This blog has been set up to chart the progress of a group of movie fans who are attempting to track down and watch the 50 Lost Movie Classics as chosen by a number of critics in The Observer of 17/12/06. The films are as follows:
1 Salt Of The Earth (1953)
2 Petulia (1968)
3 The State Of Things (1982)
4 Newsfront (1978)
5 Fat City (1972)
6 I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978)
7 The Swimmer (1968)
8 Under The Skin (1997)
9 The Front Page (1931)
10 The Damned (1961)
11 Ace In The Hole (1951)
12 The Beaver Trilogy (2001)
13 Top Secret ! (1984)
14 Bamboozled (2000)
15 3 Women (1977)
16 Twin Peaks : Fire Walk With Me (1992)
17 Let's Scare Jessica To Death (1971)
18 The Low Down (2000)
19 A New Leaf (1971)
20 Quiemada ! (1969)
21 The Hired Hand (1971)
22 Safe (1995)
23 Housekeeping (1987)
24 Le Petomane (1979)
25 Lianna (1982)
26 Bill Douglas Trilogy (1972-78)
27 The Parallax View (1974)
28 Babylon (1980)
29 Dreamchild (1985)
30 Ride Lonesome (1959)
31 Breathless (1983)
32 The Day The Earth Caught Fire (1961)
33 Less Than Zero (1987)
34 Day Night Day Night (2006)
35 Tin Cup (1996)
36 The Ninth Configuration (1980)
37 Cutters Way (1981)
38 Save The Last Dance (2001)
39 The Mad Monkey (1989)
40 Cockfighter (1974)
41 The Narrow Margin (1952)
42 Terence Davies Trilogy (1984)
43 Wise Blood (1979)
44 Robin Hood (1973)
45 Two Lane Blacktop (1971)
46 Beautiful Girls (1996)
47 Millions (2004)
48 Round Midnight (1986)
49 Jeremy (1973)
50 Grace Of My Heart (1996)
Is it possible. Watch this space.....
8 comments:
On behalf of the Glasgow Home Movies Group, I've been doing some homework on tracing the Lost 50, and will give everyone a print out of the results next week, at Grant's home screening of TWO LANE BLACKTOP. Only about 3 of the 50 have i had no luck in finding. About 5 or so are on VHS NTSC, but maybe we can find some PAL versions somewhere!
We can do it!
See you next week.
Jonathan
hello blog
it took quite awhile to get to you (and i am still not sure if I have. bear with me, i am still catching up with the 20th century!) my first message is that shortly i will be posting a 'manifesto' on what constitutes a 'classic movie' for discussion and development.
fingers crossed!
rex
What Makes a Movie Classic?
It is not very helpful to say that this is purely a subjective exercise. Whilst anyone is perfectly entitled to hold this view, if we are honest, it does not advance film appreciation at all; because what this view really boils down to, is the argument that one film is as good as another, regardless of its quality or intention. Against the postmodern zeitgeist, which is really a reflection of the subordination of art, and all things good, to the laws of the market place or consumerism, I am proposing that what we really need is some objective criteria, which we use as a rough guide, to help us reach a consensus as to what constitutes a movie classic. In Kantian terms (N.B. the author of the Critique of Judgement, 1790, wherein he sets out his theory of aesthetic value), what is required is an ‘objective standard of taste’; even though any work of art or cultural product is, by its very nature, a subjective thing. (But there’s the rub: The more we submit to market-led films, for example, which are produced as a result of market research, the ratings game, etc., the more formulaic and predictable such films become; so that the essential element of individual creativity is all but lost. We are simply giving into the Hollywood machine and the ‘culture industry’.)
Why is this so important? Well, we are living in a culture which is losing its soul, which encourages us to become unthinking automatons or consumers, who are hooked on entertainment, just as the junkie can’t do anything without his fix. We become the playthings of a rapacious capitalist system, which if it isn’t stopped, is going to dehumanise us irreversibly, whilst the planet plunges further into an environmental nightmare (against which, by contrast, the present cycle of imperialist-inspired terrorism will appear to be a mere side-show.) Yes this is a doomsday scenario; but there is a very real danger that this will be the outcome of the 21st century, if some counter-movement does not emerge to confront the capitalist juggernaut, sometime soon! In this regard, of course it is true that films which challenge the status quo in some way, let alone a crusading film, can’t change anything. Unfortunately Brecht was wrong when he argued that ‘productivist art’ is necessary; since it might encourage the audience to leave the theatre, cinema, etc. and immediately engage in the struggle for socialism - or to change just one aspect of society. Art cannot change anything directly. (But let’s not be too cynical: Ken Loach’s 1970’s film, Cathy Come Home, did lead to the setting up of a charity for the homeless.) More importantly, I think that we need to be careful not to become addicted to the idea of film as merely entertainment. (I don’t mind a degree of entertainment, especially if it is a work of true craftsmanship, and especially erotic entertainment! The American version of Breathless is a case in point. After all, for me, desire - with or without satisfaction - is just as important as the struggle itself. It is a necessary part of being a human being in the 21st century.) I think we need to elevate and celebrate films of quality and which make people think, as an antidote to addictive entertainment. Finally, I am not anti-Hollywood just for the sake of it: Sometimes the Hollywood machine can come up with something surprisingly good, even a critique of itself or its television rival (e.g. The Truman Show. I would certainly put this film in a new list of film classics, which we ourselves have chosen.)
To conclude this short introduction, I hope you are all able to accept what follows as a sincere contribution to the progress we have made already as a group of movie lovers; especially thanks to Jonathan, the author of the ‘home movies’ project; also Grant, who came up with the ‘fifty lost classics’, not forgetting his creation of our very own blog, and everyone involved. Put our collective talents together and I think we make a pretty good team. We might even be making history on a small scale! But as I said last time we met, my ‘5 finger exercise’ is only a first step. We need to set aside a day or an afternoon to thrash this out together. It doesn’t have to be straight away. (But let’s not leave it too long!): Firstly, do we want a set of objective criteria or not; secondly, can we agree on what this might be; thirdly, can we then use this to create our own list of movie classics? It is a big challenge maybe; we would all learn something from it. But it can only be realised - collectively - it cannot be the work of any one individual. A good way to kick off would be for you guys to clarify, criticise or add to my 5 points on the blog.
What Makes a Movie Classic? - Five Points:
1. Craftsmanship and quality/ Complexity/Structure/form:
makes good use of the medium of film, its diverse techniques which may be summarised as screen play, soundtrack, filmtrack; quality of acting, forming an integrated whole; appropriate to the film’s content and purpose; broken down into its constituent parts; such as: mis-en-scene, juxtaposition of images; approach to realism (which is not merely reducible to the need to mirror reality; after all, film, like photography, is not strictly truthful or a faithful mirror of reality anyway; avoid the illusion of mirroring reality if possible; it doesn’t achieve very much, apart from some form of sensory stimulation.); cutting and editing; variety of shots (use of close-up, cutaway, reverse shot; medium shot; panorama,etc. use of sound, e.g. music, for emotive effect; natural sound effects; diegesis, etc. All in all, we should be able to identify an artistic film, which establishes a ‘critical distance’ between itself and the world outside; but is not too detached from it.
2. Film as social critique, by one means or another; e.g. drama, melodrama, romance, satire, comedy, western, thriller, policier (etc.); not a thriller just for its own sake, which uses violence purely for the sake of sensationalism. It can never be a substitute for the real thing; real violence, in any context, such as war, gangs, male violence and so on, is far more horrible; if possible, a film should make us think about the violent and unjust state of the real world, at the very least.
3. The film is able to transcend its own time and place. It stands as a beacon and standard of excellence, against which we should measure everything else: e.g. Carol Read’s The Third Man; Polanski’s Knife In The Water, (drama); David Lean’s Great Expectations (successful translation of a classic novel to the screen); compare this to the modern Gwynneth Paltraw version (not bad!); Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night; compare this to Woody Allen’s Manhattan the wonderful Czech film, Closely Observed Trains (comedy/satire); Bergman’s Wild Strawberries (personal journey of self-discovery); Orlando, (a sort of equivalent, but from a feminist perspective); Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin and Ponte-Corvo’s Battle of Algiers (films about revolutionary struggle); Louis Malle’s Les Amants (romance, but much more besides!) and his little known Black Moon, (surreal fantasy); etc., etc.
4. Entertaining, but not just for its own sake; a film should not be a mere distraction or an anaesthetic, which enables us to put up with the status quo; i.e. mass consumerism. Remember Peter Finch’s famous outburst in Network (at least he expressed the right sentiment!);
5. Strong individual style; auterism, based on all of the above.
What happened to the comment? I hope I haven't put the mockers on the blog. Are these the only lost movie classics? If so, no one is making a comment about any of the ones we have seen so far. Please use it to say what you think. Anything about film will do. I have just seen two very bizarre Louis Malle films (from the DVD collection: 'Black Moon' and 'Zazi dans le Metro' (Marvellous trick photography and crazy humour; including an unforgettable Eiffel Tower scene to rival Buster Keaton. Both of these could easily be on the list.
They can't easily be on the list because they are both readily available and well known!!
Hi Blog
As usual Rex's comments are very erudite and interesting but in my view, kind of miss the point.
Let me expain - the home Movie Group which gave life to this project was set up by like minded people who share a love / interest in movies. The type of films people show fascinate me because of the qualities people see in their choices. It is to some degree this subjective element that interests me.
Thousand of movies are made around the globe each year yet only a handful handful would 'qualify' as the type of film we would show . I trust the group to show a film which has some of the qualities Rex identified but to analyse further films against a set criteria for me would be a fools errand.
Not only would this be elusive and meaningless it is counter intuitive to the idea of identifying movies which have a personal significance to the group members.
As I say I trust the people in the group to identify movies which meet the understtod criteria, without feeling the need to discuss what the criteria is. For example I love Carol Reid's 'Oliver'partly because of personal association - growing up with this as kid - but wouldn't expect to show it to the group because of the type of film it is.
My understanding of the 50 Lost classics is that it is an extension to this very idea.I.e we are asked to trust the authors of the list of films in the same way that we trust the judgements of our friends in the Home movie group.
To me the starting point should be that it is a given that each movie has the qualities which make it worthy of viewing and discussion and the purpose of each showing should be to identify the merits of the films which inspired the author's of the list to include them.I'd like to know what others think.
Steve
Rex, having read your piece on What Makes a Movie Classic, I’m afraid to say I’m in some disagreement. As you made such a concerted effort, I feel it’s only right that I give you a response. I apologise to everyone for the length. Unavoidable in this case.
Before I try to tackle your 5 Points, I think I should perhaps clarify the original intentions behind the Home Movies Group.
Last year it had become apparent to me that a small number of people, within the larger film class, were keen to explore the formalism and the “art” of filmmaking that was somewhat lacking in our regular discussions, and also to widen the variety of the films we were choosing to see. And so it was suggested that, once a month, those taking part take it in turn to screen a film ideally personal to them, something less well known, and hopefully a lot more leftfield and experimental than the usual fare. After the screening we would discuss the form, structuralism and artistic merits, potentially gaining an insight into not only Film but also each other, our backgrounds and our personal tastes etc.
This Home Movies idea came from a similar place as The Observer’s “50 Lost Classics”. It may be helpful to view them in the exact same way: in Home Movies we each present a lesser known film personally meaningful to us, that we wish to share with a larger audience; in The Observer, critics and filmmakers each pick a lesser known film that is personally meaningful to them, that they wish to share with a larger audience!
Any links within themselves or to each other stops there. In other words, each film stands alone and should be taken on its own merits, and not compared or judged against the others.
I’d like to draw attention to a few remarks you made in your proposal:
“… what we really need is some objective criteria, to help us reach a consensus as to what constitutes a movie classic.”
“What is required is an objective standard of taste.”
“We are simply giving in to the Hollywood machine and the culture industry.”
“We need to be careful not to become addicted to the idea of film as merely entertainment.”
“I think we need to elevate and celebrate films of quality and which make people think…”
“We would all learn something from it (an objective criteria).”
As I implied above, it was never the intention of the Home Movies to celebrate “classics”. Far from it. Moreover, I’ve certainly not been aware of us indulging in anything typically “Hollywood”, or being entertainment junkies! I was under the distinct impression that we have been celebrating films of quality that deserve elevation.
I’m sorry to say I found a lot of these remarks a tad patronising. Give us some credit! I do appreciate your passion and concern for the welfare of the group, but I worry that you are missing the point a bit.
In relation to The Observer’s Lost 50, Philip French introduced the article with the following:
“We asked a panel of critics and filmmakers to sing the praises of 50 forgotten gems… It’s a rallying cry for films that for a variety of reasons have been unduly neglected and should be more widely available… This roster of neglected films is intended to provoke discussion, dissension and your own suggestions.”
I suggest that we shouldn’t get so hung up on proving or disproving them to be “classics” as such. They are all very PERSONAL choices, as our own should be. It is not the original ethos of the Home Movies, but alas, I guess anyone is within their right to present a Classic film if they so wish. As that has not been the case in general, it seems irrelevant to create any objective criteria by which to assess Classics, if we are never to watch any. Whether the “Lost 50” films are classics or not, I believe we should be focusing on their rarity and eclecticism, and attempt to discover their merits rather than merely find things to attack, or limit them to a classification.
In his book, “The Story Of Film”, Mark Cousins clarifies the origins of “classic”: “Classicism in art describes a period when form and content are in harmony, when there is a balance between the style of a work and the emotions or ideas it is trying to express”.
This may be as much as we need to go on, when approaching each individual film.
It may be possible to objectively compare, even rank highly codified and historically specific cycles/movements/sub genres like the 70’s Italian Thriller (the form’s aestheticized violence, labyrinthine narratives, psychological resonance), or to separate out Hitchcock’s classics (Vertigo, The Birds, North by Northwest etc) from his weaker films (Topaz, Torn Curtain, Family Plot etc). But what basis can there be for deciding between something like Citizen Kane and Toy Story, for example? Should we be trying to find common ground between Silent films, Documentaries, Avant-Garde, Animation, Cult films, Adult, Shorts, National films? Likewise with Cinema’s own eras, movements, traditions, genres, auteurs?
It would be regrettable to find ourselves in the position of giving automatic preference to “high cinematic art” over “low” genres such as Slapstick Comedy, 1930’s Gangster flicks, Blaxploitation; or Ethical films such as Freaks, Birth of a Nation, 120 Days of Sodom, Triumph of the Will; or even Populist films like E.T., Big, Jerry Maguire etc.
Is it appropriate to use a standardised objective criteria in order to compare something like Vito Rocco’s 7 seconds long Ciao, Mama with Edgar Reitz’s epic 50+ hours long Heimat trilogy?
Nothing is made any easier by the fact that Film can consist of so many other art forms such as poetry, dance, theatre, music, literature, art, photography, animation etc. (Within music alone, how do we judge Beethoven against Chuck Berry?)
Mark Cousins illustrates the dilemma in “The Story of Film”:
“One should be cautious about applying an individualistic notion of artistic creativity to places where it does not pertain. A Hindu director doesn’t have the same conception of her or himself as an individual as Scorsese does. There isn’t the same drive to articulate a distinctive point of view, so the factors that applied to Spielberg might not do so in South Asia. Also, Indian storytelling is more freeform than that in Western countries, and isn’t so confined by space and time. Likewise, in African storytelling, the idea that an artist is an originator or a varier is not strong. To vary is to wreck. A great storyteller builds and transmits. Nor was artistic originality an important motive in Japan, at least during the first half of the Twentieth Century. As in much of Africa, a great Japanese artist was one who subtly reworked tradition, recasting it in a new light.”
He goes on to highlight further difficulties:
“The earliest histories of film argued, understandably, that the greatest films were those that pushed to the fullest possible extent the editing, focus, composition, lighting and tracking possibilities of the medium. After World War II critics such as Andre Bazin dismissed this, arguing that realist films, compelled by history or filmmaking instinct to be morally serious, were the most valuable and cinematic. Then in the 1950’s came Alexandre Astruc’s argument that the worth of a film should be measured accordingly to how closely it expresses its director’s vision of life. Astruc emphasized this by comparing the camera to a novelist’s pen. Finally in the 1960’s and 1970’s, more philosophically inclined film writes began to see in Dreyer, Ozu, Bresson and Antonioni the essence of a more metaphysical or abstract aspect of cinema.”
We immediately have four mutually exclusive visions of cinema: Formalism, Realism, Expressionism, Trancendentalism. Cousins does go on to suggest the possibility of contextualising most films within this square, but I’d be a little reticent in limiting ourselves to these alone.
Finally, I have misgivings about some of your 5 points.
I’m confused by your combination of craftsmanship and quality/complexity/structure/form. How are you defining quality? Complexity certainly doesn’t guarantee it. Quite often the opposite. What if a film has no screenplay, soundtrack or even actors? You rather dogmatically suggest that a film must avoid the illusion of mirroring reality if possible; it doesn’t achieve very much.
In this or any case, it is surely the sole discretion of the filmmaker as to how detached from the outside world he wishes to be, how much he wants to make us think about the state of the real world, and whether he wants to make a thriller for its own sake. This diminishes nothing from the potential artistic quality of a film, and in fact can often add to the strong individual style that you advocate.
Unfortunately, I find your comments on violence really rather patronising. We are all adults. We are all sophisticated film viewers. Real violence in any context is far more horrible. We do know this! I think you are also too quick for us all to agree or accept your own fixed, concrete terms on Postmodernism, Hollywood, Consumerism, Entertainment et al.
Why should a film have to transcend its own time and place? Many films are admired and loved for being very much OF their time and place. Your list of beacons of excellence are almost exclusively European and black-and-white films, and you don’t explain why we should compare two versions of Great Expectations, or why we should compare Smiles of a Summer Night to Manhattan. I’d understand A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, Woody Allen’s homage to Bergman’s original film, as an obvious case for comparison.
Auterism is really a genre in itself, and surely couldn’t be used as a mode of criticism or comparison. Also, what of the auterism of composers, actors, cameramen, producers, editors? For example, Bernard Hermann, Humphrey Bogart, Jack Cardiff, George Clooney, Thelma Schoonmaker?
Before we are all dehumanised irreversibly in your doomsday scenario, a so-called counter movement is already here – DIGITIZATION. The digitization of the film process, which began properly in the early 1990’s, is more than a trickle now, as creativity in film is more equally distributed around the planet than ever before.
Back to Mark Cousins:
“Film editor, director and sound designer Walter Murch in a New York Times article, Digital Cinema of the Mind, compared film at the beginning of the twenty-first century to painting in the Renaissance and early modern periods. In moving from painting frescoes using pigment in wet plaster to painting in oils on canvas, artists went from an expensive, collaborative process requiring patronage and dedicated to ‘public’ subjects, to a cheap individual process depicting more personal situations and themes. So it is with film, Murch argued. The slow digital revolution opens the door to what DOGME called ‘the ultimate democratization of cinema’, in ways that Scorsese could only dream of. The need for crews of forty people, budgets of millions of dollars, and the qualified, restricting approval of the providers of that money, is removed.”
Your 5 points may help assist you personally Rex, in watching and assessing films, but I’m very wary of reinstating a similar “qualified and restricting approval” via our own modest modes of critique.
In his book “How To Read A Film”, James Monaco suggests that “in any attempt at understanding, the questions are usually more important than the answers.”
(Re: Cathy Come Home - to add to your own contradicting statement that films can’t change anything, Keislowski’s A Short Film About Killing, was instrumental in swaying the polish government to introduce a 5 year moratorium on capital punishment.)
I’d like to reiterate that this is solely my own personal response to your written views, and that if the group wishes to debate the matter further, I am more than willing to participate. I do apologise for the lengthy reply, more out of necessity than desire! It might be preferable to keep all future blog contributions much briefer and more digestible.
Last word goes to Lauren Bacall: “The industry is shit, it’s the medium that’s great.”
THE MAD MONKEY - Jane's review
thought it very disjointed, poorly acted and the best scene (in the morgue) lacked any suspense. There was no build up to finding the body and I really couldn't care. Certainly felt this was very much one person's choice and not a classic to share with others. If you haven't seen it dont bother! Go and cut your toenails or clean the loo instead.
Jane
Post a Comment