Frenzy's movie blog

My hundred favorite movies!

2010-09-05T22:36:00.002+02:00

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Der Müde Tod (Fritz Lang, 1921)
3. Salo o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (Pasolini, 1975)
4. Zerkalo (Tarkovskij, 1975)
5. Sunrise (Murnau, 1928)
6. Sherlock Jr. (Keaton, 1924)
7. Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)
8. Notorious (Hitchcock, 1946)
9. Smultronstället (Bergman, 1958)
10. Offret (Tarkovskij, 1985)

11. La Double vie de Veronique (Kieslowski, 1991)
12. Psycho (Hitchcock, 1960)
13. Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932)
14. Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954)
15. Videodrome (Cronenberg, 1983)
16. Medea (Pasolini, 1969)
17. Le testament d’Orphée (Cocteau, 1960)
18. The Grand Illusion (Renoir, 1937)
19. Ma nuit chez Maud (Rohmer, 1969)
20. Letter from an unknown woman (Max Ophuls, 1945)

21. I vitelloni (Fellini, 1953)
22. Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais, 1959)
23. The Conformist (Bertolucci, 1970)
24. Teorema (Pasolini, 1968)
25. La Pianiste (Haneke, 2001)
26. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
27. Sans Soleil (Marker, 1983)
28. Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Murnau, 1922)
29. Mouchette (Bresson, 1967)
30. Death in Venice (Visconti, 1971)

31. Paris, Texas (Wenders, 1984)
32. Cache (Haneke, 2005)
33. The Dead (Huston, 1987)
34. Mr. Arkadin (Welles, 1955)
35. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Bunuel, 1972)
36. The Conversation (Coppola, 1974)
37. Persona (Bergman, 1966)
38. Days of Heaven (Malick, 1978)
39. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
40. Amarcord (Fellini, 1973)

41. Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944)
42. The Spirit of the Beehive (Erice, 1973)
43. Import/Export (Seidl, 2007)
44. The Fire Within (Malle, 1963)
45. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
46. Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)
47. La passion de Jean d’Arc (Dreyer, 1928)
48. Ordet (Dreyer, 1956)
49. Le sang d’un poete (Cocteau, 1931)
50. In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1956)

51. Nightmare Alley (Edmund Goulding, 1947)
52. Wages of Fear (Clouzot, 1953)
53. Det Sjunde Inseglet (Bergman, 1957)
54. The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963)
55. Kwaidan (Kobayashi, 1964)
56. Le Cercle Rouge (Melville, 1970)
57. Fat City (Huston, 1973)
58. Love and Death (Woody Allen, 1975)
59. Stalker (Tarkovskij, 1979)
60. Viridiana (Bunuel, 1961)

61. Sporloos (Sluizer, 1988)
62. Zodiac (Fincher, 2007)
63. The Cranes are Flying (Kalatozov, 1957)
64. Drunken Angel (Kurosawa, 1949)
65. Häxan (Christensen, 1922)
66. The Lady Vanishes (Hitchcock, 1938)
67. McCabe and Mrs. Miller (Altman, 1971)
68. The Treasure of Sierra Madre (Huston, 1948)
69. Limelight (Chaplin, 1952)
70. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf (Nichols, 1967)

71. Le Locataire (Roman Polanski, 1978)
72 Aguirre (Werner Herzog, 1972)
73. Antichrist (Von Trier, 2009)
74. Au hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966)
75. Man Bites Dog (Belvaux, Bonzel 1992)
76. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Wiene, 1920)
77. Distant Voices, Still Lives (Terence Davies, 1988)
78. The Flowers of St. Francis (Rosselini, 1950)
79. Autumn Sonata (Bergman, 1978)
80. Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1976)

81. Invocation of My Demon Brother (Kenneth Anger, 1969)
82. Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais,1961)
83. The 400 Tricks of the Devil (Melies, 1906)
84. Nanook of the North (Flanerty, 1922)
85. Sisters (De Palma, 1973)
86. The Long Goodbye (Altman, 1973)
87. The War Game (Watkins, 1965)
88. The Killing (Kubrick, 1956)
89. Anatomy of a Murder (Preminger, 1959)
90. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (John Cassavettes, 1976)

91. A Trip to the Moon (Melies, 1902)
92. Meshes of the Afternoon (Maya Deren, 1943)
93. Nagareru (Naruse, 1956)
94. Barton Fink (Coen, 1995)
95. Pickup on South Street (Fuller, 1953)
96. The Crowd (King Vidor, 1928)
97. The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (Fritz Lang, 1933)
98. Foreign Correspondent (Hitchcock, 1940)
99. Nights of Cabiria (Fellini, 1957)
100. Hour of the Wolf (Bergman, 1968)

German Romanticism in Hollywood

2010-06-21T17:53:00.002+02:00

In 1927, William Fox hired German film director Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau to make movies for Fox Studios. On the first feature, Fox gave Murnau full artistic freedom and a big budget to make what was to become Sunrise, A song of two humans. What is the movie about and how is this manifested cinematically? I will try to answer these questions as well as using film reviews to further my arguments.
The story of the film is said to take place “Every place and no place” and consists of characters as types more than individuals which is manifested by calling them simply “the man”, “the woman” and “the woman from the city”. This creates a fable-like backdrop in which the film takes place. Murnau had large and elaborate sets made for the film. This enabled him to use lighting more accurately and also creates a very special aesthetic look. Movement is an important feature in Sunrise. Murnau and his coworkers revolutionized cinema just three years before Sunrise with the use of the unchained camera on the film Der Letzte Mann (1924). They wanted the camera to be able to move about freely. They achieved this effect with a new, lighter and more convenient camera strapped on to the cameraman (Eisner,155). The unchained camera gives the spectator the effect of moving around in the filmic universe, enhancing the illusion of real life or maybe more accurately; give the spectator a more active part. With a static non-moving camera the viewer would feel like he was merely observing something being acted out, but with a free moving camera he feels like he is participating. This is most clearly illustrated in the sequence where we, as a spectator, follow the man through the forest to meet with the woman from the city (which I will from here on refer to as “the vamp”). We literarily walk through the misty forest with the help of the unchained camera, even brushing away bushes to be able to get a view of the vamp and the man. And if not the camera itself is moving, it is strapped to a moving vehicle e.g. the boat and the tram. Murnau uses movement to heighten the drama; the violent rowing of the man, the cathartic tram ride with the speeding tram and the dizzying and violent traffic in the city.

Nature and animals are recurring motifs. The dog senses fear and danger right before the man sets out on the boat ride, the woman notice the stillness and sense of danger through observing a flock of ducks on the lake and the pig creating havoc inside the restaurant. Jo Leslie Coller, in her book From Wagner to Murnau connects this with the tradition of romanticism and compares it with German romantic composer Richard Wagner’s work: “Nature also pervades the works of both artists as a living force, usually in terms of weather or of the animal kingdom. (…) There is little difference between the birds who warn Siegfried of Mime’s murderous intent and the dog in Sunrise(…) (106). It also seems to be Murnau’s intent to criticize the modern, urbanized world: The city, embodied by the vamp, corrupting the rural utopia, the economics forces the man to sell his livestock and the chaotic impersonal, egotistical and dangerous urban life symbolized by the speeding cars and the innocent little pig creating chaos at the restaurant. Murnau’s view of paradise and happiness seems to lie in nature. After the couple have reconciled in the church, they walk across the road with the camera moving along with them. Murnau transports them from a chaotic street to nature with the means of double exposure. They walk down a path with peaceful and beautiful scenery unfolding before them. An abrupt cut back to the city is made and to chaos with the honking cars.

German expressionistic methods are frequently used in Sunrise. Internal matter is shown explicitly. Emotions and psychology become part of the misè-en-scene, the acting and the camera angles. Murnau has O’Brien walk like a monster, literally carrying his mental burden, staggering with a transfixed stare as being under a spell. Also when the man sits on the bed, the image of the vamp is shown holding around him in a double exposure, having a tight grip of him. He uses the color black on the promiscuous dark-haired vamp’s costume expressing her evil state of mind whilst the blonde wife is dressed simple in an innocent farmers dress. The materializing of thoughts is also used a lot. By filming a face and the dissolving to an image and back to the face, the filmmaker signals to the spectator that we are watching the character’s thoughts. In one example, the man is lying on the bed. Murnau cuts from his face, to his wife, indicating that he is watching her and then a slow dissolve to the water in the lake outside the house. This alludes to the man’s thoughts of drowning her. In another instance, also indicated with a dissolve, he visualizes himself pushing his wife into the lake from the boat.
Lighting is also an important feature of Sunrise. The opening of the movie uses chiaroscuro lighting to emphasis the dark, disturbing and sinister motives of the man and the vamp. Murnau shifts to natural lighting and traditional three-point lighting for the city-scenes, in which the couple rediscovers love. The holy sanctity of marriage is also emphasized by having a “divine” light shine down on the marrying couple in the church. Darkness is once again used for the capsizing of the boat and finally bright light fills Janet Gaynor’s face as she wakes up after being nearly drowned, alluding to the title of the film.
There is a sense of romanticism in that the man and wife are also depicted as children. The neighbors recall them being “like children” and they fool around like children in the photographers studio, even knocking down a statue and trying desperately to cover up their folly. Coller links also this to Romanticism and thinks this creates an asexual innocence, contrasting the sexually alluring vamp and the pure Madonna-like wife (124). It is also worth noting that by using Fox’s Movietone technology, Murnau was able to combine music and image, and to get just the right expression he wanted. It is used very effectively when the man is searching for his wife. A melancholic trumpet mimics his desperate calls with a descending two-tone motif. This is reversed later when his wife is found with an optimistic ascending two-tone motif. Sound effects, such as car horns and crowd noises are used while in the city.Sunrise could be seen as a melodrama with the heightened emotions and the love-triangle drama, but it also has elements of comedy. In the city; Murnau uses comic relief to remove the previous tension of the film with the pig incident. It is a story of redemption, of temptation, but also of nature and man’s removal from it.

Lousie Bogan, film critic for The New Republic, states that: “Sunrise is not fortunate in its art director. It has had contrived for it a village evidently molded from marzipan, artificial trees (…) and a claptrap moon. Mr. Murnau does not need this “art” super-imposed upon his reality” (195). I disagree with this judgment. It is not Murnau’s intention to create a realistic universe, and I will argue is deliberately done this way to emphasize the fable-aspect of the movie. Sunrise starts with a drawing of a train at a station, which cuts and the same exact image of train, except now it is real. It seems like Murnau is suggesting already in the opening frame that this is a fable. It is not realistic and he does not want you to get that impression either. It states in the opening intertitle: “of no place and all places”. The characters do not have names, only generalized as the man or woman from the city. Murnau had shown that he could work on location and do it well, as he does in Nosferatu (1922), so it was a deliberate choice to film it using the full potential of the studio. Bogan is right in that there is a kind of reality to the picture, namely the moving camera. It makes Murnaus fairytale world come alive, but he does seem to not want the spectator to forget that this is not real. Murnau does not want his film to be transparent, to just show us an objective reality. He wants it to be like paintings; un-transparent, showing the viewer a magical world outside of reality. He was not interested in making films of Lumiere-esque realism. His aim with cinema was to elevate it from reality. This is obvious when looking at his previous films Faust, Der Letzte Mann and Nosferatu.

Pare Lorentz, film critic and film maker, wrote in 1927 a positive review about Sunrise, but had one objection:
“Then something happens. (…) Sunrise deliberately becomes slapstick and at loose ends, and my theory is that William Fox either would not let Murnau produce the film as he wanted or else scared him so that he felt an American audience would not stand for a movie without a Prohibition joke in it. It is as terrible as Hamlet suddenly leaving off his soliloquy to do the Black Bottom” (6-7).
Lorentz does not like the radical changing of mood in the film, but is this an error within the art work itself? The movie suggests even in the title of an optimistic tale, and it seems like Murnau deemed laughter an important element in reconciling the man and wife. It is if Murnau wants to depict transformation and redemption by making the piece itself and its effect on the spectator a transformation. The mood changes all through the film, from the eerie opening, the brutal murder attempt, the melodramatic and melancholic forgiveness, the laughter, the shock and finally the relief. Murnau plays the whole range of emotions, but somehow laughter is deemed inappropriate by Lorentz. It may be the way it is done, that troubles Lorentz, but he does not articulate that in the review.

Bibliography:
Coller, Jo Leslie (1988). From Wagner to Murnau; The transposition of Romanticism from stage to screen. Umi Research Press, London.
Eisner, Lotte (1973). Murnau. University of California press, California.
Kauffmann, Stanley.ed. (1972) American Film Criticism; from the beginnings to Citizen Kane. Liveright, New York.
Lorentz, Pare (1975). Lorentz on film. Hopkinson and Blake, New York.

My favorite movies pre 1930

2009-10-26T04:52:00.003+01:00

So diskuterfilm has had a new poll of the best movies pre 1930. The final list had this top ten:

1. La Passion De Jeanne D'arc (Dreyer)
2. Metropolis (Lang)
3. The General (Keaton, Bruckman)
4. Sunrise; a song of two humans (Murnau)
5. Nosferatu, eine symphonie das grauens (Murnau)
6. Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (Wiene)
7. The Phantom Carriage (Seastrom)
8. Un Chien Andalou (Bunuel)
9. Faust, eine Deutsche volkssage (Murnau)
10. The Kid (Chaplin)

Here is my personal top 20 of pre 1930 films:

20. The Birth of a Nation (Griffith)

19. Faust, eine Deutsche volkssage (Murnau)

18. Un Chien Andalou (Bunuel)

17. Blackmail (Hitchcock)

16. Nanook of the North (Flaherty)

15. The Gold Rush (Chaplin)

14. Metropolis (Lang)

13. Der Letzte Mann aka The Last Laugh (Murnau)

12. La Voyage dans la Lune (Melies)

11. Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (Wiene)

10. The Man with the Movie Camera (Vertov)

9. The Crowd (Vidor)

8. Sherlock Jr. (Keaton)

7. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)

6. Menilmontant (Kirsanoff)

5. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Dreyer)

4. Häxan (Christensen)

3. Nosferatu, eine symphonie das Grauens (Murnau)

2. Der Müde Tod aka Destiny (Lang)

1. Sunrise; a song of two humans (Murnau)

Presumably lost Alfred Hitchcock interview discovered

2009-10-23T03:25:00.005+02:00

Someone recently discovered an interview of Alfred Hitchcock from 1974 which was presumed lost.

My favorite part:
In clip 4, the interviewer speaks of the modern movie and how "morally corrupt" it has become, and tries to get Hitchcock to express similar sentiments by asking him; "What would you not show in your pictures?" and Hitchcock, instead of talking of low morality and exploitation, answers that he would never show the old cliched "wrestling match" in bed with the camera angle over ones shoulder! There are some great moments in the following clips, where Hitchcock tells several macabre stories and the interviewer is apalled and seems uncomfortable.

Review of The Cameraman

2009-10-16T23:52:00.006+02:00

Note: This is an essay I wrote for filmclass at school, so it's a bit different than my other reviews, but I thought it would be interesting to post it here. I did some research and found some old newspapers from the 20's, reviewing the movie. The sources are not available online (except for the New York Times review) and were found on microfilm at my school's library.

By the time The Cameraman was released in 1928, Buster Keaton was an established and popular silent movie comic, having been in the business since 1917. The Cameraman was Keaton’s first movie under a contract with MGM, a two-year deal including a clause giving the producer the final say. Keaton himself later called it the biggest mistake of his life (McPherson, 206-207). Even though The Cameraman was his biggest hit in three years, his career went downhill afterwards. How was The Cameraman received by the press at the time of release? Three reviews from The New York Herald Tribune, The New York Times and Variety Magazine all states that it is an enjoyable movie, but they also have some complaints.

In the movie, Buster plays a photographer who falls in love with a girl. The girl (Sally, played by Marceline Day) works as a secretary at a news desk. In order to impress her and be closer to her, Buster (as he is also called in the movie) buys a movie camera to get a job shooting newsreels. While trying to woo the girl, he finds himself in several funny situations; losing his oversized swimsuit while swimming in the public pool, photographing in the midst of a shootout between Chinese gangsters, and finally rescuing Sally from drowning after a boating mishap.

The movie starts out with a series of scenes focusing on establishing the relationship between Buster and Sally. Variety (09/19/1928) states: “The familiar pattern has been dressed up with some bright gags and several sequences where the laughter comes thick and fast.” The review calls the movie a “good laugh picture” and states that “Production, direction and photography all first rate”. Even at that time, the story was perceived as a “familiar pattern”, which tells us that maybe Keaton and MGM did not want to take a lot of risks creating an original and challenging story, and instead focus on good craftsmanship and funny sequences. The “competing against another wooer in order to get the girl”-plot seems to be a comfortable backdrop to incorporate gags into. The reviewer for Variety also writes that “All in all, it will probably deliver general satisfaction”. In other words, this is not a rave review, although it acknowledges the fact that there are several funny sequences. The review rightfully addresses the lackluster love story that takes up a lot of run-time. Variety remarks: “Apparently some attempt to inject more romance into the yarn than customary in Buster Keaton films. Keaton is a problem on love interest. In the present case, his cow-like adoration of the heroine (Marceline Day) is used to build up sympathy as a counter irritant to his abysmal stupidity in most respects”. One could speculate that this was added to cater for the traditional Hollywood audience.

The New York Herald Tribune (09/18/1927) was a bit more skeptical than Variety:

”Buster Keaton gives a performance brightened only here and there by downright comedy, but they are funny enough, perhaps, to justify going to see him”. It goes on with a somewhat bleak conclusion:

“Needless to say, the picture, relating the adventures of a cameraman in love, is a string of gags. The “frozen faced” hero contributed little new in the way of characterization. Marceline Day, as the telephone girl, considerably decorated the scene, although her acting was negligible. The direction was straight, conservative work, letting its hopes rest in Keaton’s talent as a comic”.

Although the directing is for the most part “straight, conservative work”, there are some inventive sequences. One example of this is the scene where Keaton runs down all the stairs in his building to answer the telephone. A crane shot follows Keaton as he descends the stairs in a long and well rehearsed scene. Also credit should be given to the long take in the dressing room, which is a combination of complex performances and a daringly lengthy take for a commercial movie. To address the other points of the critique, Marceline Day’s acting is a bit anonymous, relying more on her good looks than trying to be inventive or funny and Keaton’s character is really nothing new besides being dumber and more naïve then we are used to.

The New York Times (09/16/1928) is a bit more positive, claiming that it is: “…filled with guffaws and grins, the sort of thing with many original and adroitly worked-out gags. But whether they belong to the story is immaterial”. The review has a point. There are several good and unforgettable comedic sequences in the film including: the long take in the dressing room, the sequence in which Buster imagines himself playing a baseball game at Yankee stadium and, last but not least, the spectacular Chinese tong war sequence where Keaton’s naïve and clumsy character is contrasted with and in the midst of brutes fighting with guns and knives. But there are also some forgettable gags; Buster trying to photograph Sally while fumbling with his camera builds on a cliché and lacks the timing Keaton usually mastered to perfection. The window-breaking gag is also trite and repetitious without being any funnier the second and third time around.

In an article featured in The New York Herald September 18^th, 1928 entitled “Buster Keaton on the timing of the laugh”, Buster Keaton told the paper that:

“…the scene where I come into the newsreel office and Harold Goodwin follows and breaks the glass door with his camera was slated for an earlier part of the picture. But it found that the laugh at this point hindered the forward movement of the story which plants the beginning of my romance with Marceline Day. So we had the romance planting all run off first, then worked the glass door gag where the laugh wouldn’t slow up the action of the story”.

The philosophy behind Keaton’s reasoning really explains why the picture failed in this respect; the love story is not interesting or original enough to keep the viewer engaged. And when delaying his gags for the sake of the story, the beginning of the picture gets slow and uninteresting. In the article, Keaton also talks about how he and Edward Sedgewick (the director of the movie) worked out timed intervals for the sequences even before they were filmed, and made a rule that “a good commercial laugh is worth $600”. So if it would cost more, they would probably not do it. Such rigid rules can undermine creativity and seems like rules imposed by MGM, or stems from the responsibility of working for MGM, rather than Keaton’s own.

The Cameraman is ultimately a film with some great comedic sequences bogged down by a trite story and a lot of standardized work. Rudy Blesh, in his book Keaton (1966), sums up my sentiments: A friend of Buster Keaton tells Keaton that the print of The Cameraman is worn out because MGM used it as a “training picture” for future MGM comedians to study. Blesh adds:

“The MGM man spoke with evident pride. But it was equally evident that he was not thinking of Buster Keaton, a man whom MGM had already long since forgotten. He was thinking, MGM story, MGM direction, MGM production. The Machine, not the man. That sounds like the story of Buster Keaton, and so it is. At MGM the real history of The Cameraman is not remembered: the man, Keaton, fighting The Machine, MGM” (302).

Bibliography:

Blesh, Rudi (1966) Keaton. 1^st printing. New York, The MacMillian Company

McPherson, Edward (2005) Buster Keaton, Tempest in a flat hat. 1^st ed. New York, Newmarket Press

Appendix:

I: The New York Times, 16^th September, 1928: Review

II: Variety Magazine, 19^th September, 1928: Review

III: The New York Herald Tribune, 18^th September, 1928: Review

IV: The New York Herald Tribune, 18^th September, 1928: Buster Keaton on the timing of the laugh

My favorite DVDs

2009-07-11T16:13:00.012+02:00

There are a lot of great DVDs out there, and getting that perfect edition really adds to your movie-watching experience. Reading an informative booklet adds to your understanding of the movie and often helps to put it in a historical and cinematic context. Documentaries, interviews and not to forget the packaging itself helps making watching movies a multi faceted experience. The Criterion Collection has always been a favorite of mine, as well as BFI and Masters of Cinema and are duly represented here. Here are my favorite DVDs:

Videodrome (criterion collection)

My favorite Cronenberg-movie also has one of the best releases from Criterion. Fantastic coverart, booklet, a cover that simulates a VHS-Cassette, fantastic image-quality, sound and bonus features (a 26 minute clip from a tv-show where Cronenberg, Carpenter John Landis and Mick Garris discusses movies. GREAT!). Some really interesting documentaries and two audio commentaries (One with Cronenberg and Mark Irwin, and another with Deborah Harry and James Woods). This is a fantastic DVD!

Mr Arkadin (Criterion Collection)

Another fabulous Criterion DVD; Mr Arkadin by Orson Welles. Welles had much trouble with releasing his movies uncut. Studios involved themselves, often "butchering" his films beyond recognition. Criterion has done a fantastic job by recreating the movie the way its supposed to be (a lot of research and a lot of hunting down various versions with different sequences in them). The result is a stunning 3-disc set with three versions of the movie: The Corinth version, Confidential Report and the new version done by Criterion. The last version is hands down the best of them. It also features a book of the film, audio commentary by Jonathan Rosenbaum and James Naremore, documentaries, interviews with the main actor and an interview with Simon Callow.

Salo, 120 days of sodom (BFI)
The BFI-version of Pasolini's Salo is the most complete version, featuring a sequence not available elsewhere. It has a great packaging, and informative booklet and some great extras. Very good documentaries on Pasolini's life, two documentaries on the making of the film and a short movie by Julian Cole about the last days of Pasolini.

F for Fake (Criterion Collection)

A fantastic documentary about art and forgery by Welles has gotten a stunning treatment from Criterion. Great packaging, great extras and a good booklet. The extras are: A documentary about Orson's unfinished projects, a documentary on a famous art forger, a 2000 60 Minutes interview with Clifford Irving about his Howard Hughes autobiography hoax, a 1972 Hughes press conference exposing Irving’s hoax and an introduction by Peter Bogdanovich.

Kwaidan (Masters of Cinema)

This edition from Masters of Cinema features no extras. BUT, it has a stunning transfer, great artwork and a glorious 72-page booklet that really makes it worth the extra money.

Sunrise (Masters of Cinema)

Murnau's American masterpiece has gotten a great treatment from Masters of Cinema. The dvd features

Restored high-definition transfer
Original English intertitles
Original Movietone score (Mono) or alternative Olympic Chamber Orchestra score (Stereo)
Audio commentary from cinematographer John Bailey
Outtakes with optional John Bailey audio commentary or intertitles
'Murnau's 4 Devils - Traces Of A Lost Film': Janet Bergstrom's documentary about the film Murnau made after 'Sunrise' (40 mins)
Original theatrical trailer
Original 'photoplay' script (150 pages in pdf format)
Booklet containing essays (by Robin Wood, Lotte H. Eisner, R. Dixon Smith, Lucy Fischer and David Pierce), reprints and rare production stills

A great buy!

Roman Polanski Collection (Anchor Bay)

Anchor Bay has collected three brilliant films by Polanski in this great boxset: Knife in the Water, Repulsion and Cul-de-Sac. It has great image quality and features a bonus disc with many early shorts by Polanski. A booklet is also included.

Rebecca (Criterion Collection)

Hitchcock's haunting Hollywood debut, Rebecca, is currently a Criterion out-of-print edition. It's pricey, but this DVD includes:

Glorious new digital film and sound restoration
Commentary by film scholar Leonard J. Leff, author of Hitchcock and Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood
Isolated music and effects track
Rare screen, hair, makeup and costume tests including Vivien Leigh, Anne Baxter, Loretta Young, Margaret Sullavan, and Joan Fontaine
Hitchcock on Rebecca, excerpts from his conversations with François Truffaut
Phone interviews with stars Joan Fontaine and Judith Anderson from 1986
Hundreds of behind-the-scenes photos chronicling the film’s production from location scouting, set photos, and wardrobe continuity to ads, posters, and promotional memorabilia
Production correspondence and casting notes
Deleted scene script excerpts
1939 test screening questionnaire
Essay on Rebecca author Daphne du Maurier
Footage from the 1940 13th Annual Academy Awards™ ceremony
Re-issue trailer
Three hours of complete radio show adaptations:
1938 Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre broadcast, including an interview with Daphne du Maurier
1941 Lux Radio Theatre broadcast starring Ronald Colman and Ida Lupino, including an interview with David O. Selznick
1950 Lux Radio Theatre broadcast starring Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh
English subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition
PLUS: A 22-page booklet, including liner notes by Robin Wood, author of Hitchcock’s Films and Hitchcock’s Films Rev

Comprehensive? I think so! Brilliant DVD!

Lars von Trier's "Antichrist"

2009-07-02T22:58:00.006+02:00

I wrote earlier in my blog about how I feared Von Trier had "jumped the bandwagon" in terms of shockingly violent movies. I wrote:

"But Von Trier has in a way jumped the bandwagon. In the past, Von Trier always made highly original movies that were not occupied with trends (like Dancer in the Dark , Dogville and The Idiots). Of course, I have not seen Antichrist and this is just based on the controversy surrounding the movie, but it seems like he's taken shortcuts, instead of making highly original movies. I hope I'm wrong here, and that Antichrist is the deeply disturbing piece of art I want it to be."

I was wrong. Antichrist was a deeply disturbing piece of art. Von Trier clearly creates his own unique universe, not copying European directors like Noe and Haneke. Von Trier blends the present with a mythological past, and successfully comments on humans, man and woman, in an abstract way. He's not just portraying the man and woman on screen, but calling them "He" and "She" he clearly adresses the sexes, and humans in a more abstract way. It is a deep and thoughtful study of the good and bad qualities inherent in man and womens nature.

Nature is a key word. Von Trier uses animals and a rural setting to further underline his point; man is a part of nature. We cannot be completely rational, we have urges, instincts, an inner animal. For Von Trier, the woman is more in touch with these feelings or instincts, and the man tries to bury it with rational thinking. Von Trier paints the man as just as animalistic as the woman, but worse: he justifies it with rational thinking. The ending showing the smug Willem Defoe thinking he has done human kind a favor or something, being really satisfied with himself.

This post will not read well if you haven't seen the movie, but my aim has been to involve people who have seen it and not promoting it to people that has not seen it. But it is really brilliant. Fantastic photography, subjectmatter, script, acting, directing. Maybe Von Trier's best movie.

Woody Allen's ten best movies

2009-06-12T18:16:00.007+02:00

10. Match Point

Match Point has a fitting slow pace, unusually slow for an Allen film. Match Point's plot bears resemblance to 1989's "Crimes and misdemeanours", but it has a different style and a different feel. Match Point is expertly crafted editing-, pacing and directing-wise. It is also a return to form after 15 years of lacklustre light comedies (except The Sweet and Lowdown, Deconstructing Harry, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Husbands and Wives).

9. Broadway Danny Rose

Woody Allen in light comedic mood succeeds well in this charming movie about a manager and his hopeless adultering and drinking client. At the core, Allen employs a melancholic tale of a bygone era replaced by stronger capitalism and artists forgetting about where they came from. Allen's homage to the French New Wave climaxes in one of the final scenes when he runs after Mia Farrow in the rain, with a camera tracking shot from across the street. A deeply charming movie, with some great comedy.

8. Husbands and Wives

Allen's take on Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a marriage" is ultimately a fascinating movie where Allen employs his talent for writing intellectual and poignant lines. The handheld-camera and Woody's Cassavettes-like empathy for the characters suits this movie very well. One of his most successful "serious" movies.

7. Radio Days

I love the way Allen gets inspired by other directors and makes his own versions of their movies. Radio Days is clearly inspired by Fellini, but because of Allen's use of his own life and memories it is distinctly Allenesque. I love Radio Days period details, music and its romanticizing of the American 1940's childhood.

6. Zelig

This movie is incredibly well-done and probably Allen's greatest creative output. Zelig is a playful "mockumentary" that really cemented Woody's artistic talent. He really makes the audience believe his cooky kafkaesque story of a human cameleon always changing into different personalities. It really is a profound statement of human's tendency to adapt to other people.

5. Hannah and Her Sisters

This movie's got Sven Nykvist, Max Von Sydow, Mia Farrow, Diane West and Michael Caine all in good form. And it has Woody as Mickey Sachs, one of his funniest and most neurotic characters. This movie succeeds both with the funny parts, and the more serious and dramatic parts.

4. Manhattan

The images is what makes "Manhattan" stand out. Nykvist's exquisite photography of New York City really sticks in your head. Allen's script is also very good, featuring a romance with a very young girl and his problems with intellectual people. This ambiguity is very interesting and Woody employs it in several of his movies. Allen's character hates the intellectual type and at the same time is one himself. He is pushed and pulled between "simple" people and more "intellectual" people not able to define what he prefers.

3. Love and Death

This is Woody's funniest movie, where he pokes fun at the russian culture and its writers. Love and Death showcases Allen's fascination with the Marx Brothers and it works brilliantly.

2. Annie Hall

"Annie Hall" seems fresh even today. It's hilariously funny, intelligent, creative and very entertaining. Woody comments on nearly everything in popular culture and is very laconic and sarcastic all the way through.

1. Crimes and Misdemeanours

This movie has always struck me as quite perfect. The plot is simple: A man contemplates killing his mistress because she threatens to destroy his carreer and family. It shows a man riddled with guilt and moral dillemmas, a human being not percieving himself as evil, but somehow finds himself in a situation where he has to break his own moral codes to keep up his perfect appearance within society. Its Woody at his most nihilistic and it brings up alot of questions. What is morally right or wrong? Could and should we trust other people and listen to what they say? Are we ultimately on our own?

Top ten from the 1930's

2009-06-04T10:07:00.005+02:00

A poll on a movieforum which I frequent is having a poll of the best movies from the 1930's, so I made a list and thought I should post it here. The 1930's was the decade of sound and the rise of the "talkie" picture, which horrified silent movie lovers who loved the pictorial quality of film and not the aural quality. The free moveabout camera of the 20's was now locked up in soundisolated booths, unable to move around. This represented a major challenge to the directors of the era, who spent several years freeing the camera and recording sound in a more sophisticated way. OK, enought with the context. Here is my personal top ten:

10. My Man Godfrey (1935) directed by Gregory La Cava

This comedy has always struck me as very funny, as well as debating problems associated to class and capitalism. Powell creates a unique and very funny character and La Cava has a good eye for the visuals. The film does little to shy away from its genre, but creates a great energy with a great ensemble and a very funny script.

9. Bringing up Baby (1938) directed by Howard Hawks

Cary Grant has never been funnier than in this role. His comedic timing is spot-on and Hepburn is a great choice for his opinionated partner. Hawks mastered the fine art of the screwball-comedy, and it all comes into perfect fruitition in this movie. Great one-liners and bit-players (the sheriff is hilarious!) makes this movie utterly enjoyable.

8. Stagecoach (1939) directed by John Ford

Stagecoach really captures a special zeitgeist, and its adventure-like structure really appeals to the boy in me. The movie is very close to what I would call "a textbook western", and that is not meant in a negative way. The movie could be seen as simple and crude as opposed to more sophisticated western such as "The Searchers", but this I think is oversimpling things. It's important not to take "Stagecoach" too seriously, and enjoy the visuals, the excitement of the battle against the indians and the great performance of John Wayne.

7. The Mummy (1933) directed by Karl Freund

Karl Freund's "The Mummy" is in my opinion the best of the Universal Horror movies of the era. Freund's style is remarkably visual and he creates an atmosphere which Tod Browning was unable to create with his "Dracula". Freund was an expressionistic director of photography who turned to directing late in his career. Boris Karloff has never been more frightening and compelling as in this movie.

6. Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse (1934) directed by Fritz Lang

Fritz Lang's fable of madness and the alure of power is really worth seeing. Lang succeeds in making a horrifying portraitt of the dangers of organized crime. It's really fascinating to read this as a metaphore for the rising Nazi-movement and it is especially interesting to consider Hitler's own madness and powerlust. The movie is utterly exciting and shows Lang's great ability to make great action/thriller movies and somehow making it seem important and politically potent.

5. Le sang d'un Poete (1930) directed by Jean Cocteau

Jean Cocteau creates a surrealistic world recalling his childhood, and experiments with the movie as a medium. Cocteauian themes such as the parallell world which is entered through a mirror appears here for the first time. Cocteau's use of symbols, editing and false perspective fits perfectly in this compelling short movie. Three words: Poetic, beautiful and compelling

4. Vampyr (1933) directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer

Vampyr transports you to a dream-world of shadows, mysticism and death. It draws upon such primitive fears as watching your own funeral from your coffin. It's visual quality is really hard to put into words, but it uses some expressionistic techniques combined with Dreyer's acute sense of realism.

3. Lady Vanishes (1938) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

The Lady Vanishes is a fun and exiting movie. It's twist and turns are really worth admiring. Hitchcock takes a funny premise and turns it into an engaging story of fun and suspense. Its combination of wacky adventure dreamworld and political reality makes this ultimately interesting and very entertaining.

2. La Grande Illusion (1937) directed by Jean Renoir

Renoir really succeeds in making the perfect anti-war movie, and destroys the illusion of the importance of war. Its humanism and understanding of the human is what makes this such a great movie. The best war-movie ever made.

1. M (1933) directed by Fritz Lang

Fritz Lang's "M" starts out as a "hunt for the killer"-movie but then turns into a harrowing piece showing human madness and mans failed sense of justice. Lorre turns in his best performance ever and etches himself into our minds as the ultimate tragic figure in movie history.

Antichrist and the cinema of attraction

2009-05-20T14:40:00.006+02:00

Tom Gunning, a well known movie-writer, coined the term Cinema of Attraction in an essay he wrote in the 80's. Gunning states that cinema started as cinema of attraction used to showcase the film as a medium. The movies was used almost as a carny show, exhibiting strong men and bearded ladies. In this way the moviemaker showed off moving pictures and also appealed to the instinct of sensationalism. The trend in Hollywood the last ten years has been aimed at appealing to these instincts. The Saw and The Hostel movies in addition to a horde of modern horror movies are just some examples. In Europe this has manifested itself differently. Moviemakers such as Michael Haneke, Gaspar Noe and Ulrich Seidl use extreme violence or explicit sexual content, but instead of the glossy glorifying approach of Saw and The Hostel, these filmmakers draw a more complex and darker picture. Haneke uses long takes, a distant camera and deeply pessimistic stories of the human psychè to give the movie's violent sequences meaning outside of just being shocking.

Though I have not seen Lars Von Trier's Antichrist, it seems like he has "jumped the bandwagon", though this could be just a hasty conclusion since I have not seen the movie. I think it's important to make movies that have impact on people, that shocks them. It has a confrontal quality which few other mediums share. Also, the ruckus surrounding Antichrist is in a way good publicity for the movie as a medium. That movies still can create controversy and being talked about all through the world is in my opinion important. But Von Trier has in a way jumped the bandwagon. In the past, Von Trier always made highly original movies that were not occupied with trends (like Dancer in the Dark , Dogville and The Idiots). Of course, I have not seen Antichrist and this is just based on the controversy surrounding the movie, but it seems like he's taken shortcuts, instead of making highly original movies. I hope I'm wrong here, and that Antichrist is the deeply disturbing piece of art I want it to be. I ultimately find Von Trier a fascinating public person and an interesting filmmaker. Cinema needs controversial figures and themes in order to remain important as a medium and I am looking forward to seeing Antichrist. I hope it doesn't disappoint me...

Style and imagery in Godard's Prenom Carmen

2009-05-11T19:24:00.014+02:00

Godard was a radical filmmaker, even compared to his fellow New Wave directors. His first movie, Breathless (1958) featured groundbreaking jump-cuts in editing, which made the "invisible" Hollywood editing style seem old fashioned and tame (For those who have not seen Breathless and don't know what I mean by jump-cuts: Jump-cuts are visible editing that makes movements seem unnatural (watch an example HERE). Godard always experimented with the medium, frequently referring to the process of making movies inside the movie itself (Une Femme est une femme from 1962 begins with Anna Karina saying "Lights! Camera! Action!"), character's thoughts written in text on the screen, abrupt changes of style mid-movie and political symbolism. Godard often uses uncoventional stories which can often be summarized with a sentence. It's the images and construction of the film that's important to Godard. He wants to involve the viewer on every level, forcing the viewer to ponder even minor details.

"Prenom Carmen" was made in 1983, 25 years after his debut movie "Breathless". It was made after a disappointing decade with much scorn from movie critics and critique for his support of Mao Zedong. "Prenom Carmen" won The Golden Lion at the Cannes film festival and was fairly well-recieved when released. The plot is as follows: Carmen is planning to rob a bank with her friends. She tricks her uncle (played by Godard himself) into letting her borrow his house to supposedly make a movie. When robbing the bank, she falls in love with the security guard, Joseph, and they start up a romance.

There are several things going on in this movie. It has four "layers":

1. Carmen's world. Her romance and conflicts
2. A string ensemble rehearsing (with Joseph's "girlfriend")
3. Godard himself as a character and the allusion to filmmaking.
4. Godard's imagery that compliments Carmen's feelings

The first layer concerns Carmen, her romantic life and the robbery. She is frequently naked and is perfectly comfortable being so, which leads us to believe this is a strong female character. The second layer with the string ensemble layer could be interpreted as a meta-element, alluding to movie soundtracks, but it also functions as a plot element, as we learn that the girl playing violin is Josephs girlfriend or previous romantic partner. When the ensemble is playing, Godard often cuts to Carmen's world and the music is still playing like a conventional movie soundtrack, but it often stops abruptly. It also signifies the presence of "the other", the girl left by her boyfriend. The third layer is Godard and references to movies. Godard's character is a eccentric moviemaker (like himself) who is planning to make a film. Godard constantly hints to this being a film, clearly referring to the movie "Prenom Carmen" and not the movie he is supposedly making within the film. In one scene, he appears, then claps his hands and says: Cut! In another scene, he's talking with a man. The man is about to leave when Godard exclaims: "You can't go, the scene isn't finished yet!". This could be seen as either absurd humor or meta-elements. There are other absurd moments. When robbing the bank, Carmen and her gang shoots people. While lying on the blood stained floor, a cleaning maid appears and starts washing away the blood.

The fourth layer is Godard's imagery that compliments Carmen's feelings. Recurring images are the sea rising and lowering. When the romance becomes intense, the water is seen rising. Things are cooling off and Carmen is rejecting Joseph, the sea is seen retracting.

Also Godard uses trains that which are meeting. This image is repeated till the end when they break up, the train passes each other and go their separate ways. Godard also hints to the movie as a medium through imagery.The image of a television screen, with a silhouetted hand across it is also used. It expresses an emotion, a longing or love for the screen, almost caressing it.

Then at the end of the movie, Godard inserts one last reference to moviemaking:

You can clearly see the contrasts of a movie-reel. The movie ends with a brief text: In Memoriam Small Movies.

Why you should boycott superhero movies

2009-05-10T11:52:00.006+02:00

You're standing in line at the cinema trying to decide what to watch. And often you feel that the new superhero movie is so much talked about and done so well at the box office that you just have to see it. Today, Hollywood is churning out superhero movies like there's no tomorrow. And what do we end up with? More stereotypical movies that cater to the general public. Hollywood knows that it's smart to use already well-known brands, like superhero/cartoon characters. Superman (1,2,3,4 etc), Batman (1,2,3,4, etc), Iron man, Watchmen, Spiderman, The Fantastic Four, Daredevil, X-men, Wolverine are all superhero movies that currently pollutes our cinemas.

I am myself guilty of choosing superhero movies, just because everyone else has seen them. Well, don't do it! It's much better to choose a lower budget, non-hollywood film (if you're interested in them, of course. I'm not trying to dictate which movie you should see). You support other movie producers, instead of feeding the big Hollywood machinery. You get diversity, so "smaller movies" gets a little more capital so they can produce more movies. Or at least choose a more unique Hollywood movie. The audience is making Hollywood lazy. When choosing simple genre excercizes like Confessions of a Shopaholic or How to lose friends and alienate people, you are basically supporting Hollywood for making the same movies over and over again. This is not a new phenomena in Hollywood (remaking movies, that is), but with a more picky audience, Hollywood needs to put a lot of care into each movie.

The superhero formula is beginning to look pathetic. Hollywood buy the rights to a franchise, make a-dime-a-dozen script, spend a lot of money on effects and advertising. Voila! You have an easily sold commodity, and millions of teens standing in line to watch the effects and the image of their favorite superhero. But for us others, who do not associate ourselves with comic-obsessing teens, who like many types of movies, who often watch European and Asian movies as well and who really isn't expecting a movie revelation when watching superhero movies: don't do it! It's like fast food; you crave it, it is advertized all over, but when the meal is over you feel cheated. It's a falsely created need from smart business men that know how to create illusions.

Be proud if you haven't seen the latest Batman film or the next X-men spin-off. It's all right! On a side note, I have yet to see Braveheart. Everyone says: "Whaaat? You call yourself a movie fan, and haven't seen Braveheart?" Well, guess what; I know enough about that movie to know it's not something I will be blown away by. There are thousands of other movies I am more interested in watching that haven't made as much money as Braveheart has.

Irreversible

2009-05-08T22:06:00.004+02:00

The latest movie watched is Gaspar Noe's controversial movie Irreversible from 2002. The movie, when shown in Cannes, made a record-number of people leave the cinema because of its highly graphical violence. The movie is shown in reverse chronological order, starting with the end credits and ending with the beginning.

The scene that probably made people leave the theater in Cannes, was probably one of the first scenes when the main protagonist, Marcus, finds the alleged rapist of his wife. In the following fight, Marcus is overpowered by the rapist and is just to be raped himself when his friend Pierre appears with a fire-extinguisher and bashes the rapists head in. This is done without any cuts, clearly showing the rapist's head being smashed, and it is shockingly well done (a clip can be found here, though in bad quality. Warning; explicit violence)

The film then shows how Marcus and Pierre found the rapist, then how his wife got raped and finally ends up with the happy life they had before the rape. The rape scene is also done without cuts, and is very graphical and violent. Monica Bellucci is finally being beaten to a pulp after the rape. The movie has been criticized for being pornographic, but anyone being aroused by such scenes must be pretty cold hearted. Similar critique was raised against Pasolini's Salo, 120 Days of Sodom. Such critique clearly shows that the viewer has not understood the filmmaker's motives. I can't understand people that react against filmmakers showing rape as a brutal and agonizing thing. Do they rather want a cut version that doesn't confront them? Where rape neatly fits in with escapist ideals, and just being entertainment? That is, in my opinion, much worse.

Noe's movie does suffer from being perceived as a "concept-movie" alas, the concept overshadowing the film's message. But it is also clear that the narrational devices of telling the story backwards makes for a more interesting movie, then had it been linear. When telling it in reverse, the quiet, beautiful moments before the rape seem eerie and dark. The viewer knows what's going to happen. The final moment when Bellucci finds out she's pregnant is devastating.

It's a good movie, but it has the feel of being a bit "thin". There's too little going on, in my opinion. There is a great intensity and pretty good acting, but I have trouble finding more to it then; revenge is not the way to do it. It is an irreversible act. In this instance the revenge had a tragic ending to it, and it makes the viewer ponder what's right and wrong in such a situation. It's a nicely told movie, but I think it's all a bit too obvious and I don't think it could withhold repeated viewing. But it's good enough for me to recommend watching it.

Day of Wrath and Dreyer

2009-05-08T11:06:00.006+02:00

I recently watched Day of Wrath (1943), a harrowing tale of forbidden love set in 17th century Denmark and directed by the famous Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer. A priest has fallen in love with a much younger woman and marries her (it is implied that he forces her to marry him in exchange of saving her mother being burned as a witch). When the priests younger son appears, the young wife and he immediately falls in love and starts a secretive relationship.

Dreyer uses long takes and spare dialogue to create a lamenting, melancholy feel along with sparse use of light, creating a heavy clouded darkness. The movie is constructed in two parts: the first introduces an old woman being accused of witchcraft. She seeks refuge with the young wife, who hesitantly agrees to hide her. When the persecutors come knocking at the door, the young wife does nothing to prevent them from finding her. The burning of the witch is very traumatic for the young wife and she is further distanced from her old husband, who is one of the priests most active in condemning the witch. The priest's son can't bear watching, and appears to dislike the whole process. The second part is occupied with the romance of the young wife and the son. But when she confess to the son wanting the priest dead and he ends up dying shortly after, he starts thinking she too is a witch, just like her mother. Dreyer does imply that she might be a witch, and that witches maybe do exist.

Earlier when the priests are interrogating the old witch, torturing her to confession, she makes a threat to the leading contortionist. Later he dies, telling the old priest on his deathbed he is convinced the witch is responsible. Dreyer took this a step further in his next film, The Word, over ten years later, where he makes the viewer believe in miracles and God. In this movie he could be perceived as violently critiquing Christians, or sympathizing with them. In "Jeanne D'Arc" made in 1926, Dreyer is quite clearly condemning the priests and believers, portraying D'Arc like an icon, a Madonna, a martyr. In "Day of Wrath" the witch dying is portrayed as pitiful perhaps, but not glorified. Dreyer further imposes the notion of evil vs. pure by having an angelic boys choir singing at the witch burning. When the son dismisses the young wife at the end, even supporting his mother's claim of her being a witch, this could be seen as him trying to repent for his own sins by betraying his love. He chooses God and his father. The young wife "confesses" of being a witch, giving the viewer a sense of her wanting to die when being betrayed by her loved one.

Overall, I will say that Dreyer clearly sympathizes with the young wife, but in a subtle way. It would be too easy to paint a broad picture of evil religious clergies. Instead Dreyer wants to explore the doubts they had and portray them as humans able to make mistakes.

The ideal movie

2009-05-07T23:12:00.006+02:00

Defining one's own taste in movies is a hard task. Also in doing so, one is risking being perceived as close-minded. I must admit I don't have one ideal movie, some rigid sets of preconceived rules which a movie must adhere to. I am pretty fond of variation and watch a lot of different movies. But, if I am completely honest with myself there are some hidden ideals that are of a general nature.

I am very fond of brave statements and movies that challenge our outlook on life and art. Pier Paolo Pasolini is one director I admire very much for this quality. Movies that deal with moral questions, spiritual questions that are draped with mystique and carefully considered symbols and images are what I consider important. Basically, the movies that mean the most to me are not genre-excercises, but unique movies that often avoid straightforward narratives. Genre-movies could also be interesting, especially if they redefine or break with genre-conventions, but they are rarely considered favorites. I'm not much of a formalist, though I can , and often do, love a movie based on cinematography, or great bravura shots. It's often what the movies stands for politically and philosophical and how it gets this across to the viewer, that is most important to me. I like original statements, and also hold the director in high regards, in typical auteurist fashion.

I could mention some important directors: Ingmar Bergman, Carl Theodor
Dreyer, Alfred Hitchcock, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Federico Fellini, Andrej Tarkovskij, Louis Malle, Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, Michael Haneke, Roman Polanski, Jean Pierre Melville. As you can see, I am both fan of dramas, art movies, horror, surrealism, stylized crime movies, science fiction and thrillers. I seldom rate comedies highly (which I admit is a bit stupid when I think about it) and I am not a very big fan of realism. I think movies should transcend real life, and think that real art lies in the manipulation of reality.

I have a great deal of respect for the medium. The movies I dislike, are movies that merely exploit the medium, being made purely for financial reasons without trying to be original. Movies that tries to exploit a trend (the recent superhero movies, capitalistic shopping movies and romantic comedies spring to mind). I am not a film scholar, though I have attended a university course in Film History. I probably won't get into technical details much in my writings, but more general musings around movies, directors or genres.