CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › 60´s Draft: Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

60´s Draft: Discussion - Page 35

post #1701 of 1735
10/15/09 at 9:29pm
Anybody want to bring it with a Kabong-like wrap up?
Reply
post #1702 of 1735
10/16/09 at 1:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Anybody want to bring it with a Kabong-like wrap up?
I think we should draft Phil for the instant analysis.
Reply
post #1703 of 1735
10/16/09 at 9:20am
great draft everyone I wish I could have been around for the post draft party. It would appear I have a lot of 60s film to catch up on and can't wait to dive in.
Reply
post #1704 of 1735
10/16/09 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post
I think we should draft Phil for the instant analysis.
Not it. I've been doing running commentary when able, but my schedule's erratic at the moment. Plus I'm pretty ignorant of a lot of the foreign picks.

Fun draft, though - good insight into people's tastes and motivations. It's been a swell read.
Reply
post #1705 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:05pm
And I won it.
Reply
post #1706 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:21pm
If you had bothered to watch any of the movies in my draft, Andre, you'd realize that I won it.
Reply
post #1707 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:23pm
I watched THE WORLD'S GREATEST SINNER last weekend, which puts me at 4/5. You would win for thematic unity, except you don't cause you went with WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE.
Reply
post #1708 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:28pm
I like that your list ate at Andre to the point he had to run out and watch that goddamn movie. I hope he sent Wiseman $35 for Titicut Follies as well. Wiseman seems like a sweet fella.
Reply
post #1709 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:29pm
Crazy people
Cult status
Plus meta commentary on the fall of the Hollywood system?
Reply
post #1710 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:31pm
Solid!
Reply
post #1711 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:31pm
You said early on that it was also films that cost $7.35.

Bob's list didn't eat at me, and I'm going to see the Titicut Follies, because it sounds interesting. I picked five masterpieces, I hope everyone wants to see them. The point of drafts is to inspire/getting inspiration.
Reply
post #1712 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
You said early on that it was also films that cost $7.35.
NOTLD WAS TAKEN! IT WAS TAKEN!

For my part I have Rocco & His Brothers queued.
Reply
post #1713 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:36pm
I fucked up my theme of sex and sociology in the 60's by picking Red Beard, but Kurosawa.
Reply
post #1714 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
I picked five masterpieces, I hope everyone wants to see them. The point of drafts is to inspire/getting inspiration.
And when people asked you about one of yours, all you offered was "I picked it, that's all you need to know." Yeah, yeah, you're not here to teach people. Just sayin', film-lovin' works better as a church, not a club.

And I would be happy to send you a copy of Titicut if you have trouble tracking down a copy.
Reply
post #1715 of 1735
10/16/09 at 12:53pm
Yeah, cause the other part of the fun of a draft is shit talking.

John Casavettes is one of the major figures on the cinematic landscape, and arguably the most important independant director to ever pick up a camera. Without him, Martin Scorsese, Richard Linklater, Jim Jarmusch, etc. etc. are unimaginable. It was also my first pick of the draft. Personally I like going in cold to shit.

Edit: I scored a copy of Titicut. We'll see if I have time to watch it this week.
Reply
post #1716 of 1735
10/16/09 at 1:50pm
Bob..Andre I say it's a tie....you both finish second to me.
Reply
post #1717 of 1735
10/17/09 at 12:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Not it. I've been doing running commentary when able, but my schedule's erratic at the moment. Plus I'm pretty ignorant of a lot of the foreign picks.

Fun draft, though - good insight into people's tastes and motivations. It's been a swell read.
Fair enough. I leaned heavily on foreign film in this draft, but there's plenty that I'm not very familiar with. Dre, Strax, or Hudler probably have a better handle on this stuff than most.

I could critique my own, but how much fun is that? I do regret that we didn't get more discussion of L'Avventura, pro or con, which is a hard film to love, but beautiful and certainly of its time.

I think Bailey, Yando, Jason Yavor, and I could sit down to a few beers and probably have no problem coming to agreement on what to watch. As far as seeking inspiration, I'm darn interested now in Come Drink With Me, Titicut Follies, The Hill, The Naked Prey, and Rocco and His Brothers.
Reply
post #1718 of 1735
10/17/09 at 1:05am
If there's no discussion about a film in this draft, then it's likely the film has either already been talked to death elsewhere, or most people haven't seen it. The former is to be expected and the latter is nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm repeating myself, but film history is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. You'll never see every film that was ever in existence at the moment of your death. You can sit and watch every day and get fat as fuck just watching like those people in Cinemania, and you won't make a dent in the backlog. It's what's awesome and awful about film. It makes obsessive rewatching a regretful thing as you get older.
Reply
post #1719 of 1735
10/17/09 at 1:39am
I agree and I don't, Phil. Ripoll and I had this discussion one time, and he said that at least with movies (as opposed to say, pop music), there's a sense that if you devote enough time to it, you can at least see the major films in all genres/periods, enough to get a sense of the history and the masterworks. (This is one reason why I'm so excited that I'll be getting in on the relative ground floor of MOMA's History of Film through the lens of the Auteur series.) But even doing that would take years, and you want to supplement that with as much current stuff as you can. I like Dre's quote by (I think Godard) about the only way to understand film is to go to the movies every week, too.
Reply
post #1720 of 1735
10/17/09 at 1:44am
Even going every week isn't going to get them all done. Then again, if your goal is to see them all, you're doing it wrong. I'll watch ANY; I don't need to see ALL. I think I'll amend what I said to "you'll never get to see all the ones you want to see." The best case scenarios in these drafts is a bunch of people saying "Wow, I have to go check (film I didn't know about) out", not people two other dudes backslapping you.
Reply
post #1721 of 1735
10/17/09 at 1:48am
Any rather than all is a good way of thinking about it, but I also think the trick (especially when you're trying to play catch-up*) is to prioritize, and to also make it not feel like it's school or homework. But -- and I'm talking a little about myself here -- I think if you want to take it seriously, you should treat it with seriousness and focus.

*I got into movies as a kid, started taking them "seriously" as a teenager, but even though college I tended towards mainstream stuff and eschewed older films like the ones in this thread for the most part. Which is probably why I dropped out. Past couple of years, I've tried to correct and adjust that by seeing as much stuff as I can, whenever I can.
Reply
post #1722 of 1735
10/17/09 at 5:30am
The quote is Melville, in that you can't understand cinema unless you go every week. I think if you devote yourself you can see the classics. I don't think you need to see every Anthony Asquith or Henry Hathaway film. That way leads to madness. But if you devote yourself it requires effort and a good video store/netflix account. In four or five years of supplemental watching, you can see a lot.
Reply
post #1723 of 1735
10/17/09 at 6:09am
I agree on "watch anything." But it's harder to do now that we're so used to having everything available on request, largely watching movies we think (or know) in advance that we're going to like. In the old days, we watched whatever was on the late show because there wasn't anything else and that's how we found out we loved Myrna Loy, that Peter Cushing was the best Baron Frankenstein, and that The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T isn't a monster movie.

I don't do Netflix-- I joke that having an account would eradicate whatever minimal socialization abilities I do possess because I'd never leave the house. I love that all my friends have accounts though, because it means they're far more likely to check out the five or more films I recommend in any given conversation. I like to think that I'm performing something like that randomization effect for them.

So, slightly off-topic question: Does Netflix have a 'grab bag' feature?
Reply
post #1724 of 1735
10/24/09 at 3:49pm
Armond White has a theory and a boner for 1962.
Reply
post #1725 of 1735
10/24/09 at 11:22pm
Does anyone besides me love Easy Rider as a movie, and not for what it represents or paved the way for?
Reply
post #1726 of 1735
10/25/09 at 6:38am
I think its realy well shot, edited and acted. And I think what its talking about is important and well conveyed. So yeah, I like it a lot as a movie.
Reply
post #1727 of 1735
10/25/09 at 12:44pm
I need to see it again, because it's been years... But Easy Rider is definitely a good movie. Well-drawn characters and a propulsive, engaging narrative.

It's also fascinating to see Nicholson pretty much materialize before your eyes as a star. If you look at it in that context you can feel the energy that must have shot through the theater the first time people were watching this in '69, going: Who is that guy? He's amazing!
Reply
post #1728 of 1735
10/26/09 at 9:52am
Nicholson saves the whole film when he joins it.
Reply
post #1729 of 1735
10/26/09 at 10:31am
The movie had a good ending...damndirtyhippies
Reply
post #1730 of 1735
10/28/09 at 2:00am
So, netflix has English and Italian versions of The Leopard. My head says get the Italian version but my gut sees starring Burt Lancaster and says get the English version. I could probably research this, but I have a feeling someone here has the definative answer as a reflex.
Reply
post #1731 of 1735
10/28/09 at 2:18am
The Italian version is over 20 minutes longer, and better represents Visconti's cut. Both are included in the Criterion release.
Reply
post #1732 of 1735
10/28/09 at 6:14am
I watched Bonnie & Clyde again tonite. Still marvel at its perfection. Best American film of the decade?
Reply
post #1733 of 1735
11/9/09 at 10:03pm
watching liberty valance right now...holy crap I forgot how amazing the cast is:
John Wayne
James Stewart
Vera Miles
Lee Marvin
Edmond O'Brien
Woody Strode
Andy Devine
John Carradine
Lee Van Cleef
Strother Martin
and Denver Pyle

Thats like three awesome casts in one movie.
Reply
post #1734 of 1735
11/17/09 at 12:43pm
Watched 'Le Samourai' last night with the wife. We both loved it. Great pick, Martin.
Reply
post #1735 of 1735
11/17/09 at 1:24pm
Recently watched Seconds. What a bizarre role for Hudson. I was sort of meh on the whole thing til the end. Definitely a fucked up way to go out. I'm also traumatized by the orgy in the woods. It went on forever and the flute playing in the background added to insanity of the whole scene.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Drafts & Lists
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › 60´s Draft: Discussion