tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824 
Likes: 397
|
Post by tobias on Apr 2, 2017 23:24:48 GMT
Could be anyone, actors, directors, cinematographers etc.
I have one extremely controversial one to boot. Michelangelo Antonioni thought Jud Süss (1940) was a great film. He said the following about the film:
I translated this myself because I couldn't find the quote in english but here is the german transcript if youd do not believe me.
This is actually extremely interesting because while the film is generally despised, it gets quite a bit of good word aswell amidst all the hate and another one of Veit Harlan's (the director of Jud Süss) films, Opfergang (1944) is the only Nazi-Germany feature film included in the entire TSPDT top 2000. Also I guess if we can say that Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece, Jud Süss could also be a great film (like Antonioni proposes). Yet it is interesting that with barely over 1.000 votes, Jud Süss got 5,2 on IMDB while Birth of a Nation got 6,7 with almost 18.000 (I haven't seen Jud Süss, maybe it's really an awful film but still the discrepancy seems a little odd). I kind of wonder what that means for our cinematic heritage: Will these, as we call them in german "Vorbehaltsfilme" ("films to have reservations about") gain or lose reputation? It seems that Birth of a Nation has been on a downward trend for years now (which I personally don't much mind because I don't think it's all that great apart from some painterly good looking tableaus), however the aforementioned Opfergang seems to potentionally be critically reevalued, I've heard it called "The German Vertigo" and it actually does look freaking gorgeous (The Murnau Foundation is also working on a restauration, maybe they're done now). Will this become a major debate with political correctness and stuff (although I'm unsure people so bothered about political correctness watch such old films)? How will we access those films in the future? In Germany Jud Süss is actually forbidden by the copyright holders (the Murnau Stiftung) right now. Personally I don't think that is the right way, especially with a film that is so notoriously a propaganda piece that noone could be really convinced by it today (most young people would probably fall asleep because of the pacing). Much more dangerous are the more subtle propaganda films, many of which the Murnau Stiftung did not forbid (not that I would want them to) and many of which are still made today: Pentagon has been big on movie financing ever since the silent age (for instance the Iron Man trilogy is partly financed by the Pentagon) and likewise there is a lot of chinese money in American film today. I start to digress (from the topic of this - controversial opinion of filmmakers) but I just want to give my final line on this: That we should discuss propaganda more openly. It seems to only be discussed in film incredibly rarely and only in obvious cases (and even then often in a onesided manner).
You're invited to take part on the propaganda/hateful message discourse aswell if you want but don't be confused by my digression, the prime topic is still controversial opinions of filmmakers but it would be great if we could discuss them aswell, so feel free to elaborate what you personally think about their opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 2, 2017 23:33:52 GMT
I do think there is something to be said about the analysis of certain propaganda films and filmmakers, because while their message may be horrible, their technique isn't, and for the likes of D.W. Griffith and Leni Riefenstahl, their technique was decades ahead of anyone else at the time. Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are morally repugnant, but any budding film student or cinephile should still watch them not just to see the way cinema evolved through their groundbreaking achievements in style and technical proficiency, but also to experience the strange dichotomy of art and culture, and how one can influence the other positively and, unfortunately, negatively.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 2, 2017 23:49:52 GMT
I do think there is something to be said about the analysis of certain propaganda films and filmmakers, because while their message may be horrible, their technique isn't, and for the likes of D.W. Griffith and Leni Riefenstahl, their technique was decades ahead of anyone else at the time. Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are morally repugnant, but any budding film student or cinephile should still watch them not just to see the way cinema evolved through their groundbreaking achievements in style and technical proficiency, but also to experience the strange dichotomy of art and culture, and how one can influence the other positively and, unfortunately, negatively. Yes, and to further that, I think watching them and seeing how the technique was effectively used for horrible ends can teach people how to think more critically about how messages are framed and consider how to frame their messages in a moral and ethical fashion since these things do have influence. By deconstructing why a Nazi propaganda film or The Birth of a Nation was acceptable, it strips away a lot of their power because you're exposing that it's all decorations on a flimsy wall and once that lack of substance is exposed it becomes a lot easier to challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 3, 2017 0:20:01 GMT
As for the OP, Birth of a Nation was a technically revolutionary film when it came out, probably the most important pre-Citizen Kane film in that regard. I wouldn't call it a "good" film because I've seen it once and never want to watch it again, but I can understand why it has the reputation it does. I haven't seen it, but from the sound of it Jud Suss is just a well made Nazi propaganda film, but not a "revolutionary" or "important" film.
Ingmar Bergman allegedly thought Welles (including Citizen Kane) Kubrick, Spiielberg, and the entire French New Wave were crap, but liked Armageddon when he saw it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 3, 2017 0:29:25 GMT
Ingmar Bergman allegedly thought Welles (including Citizen Kane) Kubrick, Spiielberg, and the entire French New Wave were crap, but liked Armageddon when he saw it. In his 2002 interview with Jan Aghad, Bergman stated that he liked Spielberg (as well as Scorsese, Coppola, and seemingly the rest of the New Hollywood crew) and Truffaut. He did dislike Welles and Godard, though, as well as Antonioni. No idea of his thoughts on Armageddon, but it strangely wouldn't surprise me if he liked it. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 3, 2017 0:31:17 GMT
As for the OP, Birth of a Nation was a technically revolutionary film when it came out, probably the most important pre-Citizen Kane film in that regard. I wouldn't call it a "good" film because I've seen it once and never want to watch it again, but I can understand why it has the reputation it does. I haven't seen it, but from the sound of it Jud Suss is just a well made Nazi propaganda film, but not a "revolutionary" or "important" film. Ingmar Bergman allegedly thought Welles (including Citizen Kane) Kubrick, Spiielberg, and the entire French New Wave were crap, but liked Armageddon when he saw it. What's wrong with liking Armageddon? I can definitely sympathize with Bergman on the French New Wave, particularly Godard. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 3, 2017 0:35:57 GMT
I'll try to look for more interesting and in-depth controversial opinions by filmmakers, but until then here's 30 times filmmakers insulted the shit out of each other: link. |
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 1,414
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 3, 2017 0:52:58 GMT
rivette loved Showgirls
|
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Apr 3, 2017 1:02:29 GMT
PTA supposedly loves Adam Sandler comedies of the 90s, which I know shocked some movie critics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 1:08:27 GMT
I'll try to look for more interesting and in-depth controversial opinions by filmmakers, but until then here's 30 times filmmakers insulted the shit out of each other: link. I've seen that before, quite the entertaining read. |
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 397
|
Post by tobias on Apr 3, 2017 1:37:35 GMT
I do think there is something to be said about the analysis of certain propaganda films and filmmakers, because while their message may be horrible, their technique isn't, and for the likes of D.W. Griffith and Leni Riefenstahl, their technique was decades ahead of anyone else at the time. Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are morally repugnant, but any budding film student or cinephile should still watch them not just to see the way cinema evolved through their groundbreaking achievements in style and technical proficiency, but also to experience the strange dichotomy of art and culture, and how one can influence the other positively and, unfortunately, negatively. Yes, and to further that, I think watching them and seeing how the technique was effectively used for horrible ends can teach people how to think more critically about how messages are framed and consider how to frame their messages in a moral and ethical fashion since these things do have influence. By deconstructing why a Nazi propaganda film or The Birth of a Nation was acceptable, it strips away a lot of their power because you're exposing that it's all decorations on a flimsy wall and once that lack of substance is exposed it becomes a lot easier to challenge. Yeah, this is just my line of thinking, if we would discuss propaganda more, we get better at disecting all the propaganda that is around us today. We are definitely subject of more propaganda today than the Sovjets or Germans back in the 20's, 30's and 40's ever were, simply because there are so much more channels to reach you. Back in the day these films were one of a kind events. I also agree with stephen about Triump of the Will, it's groundbreaking and incredibly skillfull filmmaking. I never really bought that Birth of a Nation was that groundbreaking. The effect of it was much more that it reached millions of people (it was perhaps the first blockbuster-like picture) and thus changed the cinematic landscape in america forever because it sealed the viability of feature length films and because it influenced just about everyone in american silent cinema. However personaly I think in 1915 european cinema was much ahead of American cinema at that point. Films like L'inferno or the works of Starewicz work in a much more audatious visual form and even on a narative level there was Sjöström and the other scandinavians. As far as I'm concerned Birth of a Nation didn't actually pioneer anything, it merely culminated all the cinematic technicques Griffith was aware of into one picture (although we have to give him credit for his shorts which actually pioneer multiple of these techniques). Riefenstahl in turn worked mostly out of her very own ideas (at times she somewhat resembles Vertov but I'm not even sure she had seen his films). However of course Griffith was likewise still miles ahead of his american contemporaries. |
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 397
|
Post by tobias on Apr 3, 2017 1:49:32 GMT
As for the OP, Birth of a Nation was a technically revolutionary film when it came out, probably the most important pre-Citizen Kane film in that regard. I wouldn't call it a "good" film because I've seen it once and never want to watch it again, but I can understand why it has the reputation it does. I haven't seen it, but from the sound of it Jud Suss is just a well made Nazi propaganda film, but not a "revolutionary" or "important" film. Ingmar Bergman allegedly thought Welles (including Citizen Kane) Kubrick, Spiielberg, and the entire French New Wave were crap, but liked Armageddon when he saw it. Oh yes, Bergman had his very own ideas about film. As for Jud Süss, I didn't mean to pit it up 1 on 1 with Birth of a Nation, I merely said that if we can have a positive reception of Birth of a Nation on the basis of it being well made, we could surely have the same for other propaganda films. I couldn't say wheter or not Jud Süss was revolutionary in any cinematic regard (apart from the effect it had on people) but I've never read it anywhere. However I guess that if Antonioni was so positive about the film that must mean something. I think Caligari is perhaps more artistically important than Birth and also than Kane. But Birth of a Nation had gigantic influence because it was so incredibly succesful and such a big production. Everyone and their mother saw it, even president Wilson in a special screening. |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 3, 2017 1:59:01 GMT
I find it deeply depressing that it's 2017 and people are still debating whether Showgirls is good. It's quite obviously good to these eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 3, 2017 2:01:33 GMT
I'll try to look for more interesting and in-depth controversial opinions by filmmakers, but until then here's 30 times filmmakers insulted the shit out of each other: link. Vincent Gallo sounds like such an asshole |
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 1,414
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 3, 2017 2:54:16 GMT
I find it deeply depressing that it's 2017 and people are still debating whether Showgirls is good. It's quite obviously good to these eyes. the reappraisal of Showgirls - deserved as it is - is still pretty nuts. but i think there's a lot more coming in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 3, 2017 2:56:45 GMT
Yes, and to further that, I think watching them and seeing how the technique was effectively used for horrible ends can teach people how to think more critically about how messages are framed and consider how to frame their messages in a moral and ethical fashion since these things do have influence. By deconstructing why a Nazi propaganda film or The Birth of a Nation was acceptable, it strips away a lot of their power because you're exposing that it's all decorations on a flimsy wall and once that lack of substance is exposed it becomes a lot easier to challenge. Yeah, this is just my line of thinking, if we would discuss propaganda more, we get better at disecting all the propaganda that is around us today. We are definitely subject of more propaganda today than the Sovjets or Germans back in the 20's, 30's and 40's ever were, simply because there are so much more channels to reach you. Back in the day these films were one of a kind events. I also agree with stephen about Triump of the Will, it's groundbreaking and incredibly skillfull filmmaking. I never really bought that Birth of a Nation was that groundbreaking. The effect of it was much more that it reached millions of people (it was perhaps the first blockbuster-like picture) and thus changed the cinematic landscape in america forever because it sealed the viability of feature length films and because it influenced just about everyone in american silent cinema. However personaly I think in 1915 european cinema was much ahead of American cinema at that point. Films like L'inferno or the works of Starewicz work in a much more audatious visual form and even on a narative level there was Sjöström and the other scandinavians. As far as I'm concerned Birth of a Nation didn't actually pioneer anything, it merely culminated all the cinematic technicques Griffith was aware of into one picture (although we have to give him credit for his shorts which actually pioneer multiple of these techniques). Riefenstahl in turn worked mostly out of her very own ideas (at times she somewhat resembles Vertov but I'm not even sure she had seen his films). However of course Griffith was likewise still miles ahead of his american contemporaries. Riefenstahl's place in the pantheon is such a tragic one: she was perhaps the greatest female visionary to ever step behind a camera in terms of innovation and technique, but her reputation is marred by her association with the Nazis. And to make matters worse, her art is intrinsically linked to their ethos. There are few female filmmakers who get notable recognition today, and even fewer in that era. |
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 3, 2017 3:59:29 GMT
I find it deeply depressing that it's 2017 and people are still debating whether Showgirls is good. It's quite obviously good to these eyes. I don't really think it is that good... I just think the overall negative consensus is strange and critics overall missed the point. Tho with that said, it did nothing for me really. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 3, 2017 5:24:15 GMT
As for the OP, Birth of a Nation was a technically revolutionary film when it came out, probably the most important pre-Citizen Kane film in that regard. I wouldn't call it a "good" film because I've seen it once and never want to watch it again, but I can understand why it has the reputation it does. I haven't seen it, but from the sound of it Jud Suss is just a well made Nazi propaganda film, but not a "revolutionary" or "important" film. Ingmar Bergman allegedly thought Welles (including Citizen Kane) Kubrick, Spiielberg, and the entire French New Wave were crap, but liked Armageddon when he saw it. What's wrong with liking Armageddon? I can definitely sympathize with Bergman on the French New Wave, particularly Godard. You just wouldn't expect him to like it, and it's not a very well received movie overall, certainly not compared to some of the things he disliked. Not personally a big French New Wave/Godard fan either. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 3, 2017 5:28:16 GMT
As for the OP, Birth of a Nation was a technically revolutionary film when it came out, probably the most important pre-Citizen Kane film in that regard. I wouldn't call it a "good" film because I've seen it once and never want to watch it again, but I can understand why it has the reputation it does. I haven't seen it, but from the sound of it Jud Suss is just a well made Nazi propaganda film, but not a "revolutionary" or "important" film. Ingmar Bergman allegedly thought Welles (including Citizen Kane) Kubrick, Spiielberg, and the entire French New Wave were crap, but liked Armageddon when he saw it. Oh yes, Bergman had his very own ideas about film. As for Jud Süss, I didn't mean to pit it up 1 on 1 with Birth of a Nation, I merely said that if we can have a positive reception of Birth of a Nation on the basis of it being well made, we could surely have the same for other propaganda films. I couldn't say wheter or not Jud Süss was revolutionary in any cinematic regard (apart from the effect it had on people) but I've never read it anywhere. However I guess that if Antonioni was so positive about the film that must mean something. I think Caligari is perhaps more artistically important than Birth and also than Kane. But Birth of a Nation had gigantic influence because it was so incredibly succesful and such a big production. Everyone and their mother saw it, even president Wilson in a special screening. I think the issue is that, BoaN is a 10/10 technically, but I'd probably rate it a 5 or 6 due to the extreme racist content. If Jud Suss is an 8 or 9 technically (which is what it sounds like to me) and you dock it the same amount of points it would have a lower rating. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 3, 2017 5:59:18 GMT
I'll try to look for more interesting and in-depth controversial opinions by filmmakers, but until then here's 30 times filmmakers insulted the shit out of each other: link. Vincent Gallo sounds like such an asshole Gallo is so smarmy. The graphic sex in The Brown Bunny just felt like exhibitionism. He even stuck still frames of it up on billboards, like he was getting some kind of charge out of people watching him get head. It's pretty telling that so many actual directors (as opposed to critics) dislike Godard. |
|
fotodude
Junior Member
Posts: 398
Likes: 132
|
Post by fotodude on Apr 3, 2017 6:51:19 GMT
I'll try to look for more interesting and in-depth controversial opinions by filmmakers, but until then here's 30 times filmmakers insulted the shit out of each other: link. lol these are great. |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 3, 2017 10:31:45 GMT
I find it deeply depressing that it's 2017 and people are still debating whether Showgirls is good. It's quite obviously good to these eyes. I don't really think it is that good... I just think the overall negative consensus is strange and critics overall missed the point. Tho with that said, it did nothing for me really. I wouldn't claim it as a masterpiece in the way that some people do but I think it's definitely a good movie with some very strong elements. It is an incredibly peculiar film in a lot of ways though. The entire thing hinges on a performance that is so blindingly bad in many respects but that I also thing is essential to the success of the movie. The performance feels so out of touch with the movie that it's inside, it's a very odd thing to watch. I would recommend Adam Nayman's It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls to anyone interested in reading a fairly cogent argument for its merits. Very engaging book, basically just a prolonged 80-100 page essay. |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 3, 2017 10:33:08 GMT
Vincent Gallo sounds like such an asshole Gallo is so smarmy. The graphic sex in The Brown Bunny just felt like exhibitionism. He even stuck still frames of it up on billboards, like he was getting some kind of charge out of people watching him get head. It's pretty telling that so many actual directors (as opposed to critics) dislike Godard. I've never seen Brown Bunny but it always sounded fairly trashy to me. I actually kind of like him as an actor, especially in Buffalo 66 and The Funeral, but he seems like a bad dude. I was enjoying those Godard takedowns quite a bit, not a big fan of him from what I've seen. |
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 3, 2017 10:36:29 GMT
I don't really think it is that good... I just think the overall negative consensus is strange and critics overall missed the point. Tho with that said, it did nothing for me really. I wouldn't claim it as a masterpiece in the way that some people do but I think it's definitely a good movie with some very strong elements. It is an incredibly peculiar film in a lot of ways though. The entire thing hinges on a performance that is so blindingly bad in many respects but that I also thing is essential to the success of the movie. The performance feels so out of touch with the movie that it's inside, it's a very odd thing to watch. I would recommend Adam Nayman's It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls to anyone interested in reading a fairly cogent argument for its merits. Very engaging book, basically just a prolonged 80-100 page essay. I don't think the acting is any worse than the OTT acting in Blue Velvet. It fits the film. |
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 3, 2017 10:39:28 GMT
I wouldn't claim it as a masterpiece in the way that some people do but I think it's definitely a good movie with some very strong elements. It is an incredibly peculiar film in a lot of ways though. The entire thing hinges on a performance that is so blindingly bad in many respects but that I also thing is essential to the success of the movie. The performance feels so out of touch with the movie that it's inside, it's a very odd thing to watch. I would recommend Adam Nayman's It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls to anyone interested in reading a fairly cogent argument for its merits. Very engaging book, basically just a prolonged 80-100 page essay. I don't think the acting is any worse than the OTT acting in Blue Velvet. It fits the film. I'd recommend giving it another watch. Her performance is out of control. I mean it is necessary for the film I think but there is a lot of interesting writing in that book about how that performance was achieved and the way it operates within the confines of the movie. |
|
