Raiders of the Lost Ark, a Pretty Good Film

Sorry, John, I can’t read you over the sound of munched menstrual pads.

I suspect that if they ever come out with a new Indiana Jones movie he’ll be fighting the men-eating menstrual pads. That would probably still be an upgrade from that last one.

Slightly OT, but have any of y’all rewatched AMERICAN GRAFFITI recently? I’ve always thought of it as Lucas’s best film (thus lending credence to the he-got-worse thesis), but I haven’t seen it since the ’80s (when it used to play often in repertory film theaters…remember those?). I now realize that I have no idea whatsoever whether ot not it holds up.

So I’ll just take the opportunity to post this classic again:

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/back-from-yet-another-globetrotting-adventure-indiana-jones-checks-his-mail-and-discovers-that-his-bid-for-tenure-has-been-denied

“Though Dr. Jones conducts ‘field research’ far more often than anyone else in the department, he has consistently failed to report the results of his excavations, provide any credible evidence of attending the archaeological conferences he claims to attend, or produce a single published article in any peer-reviewed journal.”

I am also a big time fan of the movie, though I have always considered it to be a children’s movie. That kind of pulp adventure narrative, is just not the fare of grown up material. Spielberg and Lucas made no attempt to add any extra layers of subtlety (nor have they generally in their other films). It’s like if one of the better James Bond movies has all of the irony shaken out of it – you end up right in the wheelhouse of a certain kind of (very young) fan, and your ability to appreciate it is dependent either on you being such, or perhaps conjuring some of the essence of your past self for a couple of hours.

The Eighties sucked. The music sucked, the movies sucked, Reagan sucked, and the hair sucked. But at least the hair gives you an instant tip-off to change the channel. Raiders only seems OK to some people because the hair isn’t Eighties hair, but it sucks, too.

I personally think Raiders holds up well due to near perfect pacing. It barrels along at breakneck speed but never really seems rushed.

Other virtues:

Harrison Ford and Karen Allen as Indy & Marion really nailed the screwball comedy style rapid back and forth dialog in a way that no subsequent Indy film managed.

I think it hits a good balance between cartoonish and (somewhat) realistic violence (is it my imagination, or was it unusual, prior to Raiders, for the hero of an action movie to spend so much time getting the crap kicked out him?).

While this is true of other films in the series as well, the character of Indy himself, as played by Ford, really works. Ford has an impressive ability to seemlessly shift back and forth from badass hero to desperate in-over-his-head improviser to slapstick pratfalling clown all while seeming to be a single coherent character.

In the same vain as the above, the comic bits and action bits are well matched and never clash with or undermine each other. Other films have managed this, but I think Raiders does a particularly good job.

Kicking Nazi butt is always fun.

I don’t know the answer to the specific question about Raiders, but generally I don’t think you’re giving enough credit for originality. That probably applies to Raiders, definitely applies to Lucas. Recycling a good idea until it became weak schtick represented decline, not holding steady. If you think about great films — (the original) Nosferatu, (the original) Cat People, Night of the Hunter, Seven Samurai are coming to mind, but nothing I’m saying depends on the examples — they all have to be watched with a degree of sympathy. Special effects, fight choreography, and other techniques have all gotten better. Cultural attitudes have changed (e.g. toward Freudianism in Cat People). Directors try original ideas that may or may not work (the cutaway house sequence in Night). If you watch any of them with an attitude of “what would I think if it had come out yesterday”, you’re going to underrate them.

I don’t know if this applies to Raiders, which I haven’t seen in ages. Ezra’s point, which is not anachronistic, deserves to be taken seriously too. But be sure you’re giving enough points for originality.

Now back to your regularly scheduled man-eating lady parts, or whatever it was.

I would like to second every point that AcademicLurker makes @ 13. In particular, Raiders does the best job of pacing and tempo of any of the Indiana Jones films, and better than most action films. Just the right amount of comedy mixed in, without so much as to become cartoonish. (See, e.g., Crystal Skull. Actually, don’t see it.)

ezra @ 2: in a cut scene, Indiana supposedly lashes himself to the periscope or the radio transmitter. Not a perfect solution, admittedly. It’s worth bearing in mind that diesel-powered German U-boats spend most of their time not submerged; they needed air to power their main diesel engines. They ran on batteries when submerged, but those batteries had limited capacity, so U-boats tended to submerge only shortly before engaging another vessel.

Yeah, I agree with MPAVictoria, Beverly Hills Cop is still.. amazing (?)
Yep I’ll stick with amazing

“The Eighties sucked.”

No shit. But it actually started in the 70s, with Jaws.

Phil @10:
But I still feel like asking anyone who raves about George Lucas or Spielberg whether they’ve seen anything by Buñuel or Polanski or Hitchcock or Lindsay Anderson or Powell & Pressburger or…

None of those directors, as far as I know, has made any movie that evokes sense of wonder: “a feeling of awakening or awe brought on by an expansion of one’s awareness of what may be possible; the primary emotional experience of reading science fiction.” Although I would say it’s only *one* of the primary emotional sf experiences, the other being conceptual breakthrough.

The Star Wars movies are much better at those than Raiders, but Raiders still has a bit of that flavor, of the world and its possibilities expanding as you watch. I’m not surprised that on re-watching you call it “pretty good but not great”, because that’s how I would rate it in my memory, too.

But how can you diss movies of the 80s, when they include “Brazil”, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”, and “Gallipoli”?

13 Academic Lurker

Good analysis. That’s precisely what does work with the film. The strong female character interplay, Harrison Ford’s mixture of hero and schlep, the ability to jump deftly between terror and humour. The baddies are really bad. The famous scene with the pistol (Ford was suffering too badly from Cairo belly to do the script scene where he pulls the swordsman down with a whip, so he ad libbed it). One could go on.

Probably the plot doesn’t hold up as well in retrospect as it did then, and the memory of the subsequent movies tarnishes the original, but it was a tour de force, for its time. A 1930s movie serial re-done with modern production values.

Doctor Science – on the contrary, every one of them made films that rewired my mind as I watched, in ways Lucas couldn’t imagine doing.

It is a great movie that is weakened by a slow pace

Wow. If you look at it alongside other action movies of the time prior it’s practically jittery.

I watched Bullitt again a while ago and was disappointed to find the car chases unbelievably boring.

*cough* Robocop *cough*

Phil:

I’m sure they did “rewire your mind”, but not, I think, in the boom de yada way. *That’s* sense of wonder.

I don’t know the others’ oeuvres all that well, but Hitchcock, at least, never gave me the boom-de-yada feeling. I’m not saying that’s the only criterion by which a movie *should* be judged, not at all — just that it’s one that’s important to *me*.

There is no such thing as a movie that’s objectively good, in the sense of “gives pleasure to everyone”. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are objectively *bad*, in that they give pleasure to *no-one*.

But I still feel like asking anyone who raves about George Lucas or Spielberg whether they’ve seen anything by Buñuel or Polanski or Hitchcock or Lindsay Anderson or Powell & Pressburger or…

I still feel like asking anyone who likes cotton candy if they’ve ever tried steamed carrots, or chopped liver, or okra, or…..

“But I don’t agree that 80s popular music sucked: there were so many interesting, diverse, creative and talented, but low profile musicians, a variety that was greatly damaged in the 90s when the counterculture merged with the mainstream. Generally, the 90s win the suckiness in music award.”

The 80s saw the flowering of post-punk and the birth of indie rock: Gang of Four, Pixies, Talking Heads, The Fall, The Smiths, Hüsker Dü, The Housemartins, The Minutemen, Mission of Burma, Sonic Youth, The Jesus & Mary Chain…

The 90s were terrible for music *only* if we discount rap/hip hop etc. (Also, Oasis vs Blur – come on!)

Oh, fer heaven’s sake. Maybe it took a decade or two to realize it, but the ’70’s was the peak of American movie making. Everything else looks dim in comparison.

I just saw “The Feelies” last night. So wonderful – they were great in the 80s and they still are fantastic now. Their original songs are wonderful but they have the ability to cover another song and make it their own.

And so as to not to totally derail from the OP, “The Feelies” played the high school reunion band in the movie “Something Wild” by Jonathan Demme, which I think has stood up well lo these many years.

A tangent: toward the end of Die Hard, McClane bursts through a door shoots an Asian bad guy sporting a pony tail.

That guy, or rather that actor, has been shot in dozens of action films and spoken hardly any dialogue. His entire career appears to be built on playing anonymous cannon fodder for action heroes.

Performers should be congratulated for surviving on their art, whether that’s by selling out completely or grinding through bit work and never gaining fame. Hope the guy writes a book.

To Mattf “Oh, fer heaven’s sake. Maybe it took a decade or two to realize it, but the ’70′s was the peak of American movie making. Everything else looks dim in comparison.”

What? Seriously? 70s movies outshine Hud, The Searchers, Rear Window, Psycho, Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, West Side Story, Raging Bull, All About Eve, Lawrence of Arabia, It’s a Wonderful Life, Sunset Boulevard, Seven Samurai, 400 Blows, To Kill a Mockingbird, most Chaplin flicks, Lion King, to name a few?

There is no “greatest decade.” Only great movies – and all decades have great movies.

Now if you’re talking about best years – that would be 1939, which gave us Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninontchka, Of Mice & Men, and of course, Andy Hardy gets Spring Fever.

Or it could be 1950, which gave us Sunset Boulevard, All About Eve, Rashomen, Born Yesterday, Rio Grande, Asphalt Jungle, and Cinderella.

I *knew* I’d get that comparison the wrong way round. Damn iPad.

Ronan: “Lyrically, no generational genre comes even close to matching the rappers from the 90s (even the ones who found mainstream success – Wu Tang, Nas, 2Pac etc)”

Lyrically, I’ll buy that. Musically, I really don’t have enough knowledge of either decade to judge overall, so you could be right. Likewise with techno, etc.

The bestest movie of the 80es is certainly “Big trouble in Little China”.

– Ready, Jack?
– I was born ready.

I saw Raiders on the first or second day after release, and the same for Star Wars.

What I remember about Raiders that was totally new and unique was the continuous action and danger. Yes, there had been millions of feet of film with action and danger, but after the opening sequence we were stunned, and then Indy gets in the plane and … snake on a plane! It went on from there, rarely slowing down, rarely turning the dial back from 11. That is why people loved it, I think. Now, when every movie is like that, it seems a little slow. We, for better or worse (the latter, I think) have come to expect it. Any movie any slower is “high brow” or “literary” or “a women’s picture” (probably with man-eating menstrual pads).

What I remember about Star Wars was its opening sequence, too. It said, in those little crawling bits of backstory, not what it said but rather “Here is the galactic adventure you SF fans have been wanting since you read the Lensmen stories: a complex fictional universe with mystery, adventure and most of all sensawonda. Enjoy!” And we did, because the first two episodes made good on that promise. No primitive teddy bears, no semi-aquatic Stepin’ Fetchits. Even one kickass female character. The funny thing is that except in occasional outliers, movies didn’t take that up. What they took up was more explosions, better special effects, but not sensawonda. Rats.

I still believe Better Off Dead is one of the greatest movies of the 80s. And Heathers. And Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure. I don’t know why two are about suicide. Maybe deep down the 80s knew it needed to die.

I don’t know the others’ oeuvres all that well, but Hitchcock, at least, never gave me the boom-de-yada feeling.

I found that jingle incredibly irritating & had to switch it off after about twenty seconds, but I think I know what you mean, and I think you should see more Hitchcock. And Kubrick. And have you seen Lawrence of Arabia? And Citizen Kane obvs, and I guarantee The Magnificent Ambersons will stop you in your tracks. There are some amazing films out there – don’t settle for the ones that don’t even aspire to deliver anything more than fun.

Oh, and +1 to Heathers. (Also Harold and Maude, while we’re feeling morbid.) But -1 to Tremors – Barry, that’s just weird.

“No shit. But it actually started in the 70s, with Jaws.”

Wrong wrong wrong.

“That guy, or rather that actor, has been shot in dozens of action films and spoken hardly any dialogue. His entire career appears to be built on playing anonymous cannon fodder for action heroes.”

In the spirit of more thread-meandering, this reminded me of one of my more cherished not-quite-major actors, Richard Jaeckel, who died in more movie roles than I can count. His death scene in Sometimes a Great Notion almost won him an Oscar (it should have).

I saw Raiders on its release date, and thought it lived up to its publicity-hype of an updated 40’s serial. Loved that drink-off competition–what a classic way to introduce a strong character into the script.

I think the saddest comment one can make of movies of the 80s is that Rob Reiner might well be the best director of the decade. I mean, I love Stand by Me, but come on.

Any movie that aims to inspire sensawonda is always at risk of alienating the masses. Take Ripley in the construction mecha, laying the beat down on alien scum…You can’t really get any more sensawonda than that. There are other scenes and other movies, as well.

So for the most part, whenever I see people complaining about “sensawonda”, I think the chances are pretty good that there is a very narrow definition of sensawonda being applied by the speaker.

I watched Heathers recently with my older kid and it worked for both of us. He asked “Hey, you were around in the 80s. Right? What movies did you watch. And don’t say Raiders.” and the _only_ one I could think of was Heathers so Heathers is now the 80s for him. He said “So, HS kids were meaner in the 80s? We can’t get away with that shit now. Bullying is out. Also, blowing up a school is frowned on. Croquet looks cool.”

I was hoping someone would mention Back to the Future I and II . . . I missed those but I’m mildly worried about seeing them now. (Yup, Ready Player One reminded me that I missed them.)

“Princess Bride” is the most quoted film in the US over the past thirty years. Various lines have entered our discourse almost the way “Casablanca” did for earlier generations in the US. It is an ’80s film. It is by Rob Reiner (ahem, “calling all toasters”).

Also, it’s amusing to read commenters talking only about their taste in music as if they are speaking with any objective music theory or authority. I like the Smiths, REM, Oasis, to take three examples, dislike almost all rap/hip hop, and…well, it’s all a matter of taste that does not even rise to the level of opinion. If, however, I speak about the Gershwins, Vaughan Williams, Max Roach/Clifford Brown Quintet, Gentle Giant, King Crimson or Kate Bush, I can choose to speak in the language of taste, or speak in terms of music theory. The latter is deemed boring in most places in America, and I find no difference between a NASCAR bar in Mississippi, Crooked Timber or The Nation when it comes to a discussion of music. All speak with an anti-intellectual perspective that casts snark and aspersions on anyone who attempts to use unusual time signatures, counterpoint or promote virtuosity in playing musical instruments.

@63, calling all toasters 09.28.13 at 9:40 pm: “Nirvana, The Chronic, Illmatic, Achtung Baby, R.E.M., A Tribe Called Quest, The Jayhawks, Lyle Lovett, Mary J. Blige, Siamese Dream, OK Computer, Live Through This, Play, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, The Slim Shady LP, Life After Death, Urban Hymns, Yo La Tengo, Wu Tang Clan, Odelay, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, and Pavement.”

Do you think this list is clearly better than WEU’s? There’s some great stuff here, but I’m not sure.

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea could almost single handedly win it–it’s possibly the greatest album in the last 30 years. But variety and number count. Beck is definitely an important one. And we’d have to add Bjork, who I think is one of the consistently best musicians of the 90s.

But many on your list started in the 80s: U2, REM, Yo La Tengo. Many might belong, in spirit, to the 80s, like Pavement. Nirvana, of course, is deeply indebted to the Pixies, so maybe not a clear and distinct 90s band.

And I know it’s going to get me in trouble, but although I like Nirvana and Radiohead, I just don’t think they’re especially great bands. The real contender from Radiohead is Kid A, a 2000s album in letter and spirit.

Re: Spielberg and the Eighties. An interesting time for the Boy Wonder. He consolidated his commercial standing with Raiders and E.T., then embarked on a program of artistic self-improvement as a director while as a producer he oversaw noisy junk that embodied the worst aspects of Spielbergism — The Goonies, Batteries Not Included, Amazing Stories, et al. His self-improvement movies are a decidedly mixed bag. Always and The Color Purple are truly embarrassing to watch, and portions of Empire of the Sun make you wonder if he even understands what’s happening in the story. But his subsequent work, whether in his commercial (Jurassic Park) or the prestige (Schindler’s List) modes, is significantly better.

“I’ll accept that the 80s are a lowpoint in movies.”

I think this is only tenable if you’re talking about Hollywood. As someone who came of age in the 1980s, I loved the foreign (well, mostly British) movies that would come to my local arthouse cinema: My Beautiful Laundrette, Prick Up Your Ears, Letters to Brezhnev, Wish You Were Here, Local Hero, Mona Lisa, Gregory’s Girl, Jean de Florette, Manon des Sources, My Left Foot, Betty Blue, A Room with a View, Maurice, Another Country, Tampopo, Babette’s Feast, plus others that I’m sure I’m forgetting. Perhaps not all of these would hold up if I rewatched them, but I thought it was a really exciting period in film.

There was plenty of good independent movie-making in the US then, too–although I’ll admit that I found Stranger than Paradise to be unwatchable when I tried a few years ago. (Down by Law held up better.)

“I was hoping someone would mention Back to the Future I and II”

I watched BttF I recently with a group of friends and it totally holds up. Plus Michael J Fox is just so good in the role.

“I loved the foreign (well, mostly British) movies”

Yeah, but even there, I don’t think you’ll find anything nearly as good as O Lucky Man! or Le Magnifique.

“I think the saddest comment one can make of movies of the 80s is that Rob Reiner might well be the best director of the decade.”

Well, John Carpenter made They Live, which was kinda 70s-like.

I dunno, I looked up the “great films of the 80s,” and in addition to those mentioned (Raiders, Back to the Future, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard – all of which I’ve seen, liked, and still occasionally watch when they’re rerun on late-nite tv), there were tons of films on the Top 100 I loved when they came out, and some I rewatch with pleasure.

War films: Good Morning, Vietnam/ Platoon (okay, only saw that one once) / Full Metal Jacket (which I saw for the first time 4 years ago, D’Onofrio’s breakaway role)

Social drama: Body Heat/ Kiss of the Spider Woman/ The Big Chill / Children of a Lesser God (I think I had a crush on William Hurt in the 80s) / Mississippi Burning (I rewatch this one every couple of years; still holds up extremely well)/ Scarface / The Untouchables (loved it then, still love it today)

Comedy: Blues Brothers (Ackroyd and Belushi; inimitable duo)/ Trading Places (I know, but hey)/ A Fish Called Wanda

Music: Footloose (since remade, but Kevin Bacon’s great in the original) / Flashdance (cult film for dance film groupies)

All-time favorite: Robocop. Because, Robocop.

So I’d say that for my own rather run-of-the-mill genre tastes, the 80s were a pretty good decade.

callingalltoasters,

I suspect we’re not going to see eye to eye here, but we clearly run in different music circles, because everyone I know loves many of those bands’ “unheard music.” Of course, we’re all pretty damn old. But I’d add that every young serious music fan I know loves *some* of those bands, and many of the critically acclaimed bands of the last decade are heavily influenced by them. So, I think they’re less obscure than you imply. Again, may be the circles we run in, and I’m a music geek. (And of course many of the novels and films discussed here might seem obscure to many.)

For the record, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, and Springsteen are pretty damn great, too.

“Pixies and Sonic Youth– OK, good bands. I think they peaked in the late 80s, when a lot of 90s-ish music began”

Funny, I’ve been thinking in the exact opposite way: the early 90s belong to the 80s. For example, the Pixies put out two great albums in the 90s, but I give the 80s the points.

My reasoning here is degrees of influence. I think grunge and shoegazer are deeply rooted in 80s noise pop and britpop like Smiths and the Cure, so they don’t count as solidly as 90s. The 90s begin with aesthetic breakaway from that past: techno, hiphop, new britpop, house, crazy bits of everything people like beck.

“The Fall, The Minutemen, Mission of Burma, The Jesus & Mary Chain I’ve heard of most of these bands, but never heard them.”

Oh, give them a try! The Jesus and Mary Chain and the Fall especially.

“The seventies was one of the greatest decades in the history of American film”

Bloix,

Could you say a bit more about why, and which directors you have in mind? My film-geek friends always tell me this, but I’m not convinced.

I find American 70s movies a bit too formulaic and forced in their attempts at gritty realism–the muted colors, the rough camerawork, the sweaty closeups, the usually unconvincing improvisational dialogue, the tendency to have a highbrow attitude while obsessing with the lowbrow world (cab drivers, prostitutes, mean streets, bickering middle aged couples, etc).

“loud, frenetic, childish, badly acted, poorly plotted, overtly racist and sexist (and proud of it) and aggressively stupid.”

Stupid, yes, and very, very boring. Even if you survive watching it, the next day you can’t remember anything. And that includes, for me, An Officer and A Gentleman and The Princess Bride. Moonstruck was okay. Compare with something like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest: that was so strong, it could change your life.

Slightly OT, but have any of y’all rewatched AMERICAN GRAFFITI recently? I’ve always thought of it as Lucas’s best film (thus lending credence to the he-got-worse thesis), but I haven’t seen it since the ’80s (when it used to play often in repertory film theaters…remember those?). I now realize that I have no idea whatsoever whether ot not it holds up.

Stands up brilliantly – but a lot of that is down to Walter Murch’s sound design. I’ve watched all of Lucas’s early movies, the early Coppola and a lot of the New Hollywood stuff recently and its the innovations in sound that blow me away. THX1138 is basically the 2001 of sound.

Lucas’ first three movies are basically the same story: young man agonising about leaving home realises it’s only himself holding him back. Hell, THX1138 tells that story three times…

Help! Free my comment from moderation! Not that it’s so insightful but because it’s about the Feelies. Also, how does one get into moderation “jail”.

Seriously, is anyone on this thread also reading the several Belle Waring threads? Obviously John Holbo is. Can anyone who finds Jonathan Franzen unreadably sexist genuinely enjoy George Lucas? How can that be?

Well yeah, all the women condemning the macho guy stuff over there probably are not bothering here, because video ain’t literature or something.

Greatest artist of the 80s was Takahashi Rumiko, with a half-dozen masterpieces.

Biggest world visual event was probably the 279 episode Oshin exported to Iran and Turkey, written and directed by women.

I loved ‘Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade’. the other two were at least OK.

What, no love for The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension?

So what? Big deal.

I enjoyed Raiders a lot the first umpty-umpt times I watched it, but I haven’t revisited it in years now. I suspect that the mdslet will enjoy it when he’s old enough. “I don’t know; I’m making this up as I go.” Or the way Paul Freeman hisses “Jones!” to himself when something explodes for no obvious reason.

On the other hand, I consider Close Encounters of the Third Kind to be Spielberg’s best work. So take the above opinion with a grain of salt, ideally applied to a heaping mound of mashed potatoes.

RE: The 80’s music discussion:

Look, I can see your Gang of Four and raise you Wire (tho the best regarded work by both is in the late 70’s), etc. etc., but you all are crazy, because:

This happened!

“The seventies was one of the greatest decades in the history of American film”

Bloix,

Could you say a bit more about why, and which directors you have in mind? My film-geek friends always tell me this, but I’m not convinced.

I can’t speak for Bloix, but the “New Hollywood” stuff people often talk about is (and it is excellent) is stuff like Coppola’s The Conversation, a bunch of Scorsese/Altman/De Palma (very much a personal favorite), maybe some Pakula (The Parallax View is excellent, e.g.), maybe also Bonnie and Clyde, tho it’s not technically the 70’s. Oh, and Point Blank is one of my favorite films from that, or maybe any, era, and it kind of fits with the rest.

Generally, I think it’s fair to say that it’s darker, grittier, and with a lot of less redemption at the end than what went before. Also, it’s Hollywood directors imbibing some of the new visual styles and techniques of 60’s European film, esp. maybe Antonioni and the French New Wave. What’s not to like!?

The Blues Brothers was not a flop. Maybe you’re thinking of Neighbors.

Two Eighties adventure movies that are quite a bit better than Raiders: Romancing The Stone and Tremors. (And I think Raiders is decent.)

Yes. Also, how can anyone say 80s movies are awful when there is Earth Girls Are Easy? A wonderful movie, which completely captures the 80s in L.A. Also, too, Beverly Hills Cop? Another wonderful movie. Just rewatched Ruthless People, as well, and while it has some flaws, I think it’s a really good comedy.

But I think Spielberg is a rotten director. His only bearable films, IMNVHO, are ones where he had a really strong story — Jaws, Jurassic Park — or had someone else working with him — Raiders I. Otherwise, he seems to have the emotional depth of a backward 8 year old.

Not trying to derail the thread — that’s been done already — but Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a 1982 film. Which probably just confirms whatever view you have about 80s movies.

“However, as a trilogy the Lethal Weapon series is probably stronger overall.”

I’ll go as far as say, as a trilogy, pound for pound, Lethal Weapon is better then the Godfather

How can 61 be so right but 65 be so wrong? How..

“I’ll go as far as say, as a trilogy, pound for pound, Lethal Weapon is better then the Godfather”

Leonard Part 6 is better than all the previous 5 parts put together.

“How can 61 be so right but 65 be so wrong? How..”

Just relax Ronan and take a deep breath. I am sure the men in white coats will be by to pick you up soon…
;-)

Anderson@118: Monty Python and the Holy Grail, duh. Eric Rohmer’s Perceval is kind of great, but very strange and uncommercial even for Rohmer.

119: thanks for the tip. Sounds weird yet intriguing!

The sad truth is that American movies from the ’80s sucked more than Miss Grey at her Gang explosion movie.

East Coast vs. West Coast rap? I don’t want any shootings in here kids.

Oh fuck, I can’t deny any Wu-Tang Clan. Let’s just say, the increasing maturation of hip-hop as a musical genre with various styles. Except then Puff Daddy came and a dark shadow was cast across the lands, etc.

Cavafy

“You will walk
the same streets, grow old in the same neighborhoods,
will turn gray in these same houses.
You will always end up in this city.”

TLC

“Don’t go chasing waterfalls
Please stick to the rivers and lakes that
You’re used to
I know that you’re gonna have it your way
Or nothing at all
But I think you’re moving too fast”

What am I missing here..? Whats the difference?

Nothing. You’re not missing a damn thing.
TLC

A scrub is a guy that thinks he’s fly
And is also known as a buster
Always talkin’ about what he wants
And just sits on his broke ass
I don’t want no scrub
A scrub is a guy that can’t get no love from me
Hangin’ out the passenger side
Of his best friend’s ride
Tryin’ to holla at me
I don’t want no scrub

Cavafy

I am very moved by one detail
in the coronation at Vlachernai of John Kantakuzinos
and Irini, daughter of Andronikos Asan.
Because they had only a few precious stones
(our afflicted empire was extremely poor)
they wore artificial ones: numerous pieces of glass,
red, green, or blue. I find
nothing humiliating or undignified
in those little pieces of colored glass.
On the contrary, they seem
a sad protest against
the unjust misfortune of the couple being crowned,
symbols of what they deserved to have,
of what surely it was right that they should have
at their coronation—a Lord John Kantakuzinos,
a Lady Irini, daughter of Andronikos Asan.

A friend of mine who used to rave about Paula Abdul when a little high finally saw MJ in concert – it was like he’d come to Jesus. No better world and all that. It’ll be a thousand years before anyone and all that. But let’s face it – the man was the best. No-one had his choreography, musical talent, voice, etc. in one package. Not. Even. Close. And I just watched Princess Bride with my 11-year-old daughter – it reminded me of Monsieur Croche, “Its taste in the mouth, both strange and delightful, is of a pink bonbon filled with snow.”. (Thank you Internet.) Of course I enjoyed it. And when I’m eighty-four, inshallah, I’ll enjoy it again. Does that make it great? “If it sounds good, it is good.”. So it’s good. Who cares about great? Do I have time for great? I could die of old age searching for great! And would I know it if I found it? How do I know? I don’t know! But maybe I’ll watch Raiders again, just to calibrate…

Bloix
I think you have something, bearing in mind geo’s ‘there are numerous ways to enjoy great art’ etc.
Perhaps it’s easier to ignore misogyny in music (and no one denies that *a lot* of rap is deeply misogynistic – especially from that era) because the expectations from music aren’t primarily lyrical. (Belle, above, doesnt mention rap known for its lyrics, rather for its musical content) So you can say the positives in this case outweigh the negatives
There are other reasons I cant think of at the minute, but perhaps thats one..

Another vote for Beverly Hills Cop (& I’m a sucker for the theme song).

Bloix
Actually.. I want to clarify that, because I dont want it taken up wrong (and I hope this doesnt get overwrought etc)
My reading of Belle’s comment was it specifically stressed the musical aspects of West Coast rap

“The Chronic was the best album of the 90s..That sound was so fresh that when St. Ides Malt Liquor made a series of 30-second ads with a crazy all-star cast of rapper.. I was living in California at the time, everywhere you went that Parliament/Funkadelic riff was pouring out of every open window: “swing down, sweet chariot stop and let me ride.” You may not like the slick sound and loping beat and twinkling synth transitions from chorus to bridge that you hear in almost every track on the radio, but it came from a good place, and that place was LA, in the 90s. During which Ice Cube had a “Good Day.”

I think it’s more difficult to make the non misogynistic case for rap that stressed lyrics over music,( ie the Wu Tang). Belle mentions Nas, but Illmatic wasnt misogynistic in any systematic way
So you can enjoy a lot of it (perhaps) despite it being problematic. Its a personal opinion thoughm so I dont know (I was going to raise the same question vis a vis The Stones etc – Brown Sugar! – in the last thread. I dont know how this works itself out)

The thought did cross my mind fwiw

Anyway, what’s wrong with being sexy?

Bloix:

…Raiders/Star Wars movies were a catastrophic blow to the heart for the future of Hollywood films: loud, frenetic, childish, badly acted, poorly plotted, overtly racist and sexist (and proud of it) and aggressively stupid. The very moral of Star Wars – repeated continuously so you can’t possibly miss the point – is that thinking is a very bad way to solve problems. And is there a more passive heroine in the history of movie-making than Marion Ravenwood? Oh, wait – how could I forget Princess Leia?

Seriously, is anyone on this thread also reading the several Belle Waring threads? Obviously John Holbo is. Can anyone who finds Jonathan Franzen unreadably sexist genuinely enjoy George Lucas? How can that be?

‘Raiders’ I view as a fairly forgettable Hollywood action movie, despite what one commenter above, DaveL, says about its continuous placing of the characters in danger etc. ‘Star Wars’ on the other hand is different. It creates a world in a way that ‘Raiders’ doesn’t. Is it profound? No, I think not, though I know at least one smart person who thinks it is. But I think to call it “aggressively stupid” is prob. an overstatement.

More pertinently, Star Wars is pop culture/mass culture; Franzen is not. I think different standards therefore apply; or maybe it’s better to say that one may legitimately apply different standards. (I also don’t think of the Star Wars movies as esp. sexist or racist but perhaps I just never thought to ask whether they are.)

I agree w Ian Munro @76 about good *non*-Hollywood movies in the 80s; however, as far as Hollywood and the ‘name’ American directors are concerned, the 70s are the better decade for reasons that have already been elaborated on by others above.

A while back Nils Gilman had a post on best movies of the 70s:
http://smallprecautions.blogspot.com/2013/05/best-movies-of-1970s.html

which I commented briefly on here:
http://howlatpluto.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-1970s-on-screen.html

So, this thread—esp. Belle’s reference to “Good Day” (which, fucking awesome!)—made me put on Death Certificate, and that shit as good as anything from the 90s. Also, Ready to Die has not gotten nearly enough love on this thread. So, yeah, hooray to “the increasing maturation of hip-hop” (BW @132).

Or ..

..theres a lot of path dependance in my yout**ing

Thanks js! I’m loving this thread, but have to go to bed.
Somehow, I ended up here ..

Oh, yeah. Frequently in those adventure serials there would be a submarine, and the guy in the fedora would jump onto the back of it. The only thing Spielberg left out was the gyrocopters. Always there were gyrocopters.

Death Certificate! I love that to…death. I have had occasion to be in the ER waiting room with fucking blood coming out of my face, “one hour had passed/done watched two episodes of M.A.S.H.” Like, hello triage motherfuckers?

I never thought Raiders or the other Spielberg films from the decade were all that special. Maybe it’s a blind spot for me, but I always felt manipulated by Spielberg and that the film was thematically weak (though I feel that way about most science fiction films; it may be the thematic content of the best sf simply does not film, or at least has not yet been filmed.) That said, it was a kind of filmmaking and story that had almost disappeared, and Raiders was a lot of fun.

Lucas…I think he was and is much more successful as a visual designer than a storyteller. Star Wars was the first visually persuasive space opera, and his work there still stands; head and shoulders above even most current work made with better technology. But his stories and direction of actors were poor.

I’d like to see the thematic content of great written science fiction brought to the screen, as well as the beautiful scenery. But maybe it is not possible. Or, maybe anime is making a better job of it. Has anyone considered Cordwainer Smith as anime? I think that could be utterly successful.

Then again, I have modest hopes for the film production of Vonda McIntyre’s The Moon and the Sun.

People have mentioned John Carpenter but not The Thing? I just did a text search because I thought I must have missed it. The Thing, Blade Runner, Robocop, Aliens, the first two Terminators, Repo Man. What a decade the 80s were for SF films. There’s literally nothing like that any more.

What I like about Raiders is that it presents a sexually attractive man, in a delightful way. I particularly like that he’s a bit useless some of the time.

@131, sorry about the misunderstanding about the ‘yawn’ part: it was directed entirely at commenters. The last I read was someone analyzing Dostoyevsky as a murder-mystery author, sort of a 19c Elmore Leonard.

2. The management in this case is anyone with an Author account.
1. I know them when I see them. LGM-style posts, with denunciations and massive amounts of sarcasm and swagger. And CT-style posts: well, a bit lighter. Needless to say, nothing’s wrong with the LGM style. If anything, it’s more popular, obviously. But their comment threads are not that good, imho.
Hope it helps.

adam.smith: perhaps I chose the wrong directors to list*, but I really wasn’t trying to play the High Culture card. Kubrick, Welles, Hitchcock, David Lean, Powell & Pressburger, Bill Forsyth – all these people were playing the same game as Lucas & Spielberg, making the same kinds of films for the same kinds of audience. You can have action, suspense, wide-open spaces, the shock of the unknown… and wit, characterisation, story and visual beauty. Put it another way, Lucas’s films are playing the same game as those people, just not doing it very well – but they do have the 40s-serial virtues of frenetic pacing, obvious black- & white-hats and stupid jokes, and that gives them a lot of candy-floss appeal.

*I just really like Buñuel. A long time ago on a list far far away, someone was soliciting recommendations for films to watch when off work with flu. I said “Call me insufferably pretentious, but in those situations I always fancy something by Buñuel.” “Phil, you’re insufferably pretentious, came the almost immediate reply.

“Why should I be compelled to read Freedom on that same basis?”

I figure you asked that question in a rhetorical mode, Belle, but I’m going to un-rhet it and provide an explicit answer: You shouldn’t. There’s only so much time in the world, you’ve given Franzen a chance already, and he’s given you no reason the want more. Nor, on the face of it, has anyone in these conversations come up with compelling reasons for you to reconsider.

And the thing is, it is possible for a person to reconsider and give an author, or a composer or a performer, painter, whatever, another chance. They have to be ‘within range’ and the reconsideration means hard work. You change yourself so that this thing you didn’t like, now ‘fits’. But someone has to give you a compelling reason to make the change.

When you’re young, the prospect of flunking is school may, just may, be a compelling reason. But we’re adults here so that kind of thing doesn’t work.

And, it’s possible for people to like different things.

In any event, I figure that the value of contemporary works is pretty much in suspension. We each of us have our preferences, but that proverbial ‘test of time’ really does take time. I mean, even Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare in his time. People knew he was good, some of them, but it took a couple of centuries for him to become The Immortal Bard. What made him immortal was other people copping his stuff and building around and on it.

We don’t know what contemporary writers are going to have their stuff stolen by our grandchildren. It’s our grandchildren who’re going to make the call about the great writers of today. All we can do is nominate them.

So, some folks here want to nominate Franzen for consideration by the grandkids. OK.

And Belle is saying that, from a certain group of writers who happen to be very well known these days, she doesn’t want to put any of them in nomination. And she’s given her reasons.

End of story.

(Oh, in case someone points this out … I wouldn’t go to the cinema knowing I had the flu, in case I passed it on to someone else. I was at the point where I was going down with a fever but hadn’t realised that was what was happening).

It always strikes me in discussions like these how insular the English speaking world is culturally. In this discussion, discussing the 80s, the vast majority of examples that are being brought up are in the English language, examples from other countries are hardly mentioned. Looking outside the bubble, we find that major directors made great films and some masterpieces during the 80s, e.g.:

Truffaut / Bergman / Beneix / Wenders / Kurasawa / Woo / Tavernier / Bresson / Resnais / Malle / Besson / Leconte / Varda / Berri / Wajda / Kieslowski / Fassbinder / Tarkovsky / Rohmer / Kusturica / Kaurismaeki / Hsiao-Hsien / Klimov / Beizai / Hallström

Raven,

Because the Bloix wouldn’t be able to sneer at the rest of us for being immature because we like racist, sexist pieces of art. I’m also curious exactly what he finds racist / sexist about the Indiana Jones films.

It always strikes me in discussions like these how insular the English speaking world is culturally.

You’re talking about 380 million people here; it’s a pretty big island to be insular on.

Bloix @162. I’ve heard that rap about 100 times from people who didn’t like Raiders, and another 100 from people who didn’t like Star Wars. I doubt any of them ever actually saw a 30’s-40’s serial of either genre. I can remember the Flash Gordon serials shown on TV, but that’s all. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Raiders-esque serial anywhere, though I have no doubt they exist. The few clips from them I’ve seen on Youtube do not support your thesis either.

Both movies are attempts, mostly successful, to take something that thrilled the director at age 12 and make it into something that was as good as his memory of it but much much better than the actual original. I don’t think this is an ambition to be derided, as it underlies a lot of cultural endeavor. Best of all, they are both successful. He really did polish up and improve the sources in a major way. If you want to nail your thesis to the other Indiana Jones movies, I’ll gleefully join you, though with a small reservation about Last Crusade. Same for all the Star Wars movies after The Empire Strikes Back.

Donald A. Coffin @133. That was a great moment in film, one which audiences had waited for since Thomas Edison. Vaughn Bode had done it earlier in a Cheech Wizard strip, of course. It’s also been described as an acting out of Western imperialism. Another similar moment was when Major Toht pulls out his torture instrument to use on Marion Ravenwood, and it turns out to be a collapsable hanger which he then carefully hangs his coat on. (No doubt moments like that are why Bloix calls the movie a “parody,” though.)

SusanC @169. I liked A Scanner Darkly a lot, and I’m not sure why I didn’t like it more. Maybe it was Keanu Reaves, maybe it was the rotoscoping. It was a much more faithful adaptation than Blade Runner.

What, this thread about movies and music is talking about books now? Franzen again? Please nooooooooooo!

Although I can offer an overwrought, not particularly coherent and, certainly, idiotic analysis of the many layers of Robocop
Any interest, feel free to ask

1. “Takahashi Rumiko” – yes.

2. Raiders is better than Flash Gordon serials, better than Zorro too.

3. My addled mind gets from “LGM” to “Little Green Men” & Buzz Lightyear long before “Lawyers, Guns, and Money”.

MG@44

The Feelies are wonderful, and two 80s classics to add to the list: Crazy Rhythms and The Good Earth.

Mao @167: “@131, sorry about the misunderstanding about the ‘yawn’ part: it was directed entirely at commenters. The last I read was someone analyzing Dostoyevsky as a murder-mystery author, sort of a 19c Elmore Leonard.”

I sometimes tell my students that bored people are boring. Interest is active, not passive. You don’t wait for it to take you; you take it. The remedy for people not saying interesting things about Dostoyevsky is for you to say something interesting about Dostoyevsky. But instead you asked the moderator Gods to do it for you, like a child complaining to its parents that it’s bored. If you had nothing interesting to say, that’s fine, but why slag on the people who are interested in the conversation?

Anyway, I was clearly joking around with the Who Done It comparison. Dostoyevsky is the only human being that I worship like a god. I really do almost worship him like a god. In the movie heavenly creatures, two teenage girls light candles at an alter of Orson Welles. In The 400 Blows, the kid has an alter to, was it Balzac? I generally don’t get that kind of reverence. Except for Dostoyesvky. I deny God to make room for Dostoyevsky.

So, no, that comparison wasn’t serious, and I take the man seriously. The whole point of the conversation was that a 50 page test is unsuited to many great novels. That it’s more suited to the structure of a cheap thriller than a masterpiece. The whole point of comparing Crime and Punishment to a crime novel was to show the difference: it’s not about if and how he gets caught. The whole point is that if I ask the 50 page test what to read, 50 page test will say, “Screw that Dosty what’s his name shit, how about some Elmore Leonard?”

The best thing about Crime and Punishment is that it’s a bait and switch. It tells you it’s a story about actions, but it’s a story about thoughts. It tells you it’s about crime and punishment, but then it’s about neither. It’s about good and evil and guilt, and the confusion of legal and illegal and punishment with those things.

I just realized that Star Wars [episode IV… sigh…] is a movie from ’77, not from the 80s.

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but you say that as if it was a good thing. To each their own, but I find it a bit sad. If cinema – and the arts in general – are, among other things, supposed to facilitate the understanding between people and cultures, to lead us to the idea of a common humanity, then the anglo-saxon monoculture certainly isn’t helping.”

It’s a thread about blockbusters from one’s youth! Not everyone had the privilege of growing up in a town with a multicultural small arts cinema. What are you gonna do next, beat up on people for eating in Burgerland?
I would imagine your complaints have some support here, and people here have somewhat diverse tastes and have heard of the artists you list, but in the name of Jesus its a thread about 80s blockbusters

“PS- in an effort to get this thread back on track, let me say again that Raiders is the worst sort of infantile hokum. It’s not even a real movie. It’s a parody of 1930′s and 40′s serials, and it’s worse than they were, and they sucked. Anyone who enjoys it has a mental age of 12.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You obviously have no taste in movies at all. You probably also hate Ghostbusters, Groundshog Day, and the first Lord of the Rings Movie and spend your time watching black and white foreign language films about existential despair.

/Mostly kidding, though I do disagree with you opinion on the Lucas films from the 80s.

Might be instructive to compare ‘Raiders’ to a 1970s movie, specifically John Huston’s version of the Kipling story ‘The Man Who Would be King’ w/ Sean Connery and Michael Caine (if memory serves).

I certainly enjoyed The Man Who Would Be King, but I would vigorously push back against the notion that it’s better than Raiders. And I’m definitely not inclined to give bonus points simply for being made in the 70s (I know you weren’t suggesting that, but I get tired of the vocal “the 70s were the pinnacle of civilization re: film and Spielberg is Satan Himself” position that always comes up during these discussions).

I also second what Susan said in 87 about the real life antics of the Ahnenerbe. The Nazis were into some pretty loopy stuff that makes the premise of Raiders look almost plausible in context.

I don’t see what was ‘racist’ about The Man Whp Would Be King either (haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve read the novella). It seems like crooked timber is political correctness gone round the bend.

+1 to everyone who has quoted Cavafy. I didn’t understand the comparison and it’s role in the larger discussion, but I endorse quoting Cavafy at any time for any reason because, well, Cavafy! I don’t know many people who know his work, so I’m happy to see that he is loved.

Also, +1 for Takahashi Rumiko. I had no idea who she was, but then I googled it: Ranma 1/2! Nothing but tragedy happens to Lychee!

What should I read by her next?

callingalltoasters @95: “’Oh, give them a try! The Jesus and Mary Chain and the Fall especially.’ I will. You should try Illmatic, if you haven’t already.”

Don’t know it, but it’s on my playlist now, with many of the others mentioned in this thread. By the way, you might start with Jesus and Mary Chain’s Darklands, which I find a little more satisfying than the rest. Critics and indie geeks prefer Psychocandy, which is indeed a brilliant mix of the Beach Boys and feedback drenched noise worthy of Phil Spector conducting the Velvet Underground, but the balance often falls to far on the noise side.

Agreed about the unutterably beautiful Trinity Sessions by the Cowboy Junkies–it does seem to be the opening to a predominantly 90s development.

LFC @189. The Man Who Would Be King is an excellent movie, but it’s trying to do something completely different and much more serious than what Raiders is about, in spite of the Boy’s Own Adventure substrate. I doubt anyone is claiming that Raiders is a serious movie.

Hector St. Clare @200. Given that the whole movie (and story) is about the idiocy and hubris of imperialism, it’s hard to see. I suppose one might interpret the “heroes” as racists, which they might even be, but they are hardly portrayed as any sort of model to emulate, so any racism comes with the territory. (It’s been a while since I re-watched the movie, so I don’t remember whether there is even any overt racism in it, rather than imperialism.)

Mao @ 167

That kind of blanket condemnation of your fellow commenters stinks of toadie mentality. ‘No boss, I wasn’t criticizing you, I was talking about your other servants who are not worthy of your attention; at least I’m a lot better than they are; right boss, right?

It surprised me to read it because you’re obviously not an idiot (come to think of it, idiot does derive from the Greek idiotes, private-minded citizen…). Sorry for the rudeness, but I find this kind of Suneo Honekawa-like groveling to be dangerous

Anderson @199
If Indiana Jones doesn’t believe in the magical powers of the Ark, why does he tell the woman to close her eyes (IIRC, I only watched this crap once, like 30 years ago) when the Ark is being opened? Out of respect?

Also, all praise to Rumiko Takahashi-sensei and her delightful books for children of ages 5 to 105.

@Anon
While I agree with Bill that Maison Ikkoku is probably the best work of Takahashi, if you like stories of life and death you should read also Takahashi’s “mermaid forest ” saga, a series of horror stories about life and death.

Hi Cleanthes, 210.
I’m sorry you feel this way. Of course I’m no better. If anyone is better, your thoughtful reply clearly indicates that it must be you.
Anyway, please rest assured that your comment has been noted and your criticism will receive all the attention it deserves.

Mao @ 214
I apologize. I was too forceful, perhaps even rude. I was shocked because that one comment of yours was completely out of character with the other usually smart and thoughtful posts of yours I’ve read. And, for what is worth, I don’t think myself better than anybody. If anything, being a rookie at CT, I’m a kohai to my senpais like you.

In any case, it’s too late, the damage is done, I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you for your measured, perhaps a little ironic, reply.

#194

Since the discussion had meandered into more general territory (the 80s), I thought I might throw in a general but related observation, but it seems the mere mention of “foreign” films seems to trigger some sort of cultural defense mechanism in some quarters – which kind of proves my point.

Novakant
It was the hectoring more than the observation, and the eurocentricity of your list

Cleanthes, thanks.

dsquared @ 177:
if Dr Jones had just stayed at home and not wasted all that time, the result would have been the same anyway

Not entirely the same: if Jones had stayed at home, Belloq & the Nazis would probably never have found the Ark in the first place. (The Nazis have to follow Jones to Nepal to get the “Headpiece of the Staff of Ra”, without which you don’t know where to dig for the Ark. Even then, they screw things up by only getting one side of the headpiece, as it were; if Jones hadn’t gone on to Egypt with the real headpiece and conveniently dug up the Ark for them, they might still never have found it.)

@225 engels,

I was able to understand the other side of this debate a little better by realizing that enjoyment is a third, distinct issue from both moral and aesthetic judgment. Judging something artistically good or bad doesn’t directly correlate with enjoyment.

I can find something morally flawed, aesthetically good, and enjoyable.
I can also find something morally flawed, aesthetically good, and *not* enjoyable.
So in the case of two morally and aesthetically flawed works, it doesn’t follow that I will or should enjoy or disenjoy them equally. It may sometimes be the case, but not always.

engels @207/225:

I just pulled my copy of Gravity’s Rainbow (2006 Penguin reissue) off the shelf. Here’s the blurb on the back:

“The most profound and accomplished American novel since the end of World War II.”

The invocation of “American novel” there carries with it an implicit understanding of the place of the book in question in the context of post-WWII cultural production as a whole, its importance and relevance to US culture and society, etc. No one talks about pop music in this way. That discourse just doesn’t exist. So it’s perfectly sensible to forward a critique of the works that are accorded such cultural accolades, a critique that in its essentials is just not going to apply to the Beastie Boys.

godoggo, stop doing what?

Anon: I don’t plan on answering that question.

That works out really well, since I was going to do what I wanted anyway.

There is – or there used to be – an absolutely hilarious music video “Dr. Jones” by British musical comedian Tom McDonnell that would be perfect for this thread. Unfortunately, the only links I can no find indicate the video has been made private. A terrible shame, as it’s both a great song and a well done video. The song can still I think be heard as part of Mitch Benn’s Music Podcast Episode 2, starting about 20 minutes in.

The Man Who Would Be King was apparently based on real-life accounts of various European & American adventurers in that part of the world.

“Between London Calling and 1988 there was nothing but pop, worn-out 70s stars, and the other decade of R.E.M. Ptui.”

Apparently you’ve had a stroke and forgot The Blasters.

The Man Who Would Be King was apparently based on real-life accounts of various European & American adventurers in that part of the world.

By Josiah Harlan primarily as well as James Brooke. * Harlan was a truly odd character, an American, an abolitionist and the Prince of Ghor – his descendents still retain the title. There was a bio done of him about a decade back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/books/a-yankee-in-the-great-game.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

The movie has been one of my favorites since I was a kid. I’ll take it over Indian Jones any day of the week (and twice on Saturdays when it used to run on NYC area TV).

*Both of whom make for some memorable appearances in some of the Flashman novels.

engels,

Are you really trying to impress upon us that a ton of pop music is sexist? You think I’ve never listened to Exile in Guyville? (Seriously, I probably could still give you most of the lyrics to “Divorce Song” if I tried.)

Look, I know about the working title to Licensed to Ill, and I frankly love “Borderline schizo/sorta fine tits though” (because how could you not?). But the idea that a critique of canonical (hence male, roughly) novelists of the latter half of the 20th century would have to carry over to hip hop is frankly bizarre. Also, as BW pointed out way up above somewhere, why not the howls of resistance to the Stones? (Surely just because they’re Brits?)

There was indeed: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073639/

With a screenplay by the author himself, directed by Richard Lester and starring Malcolm McDowell as Sir Harry. It’s … okay. Which is to say at least mildly disappointing considering the caliber of the cast and crew as well as the source material.

@249. Yep. Royal Flash 1975. Richard Lester directing. Some great stars. Not-memorable as a fillum-experience. (@250 – tip of titfer)

OP. C’mon. Several people have made the claim, correctly, that whatever its faults (and they might have been deliberate, who knows?) Raiders is a bloody good updating, replaying, of the old serials made around the 30s and 40s. That was the intention, and for my money, in its first blush, it worked admirably.

Growing up after the War the re-runs of these very serials were a staple for Very Loud Kids having fun on Saturday for 6d or sump’n like it.

I saw Raiders when it first came to our local flea-pit in the early 80s. I grinned from ear-to-ear, as did many other folk lolling about in the dark, with the affection given to those shockingly bad/good 40s flicks and, and, for the sniff of memories of being one, amongst many young Saturday morning hooligans, years before. No, it’s not “Great” but it is about affection and enjoyment.

“Groundhog Day is a lovely movie. It’s Bunuel with a sunny personality”

Groundhog Day is didactic in your face, how can that be lovely? And, sorry, Bill Murray is annoying. Yeah, deadpan delivery, I get it. But after a while it becomes as interesting a schtick as Bobcat Goldthwait’s.

If you mean that these men were all popular artists trying to work within the commercial studio system, that’s true. But in an earlier era feature films were generally aimed at a target demographic consisting mostly of mature women. Now, it’s adolescent males of all ages.

That’s two shifts rather than one, and I think Spielberg & Lucas have some responsibility for both of them. Firstly, I think it’s true that before the mid- to late 70s you didn’t pitch a mainstream film at an adolescent audience; they could have Beach Blanket Bingo, but proper films were for grown-ups (of both sexes). Even kids’ films – or family films, as they were known – would typically have a romantic sub-plot, presumably pitched at the women who were taking their kids along. I remember thinking American Graffiti was weird in its focus on the kids, and Grease appealed to me about as much as watching a play put on by the cool kids at school. (Although if you watch it now, Grease looks pretty grown-up in places. Contains adult themes.) For completeness, 1978 also gave us Animal House, inaugurating the other kind of film aimed at adolescent males – directed by John Landis, who isn’t George Lucas but was friends with him. Responsibility? There obviously was a real demographic shift happening – Star Wars, Raiders and the rest wouldn’t have been so successful if they hadn’t been kicking at an open door – but Spielberg and Lucas kicked that open door pretty damn hard.

But the big shift is the one represented by that phrase “adolescent males of all ages” – i.e. grown men indulging in the tastes of their 15-year-old selves. That wasn’t a serious cultural phenomenon when I was growing up, let alone a film-going audience. And when it comes to telling the world that it’s OK for grownups to enjoy childish films, Lucas & Spielberg have had more influence than anyone I can think of (with Landis in third place).

OK, now nobody mention Joss Whedon and I’ll get out of this comment with my argument intact. Damn!

Correction: the Barbarella re-release must’ve been in the late 70s since the first 2 Star Wars movies were before 1980.

No love for the 1980 Flash Gordon movie? It came out a year before Raiders, and was also an action packed homage/rip-off/parody of the old serials.

A great cast, too, apart from Flash and Dale.

“No! Not the bore worms!”

I could have done without the Queen soundtrack at the time, but now it fixes the movie in the 80s.

I will say, as hard as I’ve tried, I have found David Lynch to be unwatchable. Blue Velvet from the 80s, but Mullholland Drive, Eraserhead, Inland Empire..
Can any one mount a defence of his films? I’ll try give it another go now that I’m older and wiser

P.S., speaking of taking Lynch too seriously, did anyone see his short-lived, co-produced sitcom “On the Air” around the time of Twin Peaks? Unadulterated silliness and nothing but. (I recall liking it.)

I’m late to this strand, so maybe it was hit above….

The films of the 1980s and really only the first half of the 1980s were among the last films made in the pre CGI era. This isn’t terribly important for drama and comedy, but for action films and SciFi- its fair to say they don’t make’em like that anymore.

An assortment of negatives can be levels on Indy, but the stuntmaking was A++ first rate. Watch the out-takes and making of that film – the film craft and filming techniques created from scratch to make some of those scenes – particularly the chase scene toward the end were unprecedented at that time – and wholly unnecessary not long after.

I’d far rather watch Indy Jones than Transformers or most of the “Action hero” genre which we get inundated with annually. There are a couple of decent Spidey movies and maybe someday there will be more, I just don’t need to see one every year. I’d far rather someone take a fresh stab at the “Indy” genre than yet another Spiderman.

That said, you’d have to actually film Indy, arrange stunts and be on site or build elaborate sets -whereas half of Spiderman can be done with a green screen and a room full of computer kids. Don’t get me wrong – the later is technically awesome too, just a different generation of movie making that is hard to compare with action flicks of the 1970s/80s.

I’d concur with some that the 1970s was on balance a better movie decade than the 1980s but produced some quite enduring films.

“Royal Flash,” the title’s the same for the book and the movie. That was the Prisoner of Zenda one.

Often the subtext is charmingly unapologically sincere and naive. (See for example, the Blue Velvet scene when the birds return

When I saw Blue Velvet, the audience laughed. They really laughed – they laughed at the opening montage, they laughed at Dean Stockwell doing In Dreams, they laughed at Kyle MacLachlan hiding in the wardrobe, they laughed at Dennis Hopper huffing… Well, maybe not so much at that bit. But it lightened up again towards the end – when Isabella Rossellini comes in naked and nobody reacts, that got a big laugh. When the robin came back and Laura Dern was doing that weird Laura-Dern-in-slow-motion thing, we were on the home stretch and hilarity was unbounded. As for the closing montage… the closing montage was just about the funniest thing that audience had seen since, well, ever. Coming out, I almost wanted to go and see it again, properly. Thinking about it, though, nervous laughter is quite a common reaction to being put on the spot and freaked out – and if ever a film could provoke gales of nervous laughter, Blue Velvet is it.

Lynch directed “Elephant Man”, and it’s the sweetest movie I’ve ever seen. Merrick’s ecstasy at the play he’s taken to: Heaven. But people respond to different things. I love the copper colored water during the credits to Twin Peaks. I’ve ascribed that to Lynch, but who knows? I once thought “Mulholland Falls” was supposed to be a patchwork of stories inspired by pictures from 1950’s pulp magazines — movie fan magazines, cheap “men’s” magazines like True or Argosy, but Lynch’s own explanations of how he makes movies makes an attempt to “read” them seem pointless.

Hector: Which was it based on, the first one? The first one is the most troubling for me because of the rape scenes.

OMG you guys, Hector finds it difficult to read the first Flashman novel with much pleasure because the hero rapes a woman! I demand a list of books which you approve of or disapprove of on this basis immediately Hector. And what if it’s not a real rape scene? In this case it’s not entirely clear that Flashman intends to rape her since the woman is given to him by his host in a land where different customs and laws apply, as a gesture of hospitality, along with the best food they could provide, and an excellent room. Moreover, the Flashman novels aren’t set in the present day. Would Flashy’s fellow officers have judged this behavior to be rape, or simply a bit of a rough-around-the-edges acceptance of a gift by a mysterious, proud Pashtun Lord, who might well take offense had Flashman appeared not to enjoy the hospitality on offer? The latter, and with no dissenters, I think it’s fair to say. You have a lot of explaining to do Mr. St. Clare (if that is your name); I suggest that you begin immediately. Iliad: yea or nay? Briseis is going to get raped by some Greek, it’s just a matter of who. You may leave out the Epic of Gilgamesh but otherwise you better take it from the top.

Belle Waring, there’s only one actual rape scene, but you forget the scene where he attempts to rape his father’s lover.

Wait, so we’re judging the fictional character, based on his intention to commit rape, which makes him so unsympathetic as a narrator that the book as it goes on–especially with him then actually raping someone–that the novel is one you don’t really enjoy, although you’ve read it? Is that where we’re headed?

I’m Audi 5000 people, it’s bedtime. Someone else pick up the truncheon of ineluctable logic that explains how Hector and I have identical views about interpreting/enjoying literature.

Saw Raiders not too long ago, randomly on TV, and was actually surprised at how well it held up. I thought the pacing was superb; it really rollicked along, especially near the end (snakes, trucks, planes, propellers, subs, face-melting ghosts).
The beginning intro (the boulder roll) and the very end (ark in the endless warehouse) are also epic – combined they set a bar that is tough to beat.
And if you say Lucas didn’t get any worse, watch Indiana Jones 4. C’mon.

Anglican. Try to keep up.

I saw Temple of Doom as a child (I was maybe 8 years old) in India. I am not sure I even knew enough to identify a movie as racist at the time, but I remember being extremely shocked and offended.

I have a hard time being objective about other Indiana Jones movies because of that childhood scarring.

Incidentally, no irony intended on Hector

Cleanthes @136

Initially I thought you were agreeing with my argument that, artistically, TLC were as accomplished as Cavafy, but reading back I’m not so sure..? (ps I say that not to attack Cavafy but to give TLC their dues)

Speaking of decades and film qulaity, the Coen brothers got started in the 80s. That has to count for something.

Random Lurker,

You’re more or less correct. I find it remarkable that Belle Waring is apparently surprised that I object to rape scenes in books perpetrated by a figure with whom we are supposed to identify.

I find it remarkable that Belle Waring is apparently surprised that I object to rape scenes in books perpetrated by a figure with whom we are supposed to identify.

Evolution doesn’t demand identification with blustering rapists?

Sancho 09.28.13 at 7:19 pm

Well, shit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Eight-Lives-Ka-Bong-Leong/dp/0615384994

Woah, I’m gonna have to check that out.

I’m surprised to not see any love whatsoever for John Sayles here. What, Eight Men Out not mainstream enough? Matewan not thrilling enough? The Brother From Another Planet not just flat-out awesome and singularly “80s” enough? I know he never had the box office of Spielberg or Lucas or McTiernan, but still, it’s weird how forgotten he’s become…

Die Hard has aged really well, I think in large part thanks to Willis redefining the action hero by injecting loads of witty incredulity into the overblown movie scenario he finds himself in. The banter (and its delivery) is also just so much better than the competition. Maybe it owes some of that to Indiana Jones? There’s plenty of memorable bits for the “Cannon Fodder” too. I remember Al Leong greedily hoarding milk-duds during the S.W.A.T. invasion.

In contrast, I finally saw all the Lethal Weapons a couple years ago and couldn’t get into them. I can take all the smug self-satisfaction of the movies’ treatments of topical issues, and I even kind of like how clumsy and incongruous the fit of the fuzzy bits is with the unstoppable killing machine action tropes, it’s the attempts at comedy that mostly ruin it, mainly due to Gibson. I don’t think it’s a lack of commitment and like him elsewhere, but it’s just not in his range to do “self-aware screwball” or whatever he was going for there, he just looks lost a lot of the time. For that matter so does Pesci in the later sequels. By the fourth one you have Chris Rock phoning in a tired stand-up routine about cell phones and “Chinese people talk funny” jokes. Poor Jet Li. At least the fight in a moving pre-fab was good.

Besides Sayles, my short list of great directors in the 80s would include Tsui Hark, Sammo Hung, Gillian Armstrong (High Tide and Starstruck rule!), Juzo Itami, Peter Greenaway, (particularly his series of procedurals about the Japanese Revenue Authority, but most famously Tampopo). Joe Dante and Brian DePalma are great, I don’t care what anyone says about them being empty stylists who waste their talents on homage Producing the two Gremlins movies (both of which make fun of him) is probably the best thing Spielberg did in the 80s. Danny DeVito deserves a shout-out for Throw Momma From the Train. Ann Hui for Boat People.

I haven’t seen the first three Indiana Jones movies in ages, but I think I agree with whoever said Spielberg and Lucas didn’t getting worse, but they didn’t get better either. Not just as directors but as technical innovators as well. Weta has left ILM way behind and didn’t Dreamworks spend a decade and a half trying to compete with PIXAR by doing ugly cg fish and ants with rotoscoped celebrity faces?

Jeffrey Davis – I think you might confusing Mulholland Falls and Mulholland Drive, no?

@primedprimate: I agree w/ you about Temple of Doom. I saw it as an adult (as I saw all the Indy films), and I was appalled at it, especially the monkey brains scene.

I also very much liked The Man Who Would be King.

Luke @ 297:

Oh, and don’t get me started on the fact that the films depict artefacts of the Abrahamic faith with real, honest-to-God-magic-powers where other religions are just insane, sadistic superstition.

Er, while I agree with the primedprimate / Bill Benzon criticisms, I’m less sure about this one. If there are Abrahamic faiths that have genuinely magical lingam stones in them, or [grits teeth] psychic alien crystal skulls for that matter, I must have missed those parts.

… Come to think of it, now that I’ve been forced to think about Indiana Jones IV again, perhaps the introduction of alien intelligences into the Jonesiverse can be retconned into explaining the “supernatural” elements in the previous three films.

“Xqkl, did you remember to retrieve the Hand of Omega Ark of the Covenant before we left?”

“Well, there was a sandstorm …”

“Oh, Xqkl.”

“Hey, at least I didn’t lose track of the Cup of Medical Nanotech, like ZZrp here.”

“Excuse me if I was a tiny bit preoccupied with taking ‘Shiva’ and ‘Kali’ into custody.”

Luke @ 297. I must have missed that. I’m pretty much 100% sure Raiders didn’t suggest that, with decreasing probability for the later ones. My guess is if the Nazis had tried to steal the Black Stone (of the Kaaba), it would have zapped them, as far as the metaphysics of the Indyverse were concerned.

Where o where is “Indiana Jones and the Golden Plates of Moroni”?

Raiders of the Lost Ark was *original*. Its structure seems trite now, after decades of copies, but it was an original structure at the time. In this era of Blake “Save the Cat” Synder formula movies, we don’t get original very often.

There is credit to the writers and director for being the first — everyone else is just… copycats. In short, it’s no criticism to say that a movie succeeded by “first mover advantage” — in fact, it’s a tremendous compliment. Academic Lurker points out a lot of the things which were original in _Raiders_, many of which did not persist in the copycats.

Also, there’s a funny thing about memory for movies and TV. People remember the beginning and ending of movies, not the middle. Raiders of the Lost Ark has an *exceptional* opening scene, and an *exceptional* closing scene. (You still remember them, don’t you?) Therefore it will always hold up better than a movie with a bad opening and a bad closing.

The closing scene in particular is a brilliant piece of accurate satire. The Lost Ark is more lost in a government warehouse than it was when protected by snakes and whatnot. (And no, the ending is completely different from the ending of Citizen Kane, not even related in tone or meaning.)

Raiders of the Lost Ark is often playing tropes straight, but it’s sending them up or deconstructing them equally often, and particularly with the ending, which still makes me think after all these years.

“So a) if Dr Jones had just stayed at home and not wasted all that time, the result would have been the same anyway,”…
Of course! This sort of cynical humor is, in fact, what makes the movie work. If the entire mission had had any sort of real use, that would completely undercut the movie’s message.

“I thought about it and said I liked Wreck-It Ralph and The Croods way better this year. They’re action films, but put together better.”

Except they’re (a) not original, they’re repetitive, and (b) they don’t have great openings, and (c) they don’t have great closings. So think about it… they won’t become famous. They’re like mass-produced chairs; sure, they’re put together better than the handcrafted chair, but they’re disposable.

Another way of putting this is: if you think a movie is a “pretty good film” *over 30 years* after it came out, it’s a great film. Holding up over time really is the test of greatness.

—
The Princess Bride is a pretty brilliant movie. It had the advantage of being based on an *extremely* brilliant book (the book is spectacular) and being adapted by the original writer — who happened to be more than slightly format-savvy and genre-savvy, and there are long digressions on the nature of the film industry in the original book! I actually have some trouble with the movie because I read the book first, and as always, the book is better.
—
On the other hand, the absolute best movie of the 1970s gets less respect than it should — Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which is didactic in the extreme, but *correct historically* about everything it’s being didactic about. Talk about heavily quoted movies, by the way….

@295: In re: “Lawrence” Olivier. Yes, you are missing something. (As for Day-Lewis – the man exposes more hambone with each recent performance, for which the critics drown him in accolades. It gives me no pleasure to write that.)

Contra #307, I think Olivier isn’t very good in “Rebecca” (which is one of Hitchcock’s most famous films, although not a big favorite of mine). His Heathcliff is too sensitive, not scary enough, but that suits the 1939 “Wuthering Heights,” which is lousy Bronte but a fine example of Hollywood romantic drama, marred by the producer Samuel Goldwyn’s regarding the picture primarily as a vehicle for Merle Oberon (who’s mostly awful, BTW).

Olivier’s greatest stage performance and the one which cemented his reputation as a classical actor was said to be his “Richard III.” He’s wonderful in his film version, but reportedly it didn’t come close to what he did with the role onstage. His “Macbeth” was arguably the greatest ever (he was unable to find funding to make a movie of it).

Probably Olivier’s greatest performance on film is his Hurstwood in “Carrie,” adapted from the Dreiser novel, and for my money it’s one of the best male performances ever committed to celluloid. He was also perfect as Darcy in the very imperfect 1940 “Pride and Prejudice.”

Like many actors of his era, Olivier tended to work from the outside in rather than the inside out. I think it’s a cliche to say that actors who worked in this traditional way are by definition more “dated” or “mannered” than the Method actors (who had their own share of mannerisms and who now look similarly dated on their bad days). I don’t think it necessarily matters in terms of the quality of what got on the screen. Michael Redgrave’s performance in “The Browning Version” is a superb and subtle one, perfectly scaled to the camera.

Which is not to say that differences between actors bred for film and those with a high theatrical style never show themselves. “Sleuth” is no masterpiece and goes on for much too long, but if you have patience you can enjoy the stylistic contrast between Michael Caine, a born actor for the camera, and Olivier. But Olivier was a fine actor in pictures. He could be hammy at times but I suspect that would have been the case if he’d abandoned the stage after becoming a big romantic movie star in “Wuthering Heights” and “Rebecca.”

Like many actors of his era, Olivier tended to work from the outside in rather than the inside out. I think it’s a cliche to say that actors who worked in this traditional way are by definition more “dated” or “mannered” than the Method actors (who had their own share of mannerisms and who now look similarly dated on their bad days).

I often like the traditional, high theatrical (as you call it) style. I was just responding to ISOK@295’s reaction and attempting to partly explain it (yes, split infinitive). We agree that ISOK is “missing something.” Indeed, his/her comparison of Olivier to Jack Black is grotesque.

Also, this:

if you think a movie is a “pretty good film” *over 30 years* after it came out, it’s a great film. Holding up over time really is the test of greatness.

is at once too broad and too narrow – as it effectively limits the category of greatness to films you’ve seen more than once and with a gap of 30 years between the first and last time, but also extends it to films you didn’t actually think were great. I’ve seen O lucky man! seven times (possibly eight), but only over a period of 20 years (I haven’t seen it in ages), and I thought it was a great film every time. Dr Strangelove, Orphée, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Phantom of Liberty, The Ladykillers – some films are great the first time you see them, and the last.

Have you really been discussing 80’s movies without talking about Scorsese (Raging Bull, After Hours, Last Temptation of Christ, King of Comedy)?

And 80’s music without talking about Prince?

MADNESS!

The first few times I saw the version without the suicide sequence; that, and the wasteland sequence which follows it, are pretty grim. But the ending redeems it all, for me – the main character gets it. It’s one of the all-time great endings to a film, IMO – up there with “Mein Führer! I can walk!”

Maybe it’s just me. I discovered the other day that my wife & son both find the theme song dark & depressing, blackly comic at best.

If you have a friend on whom you think you can rely
You are a lucky man
If you’ve found a reason to live on and not to die
You are a lucky man…

I’ve always thought it’s wonderful – bracing, admittedly, but genuinely inspiring.

The preachers and the poets and the scholars don’t know it
The temples and the statues and the steeples don’t show it
If you’ve got the secret, just try not to blow it,
Stay a lucky man!

And 80′s music without talking about Prince?

MADNESS!

I linked to “Billie Jean” _way_ up above. Which, obviously not Prince. But if I am guessing the underlying sentiment right, I would agree that there’s been way too much wanking off on the “alternative rock” stuff, where I want to be like: No, seriously, you need to go put on some Thriller/Purple Rain.

(N.B.: My love of Surfer Rosa is second to none. And just let me know any time you want to talk some English Settlement.)

As in, a ton of them suck? Which, fair enough. But you could do this for almost any year, I’d think. The (rightly) celebrated ’77 gave us Margaritaville. Fucking Margaritaville!

That scene in that hospital facility was so frightening it’s haunted me for decades.

I’d forgotten that. Don’t know what that says about me – I didn’t think I had a very strong stomach for horror, body horror least of all. I’ll have to watch it again myself now.

Prince is not of the 80s. He is of the ages.

Btw, as an addendum, I’m surprised ISOK’s iconoclastic post @ 295 comparing Laurence Olivier to Jack Black hasnt received more pushback
An astonishing,though hilarious, statement

Which, fair enough. But you could do this for almost any year, I’d think.

I’d argue that 1977 was a better year on the American chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1977

Admittedly, Polanski is a particularly noxious example, but if you deny yourself
the pleasure of much literature, art, film, etc. because of the character of the creator(s),
it strikes me as a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

John Carpenter’s timing was usually awful. Both “The Thing” and “Little China”
were too early to be hits, though the jokes could have been a lot better in “Little China”.

The real strength of “Beverly Hills Cops” was the reversal of “mighty whitey”, with Axel Foley being better than the locals.

There are great movies in every decade, and terrible movies also. Just as there are under-rated and over-rated movies. The Seventies as a decade are probably over-rated at least a little and the eighties under-rated.

You left “Gun Crazy” out of the list of movies from 1950.

Sorry: “their due”

I’d argue that 1977 was a better year on the American chart.

Looking just at the top 25 in each year (because after that my mind loses a clear grasp), I’d take 1985 over 1977: I lose “Margaritaville” and “Hotel California”, I get some Tears for Fears/A-ha that I quite like, and I swap a great Stevie Wonder song for another nearly as good. I still lose “Got to give it up” which is probably the best song out of all 50—but I’ll still take it.

More generally: I overall like music from the 70’s a lot more than music from the 80’s—a hell of a lot more. But I think as far as straight-up pop music goes, the better stuff from the 80’s (MJ, Prince, early Madonna, Lauper, etc.) beats the better pop from the 70’s hands down. That’s all I was trying to say. (This argument will fail miserably if you count soul albums like What’s Going On, Hot Buttered Soul, etc., as “straight up pop music”. The fact that I don’t may have something to do with the fact that I didn’t live through the era.)

I swap a great Stevie Wonder song for another nearly as good.

Head asploded.

Some comments:

The greatest decade in the history of film is arguably 1955-1964, which includes vital work from Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Huston, Kubrick, Lumet, Mann, Preminger, Nicholas Ray, Sirk, Welles, Wilder, Lean, McKendrick, Powell, Ozu, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Naruse, Bresson, Dassin, Demy, Godard, Malle, Marker, Melville, Ophuls, Renoir, Rohmer, Tati, Truffaut, Satyajit Ray, Antonioni, Fellini, Rosselini, Rosi, Visconti, Bergman, Bunuel, Dreyer, Glauber Rocha, Polanski, Wajda, Kalatazov, Paradjanov, and Tarkovsky.

We may as well wind down with this