Patrick R

Glad. I wanted to pick one people hadn't seen and both Stagecoach and Branded To Kill felt more likely to be familiar. That said, I have not seen Branded to Kill and came close to picking it just for that.

Done.

The next movie is Kanal (1956) directed by Andrzej Wajda.

It just occurred to me... ...Danielle needs a painting...

I just found this article about how a nearby college will be offering scholarships to 30 League of Legends players? The article says it's the first instance of League of Legends athletic scholarships in the country, but does that mean there are other ee-Sports scholarships happening? Is this a thing? Also: That just feels like the set-up to a wacky sports comedy.

Chris's piece about games needing to just be what they are and not get bogged down in bullshit that doesn't matter really spoke to me. I had a similar epiphany this year in watching a lot of short and experimental films. It made me realize how much extemporaneous material is in so many feature films, especially out of modern Hollywood. You watch something like Scorpio Rising, it's such a perfect distillation of a certain tone and mood and setting that would be way way harder to do as well feature-length, with a plot or characters. Or even just watching older feature films, back when genre movies were rarely more than 80 minutes long and everything had to be tight and have a purpose. The new Transformers movie is apparently nearly three hours long for godsakes.

It's also fun to watch movies like this and realize there was a time romantic dramas could feature people in their 40's or maybe even 50's.

I didn't quite interpret Ophul's camerawork the way you do, Tycho. I feel like that shot is all about how it defines her. It's about allowing her things (closet after closet and drawer after drawer of insane extravagance) to define her before we get a chance to even empathize with her in the most basic way (seeing her face). Packing that much wealth into a single shot distances the audience (well, 99% of audience members) from her, and encourages us to be more objective viewers. It's what allows her arc to be so effective, that she starts from a place where no audience member takes her conflict (the need to sell the earrings and pretend they were lost) seriously. I think a lot of this is more genre convention than anything. In melodramas people rarely talk straight with each other, and repression of emotions and desires is a very common theme. It's what creates conflict. I personally didn't feel much disorientation from the camerawork, so it didn't really echo the hypocrisy and double-talk to me.

I'll also repost. Sorry for the monster length. -- I really liked this movie. Personal tastes mean I definitely preferred the first 30 minutes, when it was a social comedy about the frivolity of the upper class, to the melodrama it became, but I think that's definitely the point. Madame De starts the film as a frivolous person (the prelude describes her as "seemingly destined to a delightful, uncomplicated destiny") but love makes her real and three-dimensional. She goes from praying for a successful sale of earrings to praying for her lover's life. From using her fainting as a way to manipulate people to actually being out of control and weak. The same way the same earrings take on different meaning each time they change hands, going from useless and impractical to the only thing she cares about in the world. I think the best melodramas have to have a real honest truth like that in their center to really work, and the idea of love being the key motivational factor of personal growth is a good one. I adore Ophul's camerawork. He uses long takes and tracking shots to emphasize these characters' absurd opulence. That opening shot, those dances, that amazing shot where it pans from her bed to his for the first time and you realize how insane their bedroom is, or when it's tracking him from outside the house and he's closing an endless amount of windows. The decadence is absurd, emphasized by the occasional lower-class character's bemusement at their leaders and bosses (there's a great tracking shot at one of the dances where the camera rushes by a violin player in the foreground sneaking a bunch of cookies from a buffet) and the overly elaborate lives they lead. I honestly think that's the most effective stuff in this movie, so it's a little disappointing that the end mostly ditches the satirical aspect in favor of straight melodrama. But still, good movie. I think it's a weird choice to start a film club on a video game podcast forum but, on the other hand, it's the kind of movie I totally wouldn't have seen on my own accord. Which makes it valuable choice, for sure. Also, Andre is such an amazing bastard in this movie. So casually above feeling anything about anything, up until the end. That transition from the shopkeeper selling him back the earrings for the first time to him sending his tearful lover away, all while maintaining the same tone is such a good character moment. If you like this and are interested in seeing other melodramas, I'd recommend two other melodramas: Daisy Kenyon and A Separation. Daisy Kenyon (1947) is kind of a remarkable movie in that it's a melodrama in which every character seems to know they're in a melodrama. Not in a meta way, where it's self-referential, but in that every character seems determined to be rational, logical adults about their situation only to have their desires overwhelm them. It's a really incredible movie about how complicated love is, no matter how hard you try to simplify it. Characters seem to go back and forth between terse, natural dialogue and purple prose, depending on how in control of their passions they are. If melodramas can often seem facile and immature, this movie is like an antidote to that without losing any of the larger than life emotion. A Separation (2011) is an Iranian film that won the Academy Award for best Foreign Film. It follows a couple in modern Iran going through a divorce, and all the lives they find themselves tangled in. It's a movie where seemingly every character is at cross purposes and, depending on how you view the movie, any one of them can be protagonist and antagonist. And yet there is no good or evil. They're all just trying to do what they feel is the right thing for themselves and their families. It's a good example of all the ways the melodrama has changed since Douglas Sirk, and all the ways it hasn't. I don't think either are on Hulu Plus, though. Sorry. --

I've been reading M.R. James' ghost stories lately on the bus. They're all pretty cliche and predictable by today's standards (educated man finds ancient object, is punished by the ghost or demon or whatever that's connected to the object) but they're still fun and pretty effective. I was not digging his first story, "Canon Alberic's Scrap-Book", but then towards the end there was a moment that legitimately freaked me out in a way old horror fiction rarely does. I like the way he makes all of England seem like a giant graveyard, like any walk in the country could end with you stumbling upon cursed artifacts from the twelfth century.

As for the movie I'm going to pick, I'm still deciding, but I'm definitely going to go with something different. I'm trying to chose between John Ford's Stagecoach (1939), Andrzej Wajda's Kanal (1957) and Seijun Suzuki's Branded To Kill (1967). You know, something with sweet guns.

If you like this and are interested in seeing other melodramas, I'd recommend two other melodramas: Daisy Kenyon and A Separation. Daisy Kenyon (1947) is kind of a remarkable movie in that it's a melodrama in which every character seems to know they're in a melodrama. Not in a meta way, where it's self-referential, but in that every character seems determined to be rational, logical adults about their situation only to have their desires overwhelm them. It's a really incredible movie about how complicated love is, no matter how hard you try to simplify it. Characters seem to go back and forth between terse, natural dialogue and purple prose, depending on how in control of their passions they are. If melodramas can often seem facile and immature, this movie is like an antidote to that without losing any of the larger than life emotion. A Separation (2011) is an Iranian film that won the Academy Award for best Foreign Film. It follows a couple in modern Iran going through a divorce, and all the lives they find themselves tangled in. It's a movie where seemingly every character is at cross purposes and, depending on how you view the movie, any one of them can be protagonist and antagonist. And yet there is no good or evil. They're all just trying to do what they feel is the right thing for themselves and their families. It's a good example of all the ways the melodrama has changed since Douglas Sirk, and all the ways it hasn't. I don't think either are on Hulu Plus, though. Sorry.

Finally got a hold of this tonight after work, excited to watch it tomorrow. My first Ophüls!

So far the participants are as follows: TychoCelchuuu Patrick R Roderick prettyunsmart Deleric gormanate spork armada Sleepdance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Criterion_Collection "The Criterion Collection (or simply Criterion) is a video-distribution company that sells "important classic and contemporary films" to film aficionados. Criterion is noted for helping to standardize the letterbox format for widescreen films, bonus features, and special editions for home video." They are a company that releases special edition DVD, blu-ray (and, at one point, laserdisc) films. Films selected for release by Criterion are often considered a badge of honor. Over the decades their library of releases has included most seminal art, foreign, and obscure cult films. If you want to know the basic blueprints of modern cinephile canon, check the Criterion Collection. Of course, like any distribution company, there are films they will never get the rights to and there are films that they had to release as part of deals with studios (hence The Rock and Armageddon being big jokes for being part of it). It's not the end-all be-all list of the world's great films. But if you are interested in becoming a cinephile, it's a good place to start. Hence Hulu Plus having so many of them being such a big deal.

The Renoir devotee in me is clutching his pearls at that last statement.

Absolutely. But the FIVE classes (in the 4 total semesters of college I've had) where I had to watch Rashomon kinda sapped out my enthusiasm for it. I would not want this club to be a perfunctory journey through established film canon. The breadth of Criterion (even limited to what's on Hulu Plus) is so much grander than that.

Yeah, I made it through about 10 minutes before it became too much for me.

The way I see it we can either come to a consensus on every film or we can take turns choosing for the group. I prefer the latter, so no one feels like they're not getting to watch movies they want to. The list Tycho linked to allows you to sort by year, director, and country, so even if you haven't seen any of these you can still be like "I'd like to know more about Japanese crime movies from the 60's" and pick one with a synopsis that sounds good to you. Or we can just watch The 400 Blows, Rashomon, The Rules of the Game, and Breathless over and over and over again. Really recreate that film school experience.

I cannot afford Hulu Plus but I will do this regardless (I have access to a lot of DVDs via a great local video store I have an account with). We should probably figure out how the films will be selected. I can definitely recommend a lot of these, but most have reputations that speak for themselves. Maybe rotate by decade, country, genre, a mix of all these?

The difference between Blazing Saddles and Spaceballs is huge, but the difference between Spaceballs and is also huge.

Pausing it midway in the TF2 item discussion to say that the only money I ever spent in TF2 (after 400+ hours of play) was for a nametag so I could rename my Scottish Resistance "Gunga Galunga".

James Crumley's "The Last Good Kiss" is really really really good, despite the fact that his love of masculinity puts me a little on edge. Like, I get it, it's a detective novel in the style of Chandler, dames and square jaws and stuff. But man, this novel takes it so far. But it's about as literary and character driven as you can ever hope a detective novel to be. And the road trip structure and settings are incredible. It's a really good book but I have the feeling that if I had a couple drinks with Crumley he'd end up calling me a faggot.

I never did finish the game because I couldn't get the tumbler to work right. I wonder how it ends.

Is it true that most American candy tastes like garbage to the rest of the world?