list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Sunset Boulevard on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Sunset_Boulevard/33517/default.aspx Title: Sunset Boulevard
Year: 1950
Director: Billy Wilder
Plot: Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard ranks among the most scathing satires of Hollywood and the cruel fickleness of movie fandom. The story begins at the end as the body of Joe Gillis (William Holden) is fished out of a Hollywood swimming pool. From The Great Beyond, Joe details the circumstances of his untimely demise (originally, the film contained a lengthy prologue wherein the late Mr. Gillis told his tale to his fellow corpses in the city morgue, but this elicited such laughter during the preview that Wilder changed it). Hotly pursued by repo men, impoverished, indebted "boy wonder" screenwriter Gillis ducks into the garage of an apparently abandoned Sunset Boulevard mansion. Wandering into the spooky place, Joe encounters its owner, imperious silent star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). Upon learning Joe's profession, Norma inveigles him into helping her with a comeback script that she's been working on for years. Joe realizes that the script is hopeless, but the money is good and he has nowhere else to go. Soon the cynical and opportunistic Joe becomes Norma's kept man. While they continue collaborating, Norma's loyal and protective chauffeur Max Von Mayerling (played by legendary filmmaker Erich Von Stroheim) contemptuously watches from a distance. More melodramatic than funny, the screenplay by Wilder and Charles Brackett began life as a comedy about a has-been silent movie actress and the ambitious screenwriter who leeches off her. (Wilder originally offered the film to Mae West, Mary Pickford and Pola Negri. Montgomery Clift was the first choice for the part of opportunistic screenwriter Joe Gillis, but he refused, citing as "disgusting" the notion of a 25-year-old man being kept by a 50-year-old woman.) Andrew Lloyd Webber's long-running musical version has served as a tour-de-force for contemporary actresses ranging from Glenn Close to Betty Buckley to Diahann Carroll. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 16
Number of Lists: 64
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:56:44 GMTSunset Boulevard1950Billy Wilder<a href="/players/P___116768/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Billy Wilder</a>'s Sunset Boulevard ranks among the most scathing satires of Hollywood and the cruel fickleness of movie fandom. The story begins at the end as the body of Joe Gillis (<a href="/players/P____32805/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Holden</a>) is fished out of a Hollywood swimming pool. From The Great Beyond, Joe details the circumstances of his untimely demise (originally, the film contained a lengthy prologue wherein the late Mr. Gillis told his tale to his fellow corpses in the city morgue, but this elicited such laughter during the preview that Wilder changed it). Hotly pursued by repo men, impoverished, indebted "boy wonder" screenwriter Gillis ducks into the garage of an apparently abandoned Sunset Boulevard mansion. Wandering into the spooky place, Joe encounters its owner, imperious silent star Norma Desmond (<a href="/players/P____69293/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gloria Swanson</a>). Upon learning Joe's profession, Norma inveigles him into helping her with a comeback script that she's been working on for years. Joe realizes that the script is hopeless, but the money is good and he has nowhere else to go. Soon the cynical and opportunistic Joe becomes Norma's kept man. While they continue collaborating, Norma's loyal and protective chauffeur Max Von Mayerling (played by legendary filmmaker <a href="/players/P___118401/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Erich Von Stroheim</a>) contemptuously watches from a distance. More melodramatic than funny, the screenplay by Wilder and <a href="/players/P____82717/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charles Brackett</a> began life as a comedy about a has-been silent movie actress and the ambitious screenwriter who leeches off her. (Wilder originally offered the film to <a href="/players/P___116467/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mae West</a>, <a href="/players/P____56706/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mary Pickford</a> and <a href="/players/P____52091/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Pola Negri</a>. <a href="/players/P____13682/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Montgomery Clift</a> was the first choice for the part of opportunistic screenwriter Joe Gillis, but he refused, citing as "disgusting" the notion of a 25-year-old man being kept by a 50-year-old woman.) <a href="/players/P___116170/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andrew Lloyd Webber</a>'s long-running musical version has served as a tour-de-force for contemporary actresses ranging from <a href="/players/P____13725/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Glenn Close</a> to <a href="/players/P_____9345/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Betty Buckley</a> to <a href="/players/P____11302/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Diahann Carroll</a>. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide16Tag Target (>10)641264http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t23570dxdjv.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Sunset_Boulevard/33517/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_October_26_Famous_Last_Words/625/44242/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/26/2009 7:34:48 PM
Body: We're getting a little burned out here at Weekly Theme so I thought it only fitting that this week's theme should focus on famous last words. Be it those from a character before their untimely end or the final lines delivered in the film itself, which one's have resonated the most with you all? Here's a little inspiration if you're drawing a blank: http://www.filmsite.org/greatlastlines.html On the more mushy side, there is of course, "there's no place like home!" from The WIzard of Oz. "Love means never having to say you're sorry." from Love Story always bring a little tear to my generally hard veneer. And my personal favorite, "Let's not ask for the moon. We have the stars." uttered by Bette Davis in the overly melodramatic (but that's what makes it good) Now, Voyager. After finally seeing Sunset Boulevard a few months ago, the final line delivered by Gloria Swanson has become a staple in my quote book: "All right Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up!" And lastly, one of my favorite final lines in a film comes from Eyes Wide Shut. While Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are Christmas shopping with their young daughter, Kidman with her sweet and proper voice simply says, "Fuck." And that's what you're left with. Love it.
]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:34:48 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme10/26/2009 7:34:48 PM We're getting a little burned out here at Weekly Theme so I thought it only fitting that this week's theme should focus on famous last words. Be it those from a character before their untimely end or the final lines delivered in the film itself, which one's have resonated the most with you all? Here's a little inspiration if you're drawing a blank: http://www.filmsite.org/greatlastlines.html On the more mushy side, there is of course, "there's no place like home!" from The WIzard of Oz. "Love means never having to say you're sorry." from Love Story always bring a little tear to my generally hard veneer. And my personal favorite, "Let's not ask for the moon. We have the stars." uttered by Bette Davis in the overly melodramatic (but that's what makes it good) Now, Voyager. After finally seeing Sunset Boulevard a few months ago, the final line delivered by Gloria Swanson has become a staple in my quote book: "All right Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up!" And lastly, one of my favorite final lines in a film comes from Eyes Wide Shut. While Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are Christmas shopping with their young daughter, Kidman with her sweet and proper voice simply says, "Fuck." And that's what you're left with. Love it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/leeroy711/archive/2009/6/29/42849.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: leeroy711 Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2009 3:33:51 PM
Body: I’m writing this to take a moment and reflect on my past 6 months in film viewing. At the beginning of the year, I set a goal of watching 200 films I haven’t previously seen in 2009. Today, I am relieved to report that with the 6th month of the year ending, I have just finished watching my 100th film. I decided to create a list of the films I’ve seen so I could better keep track of them. Also, because this is an attempt to expand my film knowledge as a whole, I like to be able to sort them by release year, my rating, and the country the originated. This way I can more clearly see any gaping holes in my choices of films. So with all of that in mind, let’s take a look. The oldest film I’ve seen this year was 1947’s Out of the Past. I have to say, I’m kind of disappointed in myself. I think I generally gravitate towards older films but to see that this is the oldest I’ve seen this year is somewhat shocking. I've only seen 2 films from the 40s this year. By Decade:1940s - 2 films 1950s - 10 films 1960s - 12 films 1970s - 12 films 1980s - 7 films 1990s - 1 film 2000s - 56 films So, as you can see, over half of the movies I've watched this year have been released in the within the past 9 years. I would chalk some of that up to availability plus a general attempt to stay current and up to date. I did find it pretty odd that I have only seen one film this year from the 90s. (To Live 1994) I grew up in the 90s, I fell in love with film in the 90s. Maybe that well is simply drying up. So in summary, the rest of my year needs to include more films from the 40s and prior and a few more from the 90s. By Country: Australia - 1 film Belgium - 1 film China - 3 films Czechoslovakia - 1 film France - 4 films Germany - 1 film Italy - 4 films Japan - 11 films Mexico - 2 films Romania - 1 film South Korea - 3 films Spain - 3 film Sweden - 1 film United Kingdom - 3 films United States - 61 films. Okay, so again it seems that the majority of films I've seen are some of the most readily available (domestic). Interestingly also, the 11 Japanese films I've seen this year are from only 3 directors (Miike, Suzuki and Kurosawa) 6 of the 11 are Seijun Suzuki movies. I love his films and I'm not going to stop watching them. I discovered Argentinian filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski films this year (Mexico), thanks to Mycomplex. The Holy Mountain was good but I loved El Topo. Of the 4 Italian films I watched, 3 were from Federico Fellini (La Dolce Vita, Amarcord and La Strada) My favorite of the 3 and of all Fellini films is now La Strada. I watched the other 2 films in Park Chan-Wook's vengeance trilogy and I actually think Lady Vengeance may be the best of the 3. Last year, I devoted much more time to European film without much of an affinity for Asian cinema. This has changed this year. I am much more interested in Korean films lately. I think it just took me a little while to assimilate myself to thier style. I have also been able to scratch a few films off my "Classics I have no excuse for not having seen" list. I am now very happy to report that I have seen and enjoyed Vertigo, Sunset Boulevard and 12 Angry Men. Wow, that's embarrassing. Especially with the 12 Angry Men, but let me explain.... (excuse alert) I was always pretty convinced I would love this film. But when I am already that familiar with an iconic film that I've never actually seen, it takes a lot to want to actually put it on and sit through it. That being said, upon finally watching it, I immediately felt pretty stupid for letting such an incredible film slip by for that long. Notable 5: I'm going to conclude this post with a list of 5 films that I probably had the best time with so far this year. 1. La Strada - This is my most recent viewing. I've liked other Fellini films but none of his had such an enjoyable character as Gelsomina. I think she gave this film an entry point that I haven't previously experienced with his films. 2. Synecdoche, New York - I can't really describe how much I loved this film. It hit all the right notes for me and I probably only understood about half of it the first time. Monty (Mycomplex) told me that Charlie Kaufman may be the best American screenwriter alive today and I would have to second that. I would add that as much as I loved his work portrayed by Jonze and Gondry, I think this is his best film. He never over-exaggerated the outrageous things that happen, he just let them play out. Never even asking you if you were on board. 3. Let The Right One In - You know, the teenage vampire movie.... No, not that one, the good one. I don't have a lot to say about this one. It really is as good as you've heard. If you haven't yet, watch it. 4. Detective Bureau 2-3: Go Hell Bastards - By far, the best title of a movie I've seen in a long time. This is one of Seijun Suzuki's lesser known movies and I had one hell of a good time with it. If you liked Branded to Kill or Tokyo Drifter, this is a great watch along those same lines. 5. Lady Vengeance - As I said before, this is probably my favorite of the Vengeance Trilogy. It was just as aesthetically brilliant as Oldboy but I think it's 3rd act gave this film the heart that was missing in the previous 2. Well, that should just about do it. I now have just about 186 days to watch another 100 films. In case your not to good with the numbers, that works out to an average of 1 film every 1.86 days. I'm not sure how I'm gonna do it but it shall be done. Recommendations are more than welcome...... Peace & Love Emery.
]]>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:33:51 GMTleeroy711leeroy711 Blog6/29/2009 3:33:51 PM I&rsquo;m writing this to take a moment and reflect on my past 6 months in film viewing. At the beginning of the year, I set a goal of watching 200 films I haven&rsquo;t previously seen in 2009. Today, I am relieved to report that with the 6th month of the year ending, I have just finished watching my 100th film. I decided to create a list of the films I&rsquo;ve seen so I could better keep track of them. Also, because this is an attempt to expand my film knowledge as a whole, I like to be able to sort them by release year, my rating, and the country the originated. This way I can more clearly see any gaping holes in my choices of films. So with all of that in mind, let&rsquo;s take a look. The oldest film I&rsquo;ve seen this year was 1947&rsquo;s Out of the Past. I have to say, I&rsquo;m kind of disappointed in myself. I think I generally gravitate towards older films but to see that this is the oldest I&rsquo;ve seen this year is somewhat shocking. I've only seen 2 films from the 40s this year. By Decade:1940s - 2 films 1950s - 10 films 1960s - 12 films 1970s - 12 films 1980s - 7 films 1990s - 1 film 2000s - 56 films So, as you can see, over half of the movies I've watched this year have been released in the within the past 9 years. I would chalk some of that up to availability plus a general attempt to stay current and up to date. I did find it pretty odd that I have only seen one film this year from the 90s. (To Live 1994) I grew up in the 90s, I fell in love with film in the 90s. Maybe that well is simply drying up. So in summary, the rest of my year needs to include more films from the 40s and prior and a few more from the 90s. By Country: Australia - 1 film Belgium - 1 film China - 3 films Czechoslovakia - 1 film France - 4 films Germany - 1 film Italy - 4 films Japan - 11 films Mexico - 2 films Romania - 1 film South Korea - 3 films Spain - 3 film Sweden - 1 film United Kingdom - 3 films United States - 61 films. Okay, so again it seems that the majority of films I've seen are some of the most readily available (domestic). Interestingly also, the 11 Japanese films I've seen this year are from only 3 directors (Miike, Suzuki and Kurosawa) 6 of the 11 are Seijun Suzuki movies. I love his films and I'm not going to stop watching them. I discovered Argentinian filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski films this year (Mexico), thanks to Mycomplex. The Holy Mountain was good but I loved El Topo. Of the 4 Italian films I watched, 3 were from Federico Fellini (La Dolce Vita, Amarcord and La Strada) My favorite of the 3 and of all Fellini films is now La Strada. I watched the other 2 films in Park Chan-Wook's vengeance trilogy and I actually think Lady Vengeance may be the best of the 3. Last year, I devoted much more time to European film without much of an affinity for Asian cinema. This has changed this year. I am much more interested in Korean films lately. I think it just took me a little while to assimilate myself to thier style. I have also been able to scratch a few films off my "Classics I have no excuse for not having seen" list. I am now very happy to report that I have seen and enjoyed Vertigo, Sunset Boulevard and 12 Angry Men. Wow, that's embarrassing. Especially with the 12 Angry Men, but let me explain.... (excuse alert) I was always pretty convinced I would love this film. But when I am already that familiar with an iconic film that I've never actually seen, it takes a lot to want to actually put it on and sit through it. That being said, upon finally watching it, I immediately felt pretty stupid for letting such an incredible film slip by for that long. Notable 5: I'm going to conclude this post with a list of 5 films that I probably had the best time with so far this year. 1. La Strada - This is my most recent viewing. I've liked other Fellini films but none of his had such an enjoyable character as Gelsomina. I think she gave this film an entry point that I haven't previously experienced with his films. 2. Synecdoche, New York - I can't really describe how much I loved this film. It hit all the right notes for me and I probably only understood about half of it the first time. Monty (Mycomplex) told me that Charlie Kaufman may be the best American screenwriter alive today and I would have to second that. I would add that as much as I loved his work portrayed by Jonze and Gondry, I think this is his best film. He never over-exaggerated the outrageous things that happen, he just let them play out. Never even asking you if you were on board. 3. Let The Right One In - You know, the teenage vampire movie.... No, not that one, the good one. I don't have a lot to say about this one. It really is as good as you've heard. If you haven't yet, watch it. 4. Detective Bureau 2-3: Go Hell Bastards - By far, the best title of a movie I've seen in a long time. This is one of Seijun Suzuki's lesser known movies and I had one hell of a good time with it. If you liked Branded to Kill or Tokyo Drifter, this is a great watch along those same lines. 5. Lady Vengeance - As I said before, this is probably my favorite of the Vengeance Trilogy. It was just as aesthetically brilliant as Oldboy but I think it's 3rd act gave this film the heart that was missing in the previous 2. Well, that should just about do it. I now have just about 186 days to watch another 100 films. In case your not to good with the numbers, that works out to an average of 1 film every 1.86 days. I'm not sure how I'm gonna do it but it shall be done. Recommendations are more than welcome...... Peace &amp; Love Emery. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_May_4_Express_Yourself/625/42043/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 5/5/2009 4:33:09 PM
Body: M is probably the film that stands out as one of the great Expressionist films made. It's such a creative, thrilling film; something which surprised me when I first saw it years ago as I hadn't seen too many films pre-1950 and those that I had I couldn't really get a feeling for. Some of the noir films that I have loved and which embrace a certain amount of Expressionistic ideas are The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, Gilda and Sunset Boulevard. Hitchcock utilized Expressionist techniques in pretty much all of his films: Psycho and Vertigo being my favorite. Aside from Batman and Batman Returns, which I LOVE, Dark City is another recent film that tried to recapture the overall feeling of an authentic German Expressionist film. Saving the best for last: Nosferatu. I just can't get enough of this movie and it gives me the willies every time I watch it. As I'm sure everyone who watches it describes it, it is hauntingly beautiful. Like M, the filmmaker combined such startling techniques with an interesting story and their power has not diminished in the decades since their initial release.
]]>Tue, 05 May 2009 20:33:09 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme5/5/2009 4:33:09 PMM is probably the film that stands out as one of the great Expressionist films made. It's such a creative, thrilling film; something which surprised me when I first saw it years ago as I hadn't seen too many films pre-1950 and those that I had I couldn't really get a feeling for. Some of the noir films that I have loved and which embrace a certain amount of Expressionistic ideas are The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, Gilda and Sunset Boulevard. Hitchcock utilized Expressionist techniques in pretty much all of his films: Psycho and Vertigo being my favorite. Aside from Batman and Batman Returns, which I LOVE, Dark City is another recent film that tried to recapture the overall feeling of an authentic German Expressionist film. Saving the best for last: Nosferatu. I just can't get enough of this movie and it gives me the willies every time I watch it. As I'm sure everyone who watches it describes it, it is hauntingly beautiful. Like M, the filmmaker combined such startling techniques with an interesting story and their power has not diminished in the decades since their initial release. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/12/39422.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/12/2009 4:01:03 PM
Body: What better way to get in the mood for the double-barrelled shotgun blast of Sundance and Slamdance than by entering to win one of five copies of The Deal on DVD. Here’s what the movie is all about: A struggling film producer (William H. Macy) teams up with a beleaguered studio executive (Meg Ryan) who is forced to make a doomed action movie with him in which their mercurial star (LL Cool J) seems determined to finish their careers. When their action hero is kidnapped and the studio abruptly shuts down the movie, the mismatched pair conspire to keep the cameras rolling at the studio’s expense – and reluctantly fall in love in the process. Visit the movie’s official website to find out more and watch the trailer as well as clips from the film. Getting your copy is pretty easy. Since The Deal is all about the inner-machinations of Hollywood, we want to know what your favorite movie set in Hollywood is 1. Bowfinger (Trailer) 2. The Player (Trailer) 3. Sunset Boulevard 4. The Big Picture (Trailer) 5. Ed Wood 6. Something I’m forgetting Send your choice to filmcouch@spout.com with the subject line “The Deal.” The winners will be announced during Episode 104 of FilmCouch, coming to a computer near you this Friday, January 16th. –Chris Thilk, Director of Marketing Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/12/2009 4:01:03 PMWhat better way to get in the mood for the double-barrelled shotgun blast of Sundance and Slamdance than by entering to win one of five copies of The Deal on DVD. Here’s what the movie is all about: A struggling film producer (William H. Macy) teams up with a beleaguered studio executive (Meg Ryan) who is forced to make a doomed action movie with him in which their mercurial star (LL Cool J) seems determined to finish their careers. When their action hero is kidnapped and the studio abruptly shuts down the movie, the mismatched pair conspire to keep the cameras rolling at the studio’s expense – and reluctantly fall in love in the process. Visit the movie’s official website to find out more and watch the trailer as well as clips from the film. Getting your copy is pretty easy. Since The Deal is all about the inner-machinations of Hollywood, we want to know what your favorite movie set in Hollywood is 1. Bowfinger (Trailer) 2. The Player (Trailer) 3. Sunset Boulevard 4. The Big Picture (Trailer) 5. Ed Wood 6. Something I’m forgetting Send your choice to filmcouch@spout.com with the subject line “The Deal.” The winners will be announced during Episode 104 of FilmCouch, coming to a computer near you this Friday, January 16th. –Chris Thilk, Director of Marketing Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Need_more_Noir/643/39308/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 1/9/2009 12:06:52 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] I've seen all of these except for Fury, and they are all fantastic!! You MUST see these: Born to Kill Murder, My Sweet Out of the Past And these are also highly recommended and are all listed as film-noir on IMDB (for what it's worth): Sunset Blvd. The Big Sleep White Heat The Night of the Hunter Strangers on a Train The Third Man The Maltese Falcon And if you liked Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street you should check out another one of my favorites from him, Shock Corridor. [/quote] Thank you thank you, the only ones of these I've seen were Night of the Hunter, - which had a pretty dark story but I really didn't like that it was all done in a studio. And Third Man was pretty incredible. I haven't seen The Big Sleep, but I have seen The Big Heat (Fritz Lang) which was the one I was actually trying to think of when I mentioned Fury. I think Fury would actually probably be considered pre-noir. I've kinda been on a Sam Fuller kick ever since I watch Shock Corridor earlier this year. I friggin' loved that one. I just got White Dog in the mail the other day but I haven't watched it yet. [/quote] Yeah, if you see any of them, especially one of the first three, I'm excited to hear what you think! Let me know how White Dog goes.
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:06:52 GMTRisseladaCommunity Recommendations1/9/2009 12:06:52 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] I've seen all of these except for Fury, and they are all fantastic!! You MUST see these: Born to Kill Murder, My Sweet Out of the Past And these are also highly recommended and are all listed as film-noir on IMDB (for what it's worth): Sunset Blvd. The Big Sleep White Heat The Night of the Hunter Strangers on a Train The Third Man The Maltese Falcon And if you liked Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street you should check out another one of my favorites from him, Shock Corridor. [/quote] Thank you thank you, the only ones of these I've seen were Night of the Hunter, - which had a pretty dark story but I really didn't like that it was all done in a studio. And Third Man was pretty incredible. I haven't seen The Big Sleep, but I have seen The Big Heat (Fritz Lang) which was the one I was actually trying to think of when I mentioned Fury. I think Fury would actually probably be considered pre-noir. I've kinda been on a Sam Fuller kick ever since I watch Shock Corridor earlier this year. I friggin' loved that one. I just got White Dog in the mail the other day but I haven't watched it yet. [/quote] Yeah, if you see any of them, especially one of the first three, I'm excited to hear what you think! Let me know how White Dog goes. http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Need_more_Noir/643/39294/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 1/8/2009 10:47:21 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] I've seen all of these except for Fury, and they are all fantastic!! You MUST see these: Born to Kill Murder, My Sweet Out of the Past And these are also highly recommended and are all listed as film-noir on IMDB (for what it's worth): Sunset Blvd. The Big Sleep White Heat The Night of the Hunter Strangers on a Train The Third Man The Maltese Falcon And if you liked Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street you should check out another one of my favorites from him, Shock Corridor. [/quote] Thank you thank you, the only ones of these I've seen were Night of the Hunter, - which had a pretty dark story but I really didn't like that it was all done in a studio. And Third Man was pretty incredible. I haven't seen The Big Sleep, but I have seen The Big Heat (Fritz Lang) which was the one I was actually trying to think of when I mentioned Fury. I think Fury would actually probably be considered pre-noir. I've kinda been on a Sam Fuller kick ever since I watch Shock Corridor earlier this year. I friggin' loved that one. I just got White Dog in the mail the other day but I haven't watched it yet.
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:47:21 GMTleeroy711Community Recommendations1/8/2009 10:47:21 PM[quote user="Risselada"] I've seen all of these except for Fury, and they are all fantastic!! You MUST see these: Born to Kill Murder, My Sweet Out of the Past And these are also highly recommended and are all listed as film-noir on IMDB (for what it's worth): Sunset Blvd. The Big Sleep White Heat The Night of the Hunter Strangers on a Train The Third Man The Maltese Falcon And if you liked Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street you should check out another one of my favorites from him, Shock Corridor. [/quote] Thank you thank you, the only ones of these I've seen were Night of the Hunter, - which had a pretty dark story but I really didn't like that it was all done in a studio. And Third Man was pretty incredible. I haven't seen The Big Sleep, but I have seen The Big Heat (Fritz Lang) which was the one I was actually trying to think of when I mentioned Fury. I think Fury would actually probably be considered pre-noir. I've kinda been on a Sam Fuller kick ever since I watch Shock Corridor earlier this year. I friggin' loved that one. I just got White Dog in the mail the other day but I haven't watched it yet. http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Need_more_Noir/643/39286/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 1/8/2009 6:53:11 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] I feel like I've recently re-discovered the noir genre. I just watched The Killing last night and I loved it. As with Fuller's Pickup on South Street. I had previously been a fan of Fritz Lang's older German movies, but now I've seen Fury and I need to see more of his American stuff. And after watching Touch of Evil, I can't understand why Citizen Kane is known as Orson Welle's best work.. I mean c'mon....!!! Charlton Heston just grows a mustache and presto!!! He's a Mexican. You can't beat that! Anyways what are some of the films I'm missing?? [/quote] I've seen all of these except for Fury, and they are all fantastic!! You MUST see these: Born to Kill Murder, My Sweet Out of the Past And these are also highly recommended and are all listed as film-noir on IMDB (for what it's worth): Sunset Blvd. The Big Sleep White Heat The Night of the Hunter Strangers on a Train The Third Man The Maltese Falcon And if you liked Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street you should check out another one of my favorites from him, Shock Corridor.
]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:53:11 GMTRisseladaCommunity Recommendations1/8/2009 6:53:11 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] I feel like I've recently re-discovered the noir genre. I just watched The Killing last night and I loved it. As with Fuller's Pickup on South Street. I had previously been a fan of Fritz Lang's older German movies, but now I've seen Fury and I need to see more of his American stuff. And after watching Touch of Evil, I can't understand why Citizen Kane is known as Orson Welle's best work.. I mean c'mon....!!! Charlton Heston just grows a mustache and presto!!! He's a Mexican. You can't beat that! Anyways what are some of the films I'm missing?? [/quote] I've seen all of these except for Fury, and they are all fantastic!! You MUST see these: Born to Kill Murder, My Sweet Out of the Past And these are also highly recommended and are all listed as film-noir on IMDB (for what it's worth): Sunset Blvd. The Big Sleep White Heat The Night of the Hunter Strangers on a Train The Third Man The Maltese Falcon And if you liked Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street you should check out another one of my favorites from him, Shock Corridor. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/10/17/36455.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 10/17/2008 2:00:54 PM
Body: Hollywood has been making movies about movies almost as long as they’ve been making movies. But what’s the appeal of a movie about a movie? Assuming there is one; according to Box Office Mojo, a movie about a movie hasn’t grossed significantly over $100 million in twenty years, and that one had the obvious advantage of offering a glimpse into the marriage of a cartoon bombshell and a rabbit. But what is it that makes the legitimately great Hollywood movies––the Sunset Boulevards, the Bad and the Beautifuls, the Players –– legitimately great? Maybe at some point, they were able to convincingly offer the illusion that one had been temporarily invited into an inner sanctum, seen the secret lives of stars, given a lesson in how the sausage is made, but today it’s hard to imagine anyone really believing that a given film has the power to blow the lid off the dream factory. The great Hollywood movies do traffic in the illusion of taking the viewer “inside,” but by layering irony, melodrama, and critique, they never fully strip Hollywood of its inherent mystery, which verges on mysticism. Hollywood plays itself best when reinforcing the tenants of its own myth, particularly those involving stars. At the end of a serious film about the movies, even a bone-dry satire like The Player, we’re supposed to walk away remaining a bit mystified as to the way that world works, as if it’s beyond and above both the constraints and the moral codes of “real life.” Old Hollywood reinforced its structuring lies by making movies which pushed the tacit understanding that us mere mortals would be out of our league if ever asked to operate under Hollywood’s dark laws. What Just Happened? doesn’t feel like a serious film, but that’s not necessarily a reason to not recommend it. The reason to not recommend it is that it has no concept of that sense of mystery, and without it, it feels like there’s nothing at stake. And also, its best joke is the suggestion that Bruce Willis might be concerned with his own artistic integrity. Lacking any sense of connection to classical Hollywood meta-mythology yet filled with late 20th century cliche (Hollywood: it employs a lot of Jews!), Barry Levinson’s dramatization of real-life producer Art Linson’s memoir plays a lot like a feature-length episode of Entourage with a severe shortage of bimbos and hanger-on douchebags. If that sounds like an improvement on the Entourage formula, well, sort of. But the three sources of tensions entangled in Linson’s script never amount to much, which this isn’t a disappointment, exactly, because it was always clear they didn’t have any real weight to begin with. Sprinkled with sore-thumb julienne-cut transitions and the odd deadpan dream sequence, What Just Happened? is an impatient zoom through a couple of days in the life of a harried super-producer (Robert DeNiro) modeled on Linson (who also produced this film). DeNiro battles a number of roughly-sketched personal problems and completely mundane professional problems. Like the Hollywood blockbusters his Linson clone produces (but which the film never sufficiently skewers), each of Happened?’s conflicts can be boiled down to a single, high-concept, 20 words or less logline that leaves no loose end untied. He’s got two weeks to get an addled artiste to tone down his ultraviolent Sean Penn vehicle before Cannes! He’s got three days to get Bruce Willis to stop throwing tantrums and shave his beard before the cameras roll! He’s got an open invite for nooners with his ex-wife, even though she’s clearly sleeping with a screenwriter with an argyle fetish! Of course, the best moments have nothing to do with any of these ticking time bombs; DeNiro is able to momentarily resucitate interest when animating Linson in his down time–when he quietly breaks out the Just For Men, when he slips into an angry fantasy at a funeral and then slips right out again. Otherwise, he’s just playing connect the dots. That the bulk of the narrative streams out from a disasterous out-of-town test screening is unfortunate. As you may have heard by now, What Just Happened premiered at Sundance in January as a title with “buzz”, but once unveiled it was greeted with general indifference. Its Cannes premiere went a bit better, but an American distribution deal still proved elusive, and producers 2929 Entertainment eventually gave up the hunt for a suitor and decided to release the film through sister company Magnolia. You almost wonder if a cataclysmic premiere in another town would have been preferable — at least distaste or disgust might have aroused curiosity. You’d imagine there’d be more gravy to milk from anger than from a shrug. As it is, you can understand why buyer interest would be restrained. What Just Happened? is rarely unpleasant, but it even more rarely feels like it’s doing much of anything at all. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:00:54 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog10/17/2008 2:00:54 PMHollywood has been making movies about movies almost as long as they’ve been making movies. But what’s the appeal of a movie about a movie? Assuming there is one; according to Box Office Mojo, a movie about a movie hasn’t grossed significantly over $100 million in twenty years, and that one had the obvious advantage of offering a glimpse into the marriage of a cartoon bombshell and a rabbit. But what is it that makes the legitimately great Hollywood movies––the Sunset Boulevards, the Bad and the Beautifuls, the Players –– legitimately great? Maybe at some point, they were able to convincingly offer the illusion that one had been temporarily invited into an inner sanctum, seen the secret lives of stars, given a lesson in how the sausage is made, but today it’s hard to imagine anyone really believing that a given film has the power to blow the lid off the dream factory. The great Hollywood movies do traffic in the illusion of taking the viewer “inside,” but by layering irony, melodrama, and critique, they never fully strip Hollywood of its inherent mystery, which verges on mysticism. Hollywood plays itself best when reinforcing the tenants of its own myth, particularly those involving stars. At the end of a serious film about the movies, even a bone-dry satire like The Player, we’re supposed to walk away remaining a bit mystified as to the way that world works, as if it’s beyond and above both the constraints and the moral codes of “real life.” Old Hollywood reinforced its structuring lies by making movies which pushed the tacit understanding that us mere mortals would be out of our league if ever asked to operate under Hollywood’s dark laws. What Just Happened? doesn’t feel like a serious film, but that’s not necessarily a reason to not recommend it. The reason to not recommend it is that it has no concept of that sense of mystery, and without it, it feels like there’s nothing at stake. And also, its best joke is the suggestion that Bruce Willis might be concerned with his own artistic integrity. Lacking any sense of connection to classical Hollywood meta-mythology yet filled with late 20th century cliche (Hollywood: it employs a lot of Jews!), Barry Levinson’s dramatization of real-life producer Art Linson’s memoir plays a lot like a feature-length episode of Entourage with a severe shortage of bimbos and hanger-on douchebags. If that sounds like an improvement on the Entourage formula, well, sort of. But the three sources of tensions entangled in Linson’s script never amount to much, which this isn’t a disappointment, exactly, because it was always clear they didn’t have any real weight to begin with. Sprinkled with sore-thumb julienne-cut transitions and the odd deadpan dream sequence, What Just Happened? is an impatient zoom through a couple of days in the life of a harried super-producer (Robert DeNiro) modeled on Linson (who also produced this film). DeNiro battles a number of roughly-sketched personal problems and completely mundane professional problems. Like the Hollywood blockbusters his Linson clone produces (but which the film never sufficiently skewers), each of Happened?’s conflicts can be boiled down to a single, high-concept, 20 words or less logline that leaves no loose end untied. He’s got two weeks to get an addled artiste to tone down his ultraviolent Sean Penn vehicle before Cannes! He’s got three days to get Bruce Willis to stop throwing tantrums and shave his beard before the cameras roll! He’s got an open invite for nooners with his ex-wife, even though she’s clearly sleeping with a screenwriter with an argyle fetish! Of course, the best moments have nothing to do with any of these ticking time bombs; DeNiro is able to momentarily resucitate interest when animating Linson in his down time–when he quietly breaks out the Just For Men, when he slips into an angry fantasy at a funeral and then slips right out again. Otherwise, he’s just playing connect the dots. That the bulk of the narrative streams out from a disasterous out-of-town test screening is unfortunate. As you may have heard by now, What Just Happened premiered at Sundance in January as a title with “buzz”, but once unveiled it was greeted with general indifference. Its Cannes premiere went a bit better, but an American distribution deal still proved elusive, and producers 2929 Entertainment eventually gave up the hunt for a suitor and decided to release the film through sister company Magnolia. You almost wonder if a cataclysmic premiere in another town would have been preferable — at least distaste or disgust might have aroused curiosity. You’d imagine there’d be more gravy to milk from anger than from a shrug. As it is, you can understand why buyer interest would be restrained. What Just Happened? is rarely unpleasant, but it even more rarely feels like it’s doing much of anything at all. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/17/36454.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/17/2008 2:00:44 PM
Body: Hollywood has been making movies about movies almost as long as they’ve been making movies. But what’s the appeal of a movie about a movie? Assuming there is one; according to Box Office Mojo, a movie about a movie hasn’t grossed significantly over $100 million in twenty years, and that one had the obvious advantage of offering a glimpse into the marriage of a cartoon bombshell and a rabbit. But what is it that makes the legitimately great Hollywood movies––the Sunset Boulevards, the Bad and the Beautifuls, the Players –– legitimately great? Maybe at some point, they were able to convincingly offer the illusion that one had been temporarily invited into an inner sanctum, seen the secret lives of stars, given a lesson in how the sausage is made, but today it’s hard to imagine anyone really believing that a given film has the power to blow the lid off the dream factory. The great Hollywood movies do traffic in the illusion of taking the viewer “inside,” but by layering irony, melodrama, and critique, they never fully strip Hollywood of its inherent mystery, which verges on mysticism. Hollywood plays itself best when reinforcing the tenants of its own myth, particularly those involving stars. At the end of a serious film about the movies, even a bone-dry satire like The Player, we’re supposed to walk away remaining a bit mystified as to the way that world works, as if it’s beyond and above both the constraints and the moral codes of “real life.” Old Hollywood reinforced its structuring lies by making movies which pushed the tacit understanding that us mere mortals would be out of our league if ever asked to operate under Hollywood’s dark laws. What Just Happened? doesn’t feel like a serious film, but that’s not necessarily a reason to not recommend it. The reason to not recommend it is that it has no concept of that sense of mystery, and without it, it feels like there’s nothing at stake. And also, its best joke is the suggestion that Bruce Willis might be concerned with his own artistic integrity. Lacking any sense of connection to classical Hollywood meta-mythology yet filled with late 20th century cliche (Hollywood: it employs a lot of Jews!), Barry Levinson’s dramatization of real-life producer Art Linson’s memoir plays a lot like a feature-length episode of Entourage with a severe shortage of bimbos and hanger-on douchebags. If that sounds like an improvement on the Entourage formula, well, sort of. But the three sources of tensions entangled in Linson’s script never amount to much, which this isn’t a disappointment, exactly, because it was always clear they didn’t have any real weight to begin with. Sprinkled with sore-thumb julienne-cut transitions and the odd deadpan dream sequence, What Just Happened? is an impatient zoom through a couple of days in the life of a harried super-producer (Robert DeNiro) modeled on Linson (who also produced this film). DeNiro battles a number of roughly-sketched personal problems and completely mundane professional problems. Like the Hollywood blockbusters his Linson clone produces (but which the film never sufficiently skewers), each of Happened?’s conflicts can be boiled down to a single, high-concept, 20 words or less logline that leaves no loose end untied. He’s got two weeks to get an addled artiste to tone down his ultraviolent Sean Penn vehicle before Cannes! He’s got three days to get Bruce Willis to stop throwing tantrums and shave his beard before the cameras roll! He’s got an open invite for nooners with his ex-wife, even though she’s clearly sleeping with a screenwriter with an argyle fetish! Of course, the best moments have nothing to do with any of these ticking time bombs; DeNiro is able to momentarily resucitate interest when animating Linson in his down time–when he quietly breaks out the Just For Men, when he slips into an angry fantasy at a funeral and then slips right out again. Otherwise, he’s just playing connect the dots. That the bulk of the narrative streams out from a disasterous out-of-town test screening is unfortunate. As you may have heard by now, What Just Happened premiered at Sundance in January as a title with “buzz”, but once unveiled it was greeted with general indifference. Its Cannes premiere went a bit better, but an American distribution deal still proved elusive, and producers 2929 Entertainment eventually gave up the hunt for a suitor and decided to release the film through sister company Magnolia. You almost wonder if a cataclysmic premiere in another town would have been preferable — at least distaste or disgust might have aroused curiosity. You’d imagine there’d be more gravy to milk from anger than from a shrug. As it is, you can understand why buyer interest would be restrained. What Just Happened? is rarely unpleasant, but it even more rarely feels like it’s doing much of anything at all. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/17/2008 2:00:44 PMHollywood has been making movies about movies almost as long as they’ve been making movies. But what’s the appeal of a movie about a movie? Assuming there is one; according to Box Office Mojo, a movie about a movie hasn’t grossed significantly over $100 million in twenty years, and that one had the obvious advantage of offering a glimpse into the marriage of a cartoon bombshell and a rabbit. But what is it that makes the legitimately great Hollywood movies––the Sunset Boulevards, the Bad and the Beautifuls, the Players –– legitimately great? Maybe at some point, they were able to convincingly offer the illusion that one had been temporarily invited into an inner sanctum, seen the secret lives of stars, given a lesson in how the sausage is made, but today it’s hard to imagine anyone really believing that a given film has the power to blow the lid off the dream factory. The great Hollywood movies do traffic in the illusion of taking the viewer “inside,” but by layering irony, melodrama, and critique, they never fully strip Hollywood of its inherent mystery, which verges on mysticism. Hollywood plays itself best when reinforcing the tenants of its own myth, particularly those involving stars. At the end of a serious film about the movies, even a bone-dry satire like The Player, we’re supposed to walk away remaining a bit mystified as to the way that world works, as if it’s beyond and above both the constraints and the moral codes of “real life.” Old Hollywood reinforced its structuring lies by making movies which pushed the tacit understanding that us mere mortals would be out of our league if ever asked to operate under Hollywood’s dark laws. What Just Happened? doesn’t feel like a serious film, but that’s not necessarily a reason to not recommend it. The reason to not recommend it is that it has no concept of that sense of mystery, and without it, it feels like there’s nothing at stake. And also, its best joke is the suggestion that Bruce Willis might be concerned with his own artistic integrity. Lacking any sense of connection to classical Hollywood meta-mythology yet filled with late 20th century cliche (Hollywood: it employs a lot of Jews!), Barry Levinson’s dramatization of real-life producer Art Linson’s memoir plays a lot like a feature-length episode of Entourage with a severe shortage of bimbos and hanger-on douchebags. If that sounds like an improvement on the Entourage formula, well, sort of. But the three sources of tensions entangled in Linson’s script never amount to much, which this isn’t a disappointment, exactly, because it was always clear they didn’t have any real weight to begin with. Sprinkled with sore-thumb julienne-cut transitions and the odd deadpan dream sequence, What Just Happened? is an impatient zoom through a couple of days in the life of a harried super-producer (Robert DeNiro) modeled on Linson (who also produced this film). DeNiro battles a number of roughly-sketched personal problems and completely mundane professional problems. Like the Hollywood blockbusters his Linson clone produces (but which the film never sufficiently skewers), each of Happened?’s conflicts can be boiled down to a single, high-concept, 20 words or less logline that leaves no loose end untied. He’s got two weeks to get an addled artiste to tone down his ultraviolent Sean Penn vehicle before Cannes! He’s got three days to get Bruce Willis to stop throwing tantrums and shave his beard before the cameras roll! He’s got an open invite for nooners with his ex-wife, even though she’s clearly sleeping with a screenwriter with an argyle fetish! Of course, the best moments have nothing to do with any of these ticking time bombs; DeNiro is able to momentarily resucitate interest when animating Linson in his down time–when he quietly breaks out the Just For Men, when he slips into an angry fantasy at a funeral and then slips right out again. Otherwise, he’s just playing connect the dots. That the bulk of the narrative streams out from a disasterous out-of-town test screening is unfortunate. As you may have heard by now, What Just Happened premiered at Sundance in January as a title with “buzz”, but once unveiled it was greeted with general indifference. Its Cannes premiere went a bit better, but an American distribution deal still proved elusive, and producers 2929 Entertainment eventually gave up the hunt for a suitor and decided to release the film through sister company Magnolia. You almost wonder if a cataclysmic premiere in another town would have been preferable — at least distaste or disgust might have aroused curiosity. You’d imagine there’d be more gravy to milk from anger than from a shrug. As it is, you can understand why buyer interest would be restrained. What Just Happened? is rarely unpleasant, but it even more rarely feels like it’s doing much of anything at all. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/6/30/31884.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 6/30/2008 9:24:46 AM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Sunset Boulevard is on the following AFI lists:The Original Top 100 (#12)100 Movie Quotes (#7 - Norma Desmond: "All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up;" #24 - Norma Desmond: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small.")25 Film Scores (#16)The Revised Top 100 (#16) Sunset Boulevard was next up on the list and, therefore, next up on my Netflix queue (I do love that service). I had never seen this movie and did not really know what to expect, past the infamous "ready for my close-up" line. I didn't realize that it was the concluding line of the movie, and I was a little perturbed by that. Nothing is given away, really, if you've never seen the movie before, but still! It says something for the film, that the last line has become one of those pop culture idioms, bandied about in all sorts of situations (have my make-up on? I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille!). I still hate that it was the last line; I sort of kept waiting for it and waiting for it, and that probably distracted me a little from appreciating the film itself...but not much. Sunset Boulevard refers to a concrete strip in Hollywood and also to this film satire written (in part) and directed by Billy Wilder. It's also a noir film in the classic sense: the film opens with a murder and the body of Joe Gillis (William Holden) floating in a Hollywood swimming pool; Gillis tells the story of how he ended up in that pool in flashback and as a ghost, of sorts. Gillis is a screenwriter, down on his luck and in piles of debt. While running from repo men after his fancy car, he pulls into what appears to be an abandoned garage of an abandoned mansion, only to discover that the house is occupied by former silent film actress (in real life and in the film!) Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) and her man-servant, Max (Erich von Stroheim, the silent film director in real life). If the house weren't spooky enough, Norma and her obsession with her one-time fame (cut short by the advent of sound in film) is enough to make your hair stand on end. Norma finds out that Joe is a screenwriter and commissions him to help her edit a script she's been working on to plot her "return" ("comeback" is such an ugly word). Joe realizes that the script is awful, but she offers to pay him handsomely, buys him fancy presents, and "keeps" him in a stately room in her house. It becomes clear that she is just a lonely woman, pining for her limelight, until Joe takes up with Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a reader at Paramount looking to become a screenwriter herself, in a joint effort to rework one of his scripts. At that point, Joe's uncomfortably comfortable life becomes complicated, to say the least. This movie has a lot of layers. On the one hand, it is a biting, merciless swipe at the Hollywood machine, made even more effective by the fact that there are cameos from several old-time Hollywood biggies, not the least of which includes the man himself, Mr. Cecil B. DeMille. Casting an actual silent film actress was a stroke of genius (her old films could be mined for versions of Swanson's younger self). On the other hand, it's a murder mystery with noir narration, playing up some Hollywood conventions of the period to over-the-top effect. On still another hand, the noir aspect comes off a bit tongue-in-cheek, with some hammy and cheesy lines from Holden's Gillis that leave the viewer perplexed as to whether they should laugh or cringe. Apparently, Wilder wrote it originally as a comedy, and it retains some comedic flavor, even thought the events of the story are anything but funny. I liked this film, but it wasn't perfect, in my eyes. I know many people love it, and it's been ranked highly on AFI's original and revised movie lists, but there were things I couldn't get over, mostly what I see to be narrative and direction flaws. Norma, as a character, is incomplete - or contains too many superfluous bits of randomness. Gloria Swanson played her with great gusto (she practically embodies the phrase "over the top"), and that paints the picture of crazy quite nicely, but random factoids pop in and out of her story that seem to have no place in the overall arc of her character, whereas other bits of the story seem to have obvious holes. Some of it is simply to drive home her eccentricities, such as the introductory (but random) death of her beloved monkey, which is also a funny, satricial bit to set the mood not only of eccentricity but of excess. Some of it just left me wondering: she had three husbands? Where did they all go (no spoilers here, folks)? Also, she was always a bit dotty, but why did she break with reality during the concluding moments, during this particular event? Other than her zeal for fame and maybe some guilty feelings on her part for various behaviors, why then? It seems that too much was left out of the picture, even if the picture's focus was meant to include Joe too, and I don't think I was supposed to be left guessing. Unless I missed something waiting for the "close-up" line. Joe was also an imperfect character, but at least his imperfections were consistent. I simply kept thinking that he was not very bright; none of his decisions were good until his final decision, but at least his character story had motivation: the high life of Hollywood versus the alternative of a $35/week desk job in Ohio, and at least, he strived for last minute redemption. Norma had motivation too, mostly, arising from loneliness and hunger for the adorations she used to enjoy, but I just felt like there were too many loose ends. If I was meant to be kept guessing, it worked, but I don't feel like this is one of those movies that had that intention, since the film opens with the "it" of the whodunit. There was also some erratic pacing. The film, already a slow and methodical flashback account of a murder mystery, slows up considerably during the parts in which Joe is especially enjoying the perks of escorting the aging starlet about town. While his narrative voice waxes about the "prison" he's found himself in, the movie shows him shadowing Norma to bridge games and attending not-so-well-attended soirees. I'm sure it's meant to give the viewer a sense of irony, as well as give Joe the opportunity to encounter Betty randomly a few times, but it brings the movie to a slow crawl, and I found myself checking how much time had elapsed on the film by that point. What I did like was the photography and lighting, rendering Norma's decrepit mansion almost like a haunted house, occupied by the ghosts of her lost career. My favorite shot was when Norma and Joe are watching one of her old silent films, and she gets into one of her impassioned fits about making her return, and she stands up, her face pointed toward the flickering light of the movie projector, a ghostly reminder, perhaps, of the star she used to be. The art direction was also wonderful: I found myself studying all of the props and trinkets lining Norma's mansion, an extension of her somewhat-mad self. The most effective prop, and I wonder just how it came into creation, was her eccentric little cigarette holder. I think that was the best material representation of her madness in the entire film. The performances were also good. William Holden is pretty much always good, and Gloria Swanson was just so over-the-top, so theatrical. As was the score, which received a top 25 ranking. I don't remember anything particular about it, less than 12 hours later, but I do remember that it was as melodramatic as Norma Desmond herself. Still, I'm finding it hard to say I loved the film because I really didn't, if for no other reason than this film, more than others I've seen to date, felt really dated and not in that charmingly nostalgiac way. Maybe that was the point too, but I just don't hold this film up in as high esteem as others might. Thusly, it does not pass the test. And as to ratings, I think it's squarely an 8 for being very good but with minor flaws. It gets points for taking on Hollywood when the system held so much sway (reportedly, studio heads were not happy with it), but as entertainment, I just didn't find myself in love with it, classic last line or no. Actually, I liked the other quote better: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small." I feel it is so much more representative of Sunset Boulevard and the main character; alas, it's not as well-known and didn't come with Gloria Swanson's huge, insane eyes and slow approach toward the camera, but it's got the essence of the satirical subtext of the film.
]]>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:24:46 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts6/30/2008 9:24:46 AMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Sunset Boulevard is on the following AFI lists:The Original Top 100 (#12)100 Movie Quotes (#7 - Norma Desmond: "All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up;" #24 - Norma Desmond: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small.")25 Film Scores (#16)The Revised Top 100 (#16) Sunset Boulevard was next up on the list and, therefore, next up on my Netflix queue (I do love that service). I had never seen this movie and did not really know what to expect, past the infamous "ready for my close-up" line. I didn't realize that it was the concluding line of the movie, and I was a little perturbed by that. Nothing is given away, really, if you've never seen the movie before, but still! It says something for the film, that the last line has become one of those pop culture idioms, bandied about in all sorts of situations (have my make-up on? I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille!). I still hate that it was the last line; I sort of kept waiting for it and waiting for it, and that probably distracted me a little from appreciating the film itself...but not much. Sunset Boulevard refers to a concrete strip in Hollywood and also to this film satire written (in part) and directed by Billy Wilder. It's also a noir film in the classic sense: the film opens with a murder and the body of Joe Gillis (William Holden) floating in a Hollywood swimming pool; Gillis tells the story of how he ended up in that pool in flashback and as a ghost, of sorts. Gillis is a screenwriter, down on his luck and in piles of debt. While running from repo men after his fancy car, he pulls into what appears to be an abandoned garage of an abandoned mansion, only to discover that the house is occupied by former silent film actress (in real life and in the film!) Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) and her man-servant, Max (Erich von Stroheim, the silent film director in real life). If the house weren't spooky enough, Norma and her obsession with her one-time fame (cut short by the advent of sound in film) is enough to make your hair stand on end. Norma finds out that Joe is a screenwriter and commissions him to help her edit a script she's been working on to plot her "return" ("comeback" is such an ugly word). Joe realizes that the script is awful, but she offers to pay him handsomely, buys him fancy presents, and "keeps" him in a stately room in her house. It becomes clear that she is just a lonely woman, pining for her limelight, until Joe takes up with Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a reader at Paramount looking to become a screenwriter herself, in a joint effort to rework one of his scripts. At that point, Joe's uncomfortably comfortable life becomes complicated, to say the least. This movie has a lot of layers. On the one hand, it is a biting, merciless swipe at the Hollywood machine, made even more effective by the fact that there are cameos from several old-time Hollywood biggies, not the least of which includes the man himself, Mr. Cecil B. DeMille. Casting an actual silent film actress was a stroke of genius (her old films could be mined for versions of Swanson's younger self). On the other hand, it's a murder mystery with noir narration, playing up some Hollywood conventions of the period to over-the-top effect. On still another hand, the noir aspect comes off a bit tongue-in-cheek, with some hammy and cheesy lines from Holden's Gillis that leave the viewer perplexed as to whether they should laugh or cringe. Apparently, Wilder wrote it originally as a comedy, and it retains some comedic flavor, even thought the events of the story are anything but funny. I liked this film, but it wasn't perfect, in my eyes. I know many people love it, and it's been ranked highly on AFI's original and revised movie lists, but there were things I couldn't get over, mostly what I see to be narrative and direction flaws. Norma, as a character, is incomplete - or contains too many superfluous bits of randomness. Gloria Swanson played her with great gusto (she practically embodies the phrase "over the top"), and that paints the picture of crazy quite nicely, but random factoids pop in and out of her story that seem to have no place in the overall arc of her character, whereas other bits of the story seem to have obvious holes. Some of it is simply to drive home her eccentricities, such as the introductory (but random) death of her beloved monkey, which is also a funny, satricial bit to set the mood not only of eccentricity but of excess. Some of it just left me wondering: she had three husbands? Where did they all go (no spoilers here, folks)? Also, she was always a bit dotty, but why did she break with reality during the concluding moments, during this particular event? Other than her zeal for fame and maybe some guilty feelings on her part for various behaviors, why then? It seems that too much was left out of the picture, even if the picture's focus was meant to include Joe too, and I don't think I was supposed to be left guessing. Unless I missed something waiting for the "close-up" line. Joe was also an imperfect character, but at least his imperfections were consistent. I simply kept thinking that he was not very bright; none of his decisions were good until his final decision, but at least his character story had motivation: the high life of Hollywood versus the alternative of a $35/week desk job in Ohio, and at least, he strived for last minute redemption. Norma had motivation too, mostly, arising from loneliness and hunger for the adorations she used to enjoy, but I just felt like there were too many loose ends. If I was meant to be kept guessing, it worked, but I don't feel like this is one of those movies that had that intention, since the film opens with the "it" of the whodunit. There was also some erratic pacing. The film, already a slow and methodical flashback account of a murder mystery, slows up considerably during the parts in which Joe is especially enjoying the perks of escorting the aging starlet about town. While his narrative voice waxes about the "prison" he's found himself in, the movie shows him shadowing Norma to bridge games and attending not-so-well-attended soirees. I'm sure it's meant to give the viewer a sense of irony, as well as give Joe the opportunity to encounter Betty randomly a few times, but it brings the movie to a slow crawl, and I found myself checking how much time had elapsed on the film by that point. What I did like was the photography and lighting, rendering Norma's decrepit mansion almost like a haunted house, occupied by the ghosts of her lost career. My favorite shot was when Norma and Joe are watching one of her old silent films, and she gets into one of her impassioned fits about making her return, and she stands up, her face pointed toward the flickering light of the movie projector, a ghostly reminder, perhaps, of the star she used to be. The art direction was also wonderful: I found myself studying all of the props and trinkets lining Norma's mansion, an extension of her somewhat-mad self. The most effective prop, and I wonder just how it came into creation, was her eccentric little cigarette holder. I think that was the best material representation of her madness in the entire film. The performances were also good. William Holden is pretty much always good, and Gloria Swanson was just so over-the-top, so theatrical. As was the score, which received a top 25 ranking. I don't remember anything particular about it, less than 12 hours later, but I do remember that it was as melodramatic as Norma Desmond herself. Still, I'm finding it hard to say I loved the film because I really didn't, if for no other reason than this film, more than others I've seen to date, felt really dated and not in that charmingly nostalgiac way. Maybe that was the point too, but I just don't hold this film up in as high esteem as others might. Thusly, it does not pass the test. And as to ratings, I think it's squarely an 8 for being very good but with minor flaws. It gets points for taking on Hollywood when the system held so much sway (reportedly, studio heads were not happy with it), but as entertainment, I just didn't find myself in love with it, classic last line or no. Actually, I liked the other quote better: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small." I feel it is so much more representative of Sunset Boulevard and the main character; alas, it's not as well-known and didn't come with Gloria Swanson's huge, insane eyes and slow approach toward the camera, but it's got the essence of the satirical subtext of the film. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Crazy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCrazy
Number of films tagged: 133

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 180

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:53:36 GMT13398180Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suicide/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuicide
Number of films tagged: 1828

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 185

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:40:50 GMT182880185Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/noir/MemberTagFilms.aspxnoir
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 134

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT7767134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obsession/MemberTagFilms.aspxobsession
Number of films tagged: 1134

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:49 GMT113464136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/satire/MemberTagFilms.aspxsatire
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 120

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:25 GMT17055120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/depression/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepression
Number of films tagged: 462

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 87

]]>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:57:50 GMT4625187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/party/MemberTagFilms.aspxparty
Number of films tagged: 900

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 169

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:17:56 GMT90043169Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loneliness/MemberTagFilms.aspxloneliness
Number of films tagged: 416

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 68

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT4163368Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dysfunctional/MemberTagFilms.aspxdysfunctional
Number of films tagged: 486

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 42

]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:09 GMT4863142Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxactor
Number of films tagged: 2328

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 55

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT23282555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/seduction/MemberTagFilms.aspxseduction
Number of films tagged: 1268

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 43

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:21:12 GMT12682343Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/extramaritalaffair/MemberTagFilms.aspxextramaritalaffair
Number of films tagged: 3121

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 31

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT31211831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fame/MemberTagFilms.aspxfame
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 36

]]>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:38:57 GMT6101736Tag