Weekly Theme

Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

Many younger people today find it hard to watch "old" black and white films because they feel that they cannot relate to the subject matter. They feel the mores and ideals called in to question are usually ridiculous and hard to imagine because nowadays the social norm has changed. The scandals of decades long since passed no longer have the same shock value of that which is thought of scandalous today.

With that said, this week's theme is obviously all about scandals. Countless films tackle the idea of someone engaging in a taboo subject and the consequences for doing said act amid a society that casts a negative view upon it. Ranging from the rather tame notion of two people marrying outside of one's social status (like with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart in Sabrina) or having an affair (Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes in The Duchess) to the more complicated subject of performing abortions (like in Vera Drake) and cold blooded murder (like Murder at 1600).

What films centering around a scandal and its coverup / revelation do you find convincing? Which are just awkward and not worth the film they're shot on?

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

mercurial:

Many younger people today find it hard to watch "old" black and white films because they feel that they cannot relate to the subject matter. They feel the mores and ideals called in to question are usually ridiculous and hard to imagine because nowadays the social norm has changed. The scandals of decades long since passed no longer have the same shock value of that which is thought of scandalous today.

What films centering around a scandal and its coverup / revelation do you find convincing? Which are just awkward and not worth the film they're shot on?

 

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

seely:

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

Did you watch the audio commentary or any of the special features or read any of the additional material in the Criterion Collection edition of The Rules of the Game?  After going through all that I had a much better understanding and appreciation for why this movie has often been considered the greatest film of all time.

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

I've read a lot of stuff about The Miracle of Morgan's Creek and everyone talks about how adept Preston Sturges was at manipulating the Hays Office.  He got away with all kinds of stuff that they would have never probably allowed in most other circumstances, but somehow he gave them a runaround with all kinds of confusing rewrites and just good writing I guess.  It's a funny one.  I'd recommend it.

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

seely:

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

As I wrote recently, I think that watching the movie second-half-first helps it too.

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

Risselada:

seely:

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

Did you watch the audio commentary or any of the special features or read any of the additional material in the Criterion Collection edition of The Rules of the Game?  After going through all that I had a much better understanding and appreciation for why this movie has often been considered the greatest film of all time.

I admittedly did not.  I have mixed feelings about director commentary/special features adding "value" to a film.  One part of me feels like a film should be accessible without needing explanation as to why its a good film, or why it was filmed in a certain manner.

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

Good topic Merc,

Probably my favorite Rob Redford movie is Quiz Show, about a TV game show scandal. I stood up and cheered at the end when the last Senator scowls at Charles Van Doren: "I don't think an adult of your intelligence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth. "

  L.A. Confidential and Chinatown are a couple of great neo/new noir scandal movies.

I know I could sound like a broken record and mention a couple of Costa-Gavras movies like Z and Missing, but I won't .............. this time.

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

seely:

Risselada:

seely:

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

Did you watch the audio commentary or any of the special features or read any of the additional material in the Criterion Collection edition of The Rules of the Game?  After going through all that I had a much better understanding and appreciation for why this movie has often been considered the greatest film of all time.

I admittedly did not.  I have mixed feelings about director commentary/special features adding "value" to a film.  One part of me feels like a film should be accessible without needing explanation as to why its a good film, or why it was filmed in a certain manner.

It's essiential if the film was made in a different country or era?  How would a filmmaker know how to make a film accessible to a totally different culture and future era that he could not be familiar with or intending his film for??

Do you think a lot of your specifically American movies that you love would be understood as well in some other cultures around the world?

Have you ever watched  British comedy and only thought it was funny after you learned all of the slang or political or cultural issuees of the time?

Also, you may find the Bible compelling on it's own in most translations, but if you've ever done a Bible study or heard a sermon that really explains the history and culture of the Jewish people or the context of any given book of the Bible, or the meanings of the original Hebrew or Greek words you will know that trying to understand the Bible in our modern day culture with just any single English translation is missing some really important things!

This is going to be true for any book, so why not for movies as well???

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

Risselada:

seely:

Risselada:

seely:

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

Did you watch the audio commentary or any of the special features or read any of the additional material in the Criterion Collection edition of The Rules of the Game?  After going through all that I had a much better understanding and appreciation for why this movie has often been considered the greatest film of all time.

I admittedly did not.  I have mixed feelings about director commentary/special features adding "value" to a film.  One part of me feels like a film should be accessible without needing explanation as to why its a good film, or why it was filmed in a certain manner.

It's essiential if the film was made in a different country or era?  How would a filmmaker know how to make a film accessible to a totally different culture and future era that he could not be familiar with or intending his film for??

Do you think a lot of your specifically American movies that you love would be understood as well in some other cultures around the world?

Have you ever watched  British comedy and only thought it was funny after you learned all of the slang or political or cultural issuees of the time?

Also, you may find the Bible compelling on it's own in most translations, but if you've ever done a Bible study or heard a sermon that really explains the history and culture of the Jewish people or the context of any given book of the Bible, or the meanings of the original Hebrew or Greek words you will know that trying to understand the Bible in our modern day culture with just any single English translation is missing some really important things!

This is going to be true for any book, so why not for movies as well???

Come on Seely, no response to this?  I was curious to hear what you thought.  It's a topic that interests me!

What does everyone else think.  Should we judge a movie based on our initial reaction and impression even if we know little about the context it was originally made in, or should we make an effort to find out more?

I'll say honestly that I often do rate movies based on their intial impression they gave me, but if a lot of people are talking the praises of a movie and it seems interesting but not as great as everyone says, I try to find out why, especially if the film is from another location or era.

Re:Weekly Theme for February 2: Scandalous!

Risselada:

Risselada:

seely:

Risselada:

seely:

Right away, your first sentences brought to mind Rules of the Game which we recently watched here at Spout.  I am someone who generally appreciates older films, but I found the plot and characters of this one very alienating and hard to relate to.  The film was a bit difficult for me to follow as well, as apparently everyone in the late 1930's looked exactly alike.  I don't know, maybe its just too hard for me to relate to early/mid century French aristocrats...?

Did you watch the audio commentary or any of the special features or read any of the additional material in the Criterion Collection edition of The Rules of the Game?  After going through all that I had a much better understanding and appreciation for why this movie has often been considered the greatest film of all time.

I admittedly did not.  I have mixed feelings about director commentary/special features adding "value" to a film.  One part of me feels like a film should be accessible without needing explanation as to why its a good film, or why it was filmed in a certain manner.

It's essiential if the film was made in a different country or era?  How would a filmmaker know how to make a film accessible to a totally different culture and future era that he could not be familiar with or intending his film for??

Do you think a lot of your specifically American movies that you love would be understood as well in some other cultures around the world?

Have you ever watched  British comedy and only thought it was funny after you learned all of the slang or political or cultural issuees of the time?

Also, you may find the Bible compelling on it's own in most translations, but if you've ever done a Bible study or heard a sermon that really explains the history and culture of the Jewish people or the context of any given book of the Bible, or the meanings of the original Hebrew or Greek words you will know that trying to understand the Bible in our modern day culture with just any single English translation is missing some really important things!

This is going to be true for any book, so why not for movies as well???

Come on Seely, no response to this?  I was curious to hear what you thought.  It's a topic that interests me!

What does everyone else think.  Should we judge a movie based on our initial reaction and impression even if we know little about the context it was originally made in, or should we make an effort to find out more?

I'll say honestly that I often do rate movies based on their intial impression they gave me, but if a lot of people are talking the praises of a movie and it seems interesting but not as great as everyone says, I try to find out why, especially if the film is from another location or era.

I agree, I think we might miss some of the most interesting aspects of older or foreign films if we don't read up on it first or watch the directors commentary. It might have been accessible for people in that particular time and place, but if you know you are outside of that demographic, you might be missing out if you don't use supplementary information.