't like Altman's Long Goodbye for the longest time. I was crazy about Altman and crazy about Chandler and found the film disappointing. Turns out, like happened so many times in so many different circumstances, I was full of shit.
I think it"s a matter of patience..I was
just too antsy to appreciate some things.
I talked earlier this week about sneaking off to see "The Rules of Game" I didn't mention how underwhelmed I was by the film. Often cited as one of the greatest film of all time, I didn't get it. Boy was I young and stupid about that! I watch it regularly and see more in it everytime.
I was late to the Miyazaki party. I ignored Spirited Away for years - anime characters had weird big eyes like some kitschy velvet painting you see at all the swap meets around here. Turns out when I finally got around watching I literally cried at it's power and beauty.
The Leopard by Visconti is another. I started it three different times and gave up 2/3 of the way through each time. I didn't realize.- through the reviews were always very explicit - most of the final third is taken up with a party scene that is one of the best written best acted.
best filmed sequences ever. It explains and justifies everything that went before.
I looked all the later, European Welles films as tragic near masterpieces, never
truly finish because of a lack of money and really a lack of will on Welles part.
Once again, way full of shit. In the last 10 years I realize Welles was giving a master class in guerilla filmmaking. Everything he made in his later years is brilliant and as complete as it needs to be. Chimes at Midnight is the greatest filmed Shakespeare ever, just behead of the Welles Othello and the Welles Macbeth.
This is a broad topic! And a great one. I look forward to the comments.
Good choice; I’m getting to revisit the 1970s, thanks be to Criterion, with flicks like this (which I didn’t see at the time) and THE LONG GOODBYE (ditto). Lots of little things I never noticed b/c I was living in the milieu, I guess
I really appreciate your observation about the grittiness and tough appearance of working class lives portrayed in 1970s movies and how that shocks a modern viewer used to that being romanticized or made to look shiny.
That jaded realism really drives home the power of a movie like Saturday Night Fever, which you know has a nostalgic reputation as a silly disco movie, but given the desperation of Tony's life you could see why that fake, syrupy, neon, velvety world was so mesmerizing to him & to us... A club-going lady early in the movie squeals "Oh I've kissed Al Pacino" afte demanding a kiss from him, and you can see how for a minute it actually could be true for him, or that he really wishes it were...
OK, Breathless. Perfect illustration of how time wears off the sheen.
I saw it a few years after it came out, and got the edgy, frenchy vibe. Viewed it again last year for the film club and was let down hard. Not because it didn't have all the artsy fartsy stuff it was renowned for, but because all those things are now so old hat they don't stand out as they once did. What may have been boundary-shattering is now same old same old.
This is likely true for everyone and I know there are *SO* many movies where a rewatching has revealed to me an entirely different film than the one I saw as a teenager. Right now I can only think of two recent rewatches and my new impressions were relatively superficial compared to Roy’s.
I recently rewatched Lawrence of Arabia, and as a youngster I completely missed that Lawrence was raped in prison or the significance of that, and I also simply didn’t get the depth of flat-out *weirdness* of who the character had been as a man, a weirdness that I don’t think can be fully explained by the time period or by his class. Just a very strange guy, LOL. And of course I missed all the subtleties of British colonialism, the complex relationships between the desert tribes, and the technical virtuosities.
I also rewatched The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, and I remember originally viewing it as a very simple heist movie. I had also grown up in and was still living in NYC at that time, so I didn’t appreciate how VERY old-school New York the movie was as it all just seemed normal to me – a fish isn’t aware of the water, etc. I believe they made a remake with John Travolta which I haven’t seen, but another thing that struck me on my rewatch was the vague motives of the Robert Shaw villain. I thought if they made the film today, they’d feel the need for more character complexity and would try to show a whole origin narrative for why he was doing what he was doing. But of course it wasn’t needed, most of what made him so terrifying was his opaqueness.
"other things you couldn’t get at home, like swears and tits."
That's a funny line!
Peripheral - I know when it was I smoked the best pot I ever smoked in my whole life.
10 years ago or so my oldest daughter and me were talking and we both noticed we hadn't gone to a theater to see a movie in quite some time. That very night we decided to go see " Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman directed by the guy who did the reboot of The Mummy. As I am want to do -
I hit several jumbo size bowls like my life depended on it way to the show. We had a great time and I told everybody that I knew they should go see it.
Okay- Van Helsing sucked. Hard. Overwrought. Underwritten. Bad CGI. Just stupid.
One of the guys I recommended it to wanted his money back from me because I recommended it. People laughed and asked what was wrong with me. My only excuse is that must have been some hella weed.
I saw Heathers when it first came out and loved it, but when I re-watched it last year something airless had creeped into it; I had remembered it as far more snappy and fast-paced than it was. Enough classic Hollywood screwball comedies will do that to you...
Kinda the opposite of what you're asking for, but: after a weeks-long slog studying Aristotle's "Poetics," I watched "Reservoir Dogs," and quite suddenly felt like I was really "seeing" a movie/dramatic presentation for the first time; like, really understanding the dramatic mechanisms (and that particular movie is fucking loaded with examples--the "ear-cutting" scene, damn)
Straight Time. I watched it as a teenager and thought there was a good movie somewhere in there but the seediness ruined it. I watched it 20 years later and realized what an excellent movie it always was.
Every time I watch something from my non-functional youth I of course get more out of it. Besides knowing more now that I did then, i think part of it the nature of films. An hour and a half/two hour movie can provide clues but if everything was more than flagged, well, then, you get inflated, unwieldy beasts. Or god help me, look at Gone With the Wind for one: Stuffed story, yet pretty damn superficial. So there's a lot of filling in for the audience member to do if able and willing. And if not, the movie can still work. (or, of course, not.)
Meanwhile, on the superficial level, there's my first three viewings of the OG Star Wars when it frst came out. First viewing bored: It seemed awfully plodding. Loved it some weeks later on second viewing. Third time was after work so I dozed off.
But that reference to Dede Allen and Bruce Surtees of course begs questions that tend to be ignored outside movie-making school: How much heavy lifting does or can an editor do? Ralph Rosenblum famously took credit for making Annie Hall and The Night They Raided Minsky's much, much better than what he was given -- as in he's the one who deserves credit. (There's a chuk of that with Marcia Lucas and OG Star Wars.) And as for Surtees, I don't know that when a movie works visually, it's not the cinematographer's framing and lighting that make it art as opposed to, you know, directing. Then again, Citizen Kane's look was in large part dictated by neither director nor cinematographer but it's restrictive budget... Too, I'm getting on that third rail of the eternal question of just how much. director contributes to a final production.
And I'm sure I went way off point...
“Night Moves” had great snappy dialog as I remember it and you sampled. One that stuck with me was, Harry: “I saw an Erich Roemer movie once. It was like watching paint dry.” Haven’t been able to watch Roemer since. I will say, regarding rewatching a movie, that after the tenth viewing of “Master of Disguise” with the boys I realized that absolutely nothing in it is funny.
Not a movie, but the HBO series Rome. Mrs. Derelict and I watched it when it came out and thoroughly enjoyed it. Watched it again last fall, and we were blown away by how good it really is. Second viewing allowed us to luxuriate in some of the tiny but vital details that went completely unnoticed the first time, but would have made the whole thing much more bland and conventional were they not there. A prime example: When Vorenus and Pulo return to Rome after having walked all the way from Gaul, they're dirty, as you would expect--but the makeup artists put the "dirt" into the natural folds and crevices of the actors' skins, exactly how it would be in real life. You wouldn't notice it on first viewing, but you would miss it if it weren't there.
The original "Karate Kid" from 1984. When I watched it in the theater at 19 I was enchanted. When I watched it years later, "Daniel-san" came off as an instigating dick. 😀
Thanks for this. Too many things on my plate today/tomorrow/next week, but for right now:
– that screen shot completely flipped for me when you stated where the film supposedly takes place. That is, first I saw a cabin in the Sierras, with just the right California sunlight comin' thru, and the stairs maybe a little ragged (so be careful sittin' 'cause splinters)...but as soon as you mentioned Florida suddenly I saw the rot under the painted wall, and how the stairs were part/parcel with the elevated shack, a push-back against the encroaching tide. And then I thought I'm being unfair to Florida, that wood rot is common enough in the oldish cabins and cottages in California, and then I thought 'Yeah, but Florida, man...'
And your bit about the working life of detectives reminded me of the fine article "Nobody gives a shit" by Radley Balco, an interview with Andrew Sowards, a retired detective, and his description of what it is actually like working in an office full of detectives. Definitely worth a read.
Night Moves is a great film. What a great Hackman performance!- I believe it's on Tubi or one of the other apps for free.
Penn doesn't get thought of much as an action director - I guess he's seen perhaps as more serious than that. Which is crazy.- Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man are great action films.
I didn't like Altman's Long Goodbye for the longest time. I was crazy about Altman and crazy about Chandler and found the film disappointing. Turns out, like happened so many times in so many different circumstances, I was full of shit.
I think it"s a matter of patience..I was
just too antsy to appreciate some things.
I talked earlier this week about sneaking off to see "The Rules of Game" I didn't mention how underwhelmed I was by the film. Often cited as one of the greatest film of all time, I didn't get it. Boy was I young and stupid about that! I watch it regularly and see more in it everytime.
I was late to the Miyazaki party. I ignored Spirited Away for years - anime characters had weird big eyes like some kitschy velvet painting you see at all the swap meets around here. Turns out when I finally got around watching I literally cried at it's power and beauty.
The Leopard by Visconti is another. I started it three different times and gave up 2/3 of the way through each time. I didn't realize.- through the reviews were always very explicit - most of the final third is taken up with a party scene that is one of the best written best acted.
best filmed sequences ever. It explains and justifies everything that went before.
I looked all the later, European Welles films as tragic near masterpieces, never
truly finish because of a lack of money and really a lack of will on Welles part.
Once again, way full of shit. In the last 10 years I realize Welles was giving a master class in guerilla filmmaking. Everything he made in his later years is brilliant and as complete as it needs to be. Chimes at Midnight is the greatest filmed Shakespeare ever, just behead of the Welles Othello and the Welles Macbeth.
This is a broad topic! And a great one. I look forward to the comments.
Good choice; I’m getting to revisit the 1970s, thanks be to Criterion, with flicks like this (which I didn’t see at the time) and THE LONG GOODBYE (ditto). Lots of little things I never noticed b/c I was living in the milieu, I guess
I really appreciate your observation about the grittiness and tough appearance of working class lives portrayed in 1970s movies and how that shocks a modern viewer used to that being romanticized or made to look shiny.
That jaded realism really drives home the power of a movie like Saturday Night Fever, which you know has a nostalgic reputation as a silly disco movie, but given the desperation of Tony's life you could see why that fake, syrupy, neon, velvety world was so mesmerizing to him & to us... A club-going lady early in the movie squeals "Oh I've kissed Al Pacino" afte demanding a kiss from him, and you can see how for a minute it actually could be true for him, or that he really wishes it were...
OK, Breathless. Perfect illustration of how time wears off the sheen.
I saw it a few years after it came out, and got the edgy, frenchy vibe. Viewed it again last year for the film club and was let down hard. Not because it didn't have all the artsy fartsy stuff it was renowned for, but because all those things are now so old hat they don't stand out as they once did. What may have been boundary-shattering is now same old same old.
I am home sick, thumb typing this shit on a phone. It's difficult.
This is likely true for everyone and I know there are *SO* many movies where a rewatching has revealed to me an entirely different film than the one I saw as a teenager. Right now I can only think of two recent rewatches and my new impressions were relatively superficial compared to Roy’s.
I recently rewatched Lawrence of Arabia, and as a youngster I completely missed that Lawrence was raped in prison or the significance of that, and I also simply didn’t get the depth of flat-out *weirdness* of who the character had been as a man, a weirdness that I don’t think can be fully explained by the time period or by his class. Just a very strange guy, LOL. And of course I missed all the subtleties of British colonialism, the complex relationships between the desert tribes, and the technical virtuosities.
I also rewatched The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, and I remember originally viewing it as a very simple heist movie. I had also grown up in and was still living in NYC at that time, so I didn’t appreciate how VERY old-school New York the movie was as it all just seemed normal to me – a fish isn’t aware of the water, etc. I believe they made a remake with John Travolta which I haven’t seen, but another thing that struck me on my rewatch was the vague motives of the Robert Shaw villain. I thought if they made the film today, they’d feel the need for more character complexity and would try to show a whole origin narrative for why he was doing what he was doing. But of course it wasn’t needed, most of what made him so terrifying was his opaqueness.
"other things you couldn’t get at home, like swears and tits."
That's a funny line!
Peripheral - I know when it was I smoked the best pot I ever smoked in my whole life.
10 years ago or so my oldest daughter and me were talking and we both noticed we hadn't gone to a theater to see a movie in quite some time. That very night we decided to go see " Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman directed by the guy who did the reboot of The Mummy. As I am want to do -
I hit several jumbo size bowls like my life depended on it way to the show. We had a great time and I told everybody that I knew they should go see it.
Okay- Van Helsing sucked. Hard. Overwrought. Underwritten. Bad CGI. Just stupid.
One of the guys I recommended it to wanted his money back from me because I recommended it. People laughed and asked what was wrong with me. My only excuse is that must have been some hella weed.
I saw Heathers when it first came out and loved it, but when I re-watched it last year something airless had creeped into it; I had remembered it as far more snappy and fast-paced than it was. Enough classic Hollywood screwball comedies will do that to you...
Of course.
Detour: so cheap that when they wanted to show a car driving westbound they flipped already shot stock to save on shooting anymore film.
In Kane’s case, yes, the lo-budget was the mother of the invention.
Kinda the opposite of what you're asking for, but: after a weeks-long slog studying Aristotle's "Poetics," I watched "Reservoir Dogs," and quite suddenly felt like I was really "seeing" a movie/dramatic presentation for the first time; like, really understanding the dramatic mechanisms (and that particular movie is fucking loaded with examples--the "ear-cutting" scene, damn)
Straight Time. I watched it as a teenager and thought there was a good movie somewhere in there but the seediness ruined it. I watched it 20 years later and realized what an excellent movie it always was.