Top 10+ Music, Movies, and Visual Art of the Week (2023) - Music Diaries

TiggaTrigga

AfterHours wrote:

Both were major touchstones and influences upon the slasher subgenre of horror.

I get how Halloween was impressive but I personally don't get the greatness of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Sure it was scary, but it seemed kind of amateur to me when I saw it. Perhaps I'm missing something?

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

TiggaTrigga wrote:

I get how Halloween was impressive but I personally don't get the greatness of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Sure it was scary, but it seemed kind of amateur to me when I saw it. Perhaps I'm missing something?

I think so, yes. It finds a remarkable pseudo-doc spontaneity, particularly with the onset of it's antagonist(s), that has rarely been matched in cinema history.

Throughout the film and leading up to Leatherface's introductory scene are many harbingers/symbols of danger, death, demise, devastation. Beginning with opening credits and the dead armadillo in the foreground, to (for instance) the insane hitchhiker (later an antagonist), to shots featuring dilapidated environments, property, housing, etc. All are death warnings, harbingers of what's coming. All exacerbated by the grotesque equipment and belongings, the madhouse (the hook, the skeletal remains, etc) inside Leatherface's home.

Many shots throughout the first half of the film (particularly) feature a low or extended/distorted angle, with either the perspective (or a protagonist) at/near the foreground (the shot framed and pointedly "extending" in distorted or wide perspective from there). These all seem to indicate a "future" that still lies ahead, is still possible, a danger that is still perceivable for the protagonist(s) (to be able to change their minds and determine the course of events instead of getting murdered). As Leatherface enters the picture, these sorts of shots tend to now be collapsed/devastated/"cut down" into (at best) "even" perspectives, and often "closed in" perspectives or even total nightmarish claustrophobia (terrified close ups of hysteria).

The apparently extreme violence is much more alluded to than seems possible by how visceral its last half is, masterfully left half to the imagination, half explicit. Exactly enough is shown to heighten the suspense and terror to a maximum, but the staging and shots are frequently brilliant so as to "force" the viewer's imagination into a state of immersion that tends to pit oneself (at least partially, and then partially in concert with the character on-screen) into said positions/circumstances and fill in the gaps oneself. Stunning examples include when the brother in wheelchair is chainsawed to death, shown at extreme angle and reversed perspective that we see the chainsaw executing its violence (but no actual explicit violence seen), to leave half of it to one's imagination/nightmares.

Further, much of the violence and evil has an utterly grotesque and, essentially, a very manic (VERY BLACK) comic element. There is an absurd outrageousness to the wheelchair bound brother being chainsawed with such mania and insouciance (aided by the fact that, being relatively helpless, he should be the most sympathetic protagonist -- and most films probably wouldn't even show him being killed but would just cut away from it as soon as it is clear what's going to happen -- but yet meets the most delirious, absurd, blackly comic death). The way Leatherface runs around so openly with a chainsaw, giddy to kill. How his brother and father act when they all team up. Etc. The film is a remarkable balancing act between hyper-realistic nightmarish horror and outrageously black comedy (a very difficult combo to pull off sincerely). The mixture of tones of its violence and craziness, particularly its "spontaneity" (that doesn't seem planned, staged, like say, the meticulous "form" of the work of Hitchcock) may be the most remarkable accomplishment of all.

To top all that off, several interspersed shots in between and as background to the ongoing violence and events (such as those lingering on into the deep horizon, burning hues of browns and reds and yellowish, burnt colors) have a rustic beauty to them that lends a virtually metaphysical element to the proceedings, especially those juxtaposed by the insane ferocity of Leatherface. A major example being the finale with Leatherface and the escaping girl screaming in terror against the backdropped dawn. These shots are ambiguously both waking nightmare and a glimmer of hope, and perhaps offer an almost strangely "holy" feeling or even "ascendance" to the arc of the film, where the surviving girl, blood drenched, has gone through a sort of spiritual "cleansing" or "ritual" (in the insane eyes of Leatherface and his family).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 08/03/2022 19:19; edited 3 times in total

Facetious

Gender: Male
Age: 24
Location: Somewhere you've never been

Never looked into the Psycho sequels but I'm intrigued now. What makes Psycho II great for you?

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Facetious wrote:

Never looked into the Psycho sequels but I'm intrigued now. What makes Psycho II great for you?

Below only De Palma's masterpieces, it perhaps does the best job I've ever seen of directly resurrecting (and truly honoring) the art of Hitchcock (although I would maybe say that De Palma seems to express a more "love-hate" relationship with this, as if being done half-begrudgingly, cynically). It uses many of the same (or similar) shots, scenes of deja vu, from the original masterpiece, to symbolize and express Bates' trauma, as he returns home and attempts to withstand the urges of his past. It isn't quite as subtle or efficient (an almost impossible expectation; with the original practically every move, motivation, scene carries peculiar, sinister, blackly comic and manipulative meaning on its own and interlocked with the rest), but "technically" is on par with the first (surprisingly) with many shots and sequences that would've made the master proud. It is also a bit more convoluted than the original (approaching the extra-absurd territory of Hitchcock descendants like Aldrich and De Palma, and Losey), with an overdose of "twists" (that is both fun, playful, mocking, but also maybe a little overboard, thus losing a meticulous balancing act with subtlety the original strikes? I'm not sure yet, I almost gave it 7.2 or 7.3+ and will need to see again). Some of the main characters (mother and daughter) motivations are a bit hard to believe but they are mostly in good fun and acted with conviction and theatricality that honors the original's tones (in alignment with its own attempt to mock the viewer's expectations even if somewhat forced), so it's not a big deal. I'll have to see how it all holds up on a future revisit. It attempts to capture the supreme "mocking tone" of the original (but maybe tries a little too hard, falls short, if admirably) and probably doesn't quite match it (the black and white cinematography, the lighting, of the original, plays a role, and then the intricate form of its "shifting" compositional layout, from every angle of the story and characters, the constant ways Hitch plays with the viewer from the very opening to the end; this is almost impossible to match). Simultaneously to its surprising ability to resurrect Hitchcock (and even though generally a strength here), it perhaps loses something of its own vision by doing so (so it's both a major plus, but maybe a limiting factor in carving its own creativity, its own "extraordinary ground"?). The jury is still out -- again, my temptation for its potential rating reached up to a possible 7.3-7.4 (but more likely 7.1-7.2) on this initial viewing. I, too, had never bothered to see the sequels and have been pleasantly surprised that they're much better than is usual for horror follow ups. Even the 3rd has merits, especially its opening (a stunning homage to Vertigo) and then especially, as well, over its final act. In both, Perkins performance is superb, building off and adding to the original with the same conviction as he began with a constant, strangely, awkwardly creepy suspense of character/motivational/tone fluctuation that is always someone we would definitely be wary of, yet also sympathetic no matter what we see him do or think he might be about to do. The films tend to beckon us to root for him (not wanting him to get caught, manipulation towards wanting to see him escape or commit more gruesome acts against whoever may threaten him), constantly pitting the viewer in his plight (through the immersive, manipulative craft expressing his characterization, actions). The 2nd and 3rd films expound upon this as a major theme and dilemma (for him and the audience).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

TiggaTrigga

I definitely am curious why Candyman is a 7.2. I found it a little lackluster.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

TiggaTrigga wrote:

I definitely am curious why Candyman is a 7.2. I found it a little lackluster.

How so?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

TiggaTrigga

The pacing just felt really slow. It felt anti-climactic. It didn't have the kind of suspense that a movie like Halloween or The Shining or Psycho had, in my opinion. But the villain is at least an interesting concept. Though to be fair it's been awhile since I've watched it. What did you find interesting about it?

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

TiggaTrigga wrote:

The pacing just felt really slow. It felt anti-climactic. It didn't have the kind of suspense that a movie like Halloween or The Shining or Psycho had, in my opinion. But the villain is at least an interesting concept. Though to be fair it's been awhile since I've watched it. What did you find interesting about it?

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to guess what you mean (what your reasoning is ... your reply didn't really give an answer, pretty much just repeated itself from your previous one "just felt really slow ... anticlimactic..." Okay, why though? What did you feel was missing, what was wrong with its pace in the context of what it was doing/intending/conveying Think

) ...but with that, my best estimate would be that you didn't catch the racial subtext that is constantly being developed in juxtaposition to the basic plot. I suppose its slow in the sense that much of the more intense "action" and "drama" is expressed in an ominous, dreamy-visionary, surreal and operatic way, and with the gradual accumulation of fear and dread (with heavy metaphysical overtones) it is also conveying an ineluctable trajectory towards death/tragedy/sadness/"the end" (btw, partially reminiscent of "The Doors" dramas in cinematic terms ... all the scenes with Candyman or alluding to his presence even in those he doesn't "physically" emerge).

There is a lot to potentially say about the film, but probably key theme underlying much of it is the idea (from the film's/protagonist's POV, a "white-affluent" perspective) that the poor black neighborhood is clinging to an urban legend to explain away its downfalls (first mentioned by her husband, a professor, when he is talking to his class about urban legends), which can also be seen as a metaphor for reasons that are given in real-life (with no real solution). The irony is that she (white and affluent), herself, tragically, becomes victim to it too (which, simultaneous to eventually getting her killed, ironically is also the causation of her fulfillment of what initially drew her to the project that she is working on, a fulfillment of her understanding the predicament, which is further illustrated by how she eventually dies and the community it impacts). Throughout, there is much ambiguity in the murder scenes, in that she herself may have committed them. The evidence for Candyman pointing to, possibly, being entirely of her own delusions as she increases her belief in the same urban legend, that only starts perpetuating itself towards her tragic downfall after she has entered and become accustomed to and in empathy with its environment (thus taking on the same psychology ... remember nothing happens to her when -- before this -- she says his name 5 times into the mirror near the beginning of the film; it only starts happening AFTER she becomes part of the same environment, sympathetic to it, and even more after she starts experiencing violence -- after being attacked for instance -- in the same environment, just like its citizens have surely experienced). It is with further ambiguity in that, her being white-affluent, after the child goes missing and the mother stabbed (by her), she is yet given the benefit of the doubt at first (before she is eventually, finally committed after her black friend is murdered). The additional subtext of the film is disturbingly psycho-sexual and the "operatic" Candyman scenes take on an additional erotic subtext, with Candyman "luring" her to join him in death throughout the film, and her feeling this ineluctable pull towards him (that no matter what she does, can't escape), which (further adding subtext/motivation to this theme) is juxtaposed/mirrored by her husband cheating on her and her gradual realization of this. Their "merging" is not just psycho-sexual but merges the "viewpoints" of one who is "white-affluent" (that now understands) and one who was killed by oppression coming from those that were "white-affluent" (that was racist and didn't understand). The films actions and conclusions, plot developments, are not just empty "actions" or "violent scare scenes" with a killer getting revenge or running amok, but have these sorts of developments as their motivation and meaning, as a rather compelling subtext-ual undercurrent throughout (regardless if one agrees with or believes the politics or social/psychological reasoning being given). The main point is that its an interesting point of view and interesting, pretty unique, thematic ground to build a horror film around, pre-dating the hyper-racial subtexts of (for instance) Jordan Peele's horror by decades. It essentially builds a horror film out of similar strands that a violent urban gangsta-crime film would be built upon.

Extra emphasis should be given Todd's enigmatic, haunting, imposing, performance (one of the great horror villains) and the rather stunning visuals of (especially) the more operatic scenes featuring him, something like a cross between the gothic-stylized-dreamy/nightmarish-brooding visuals of The Crow and that of De Palma (such as the operatic violent sequences of Dressed to Kill).

It is also perhaps worth pointing out that the film features several haunting overhead "God's-eye-view" shots, establishing various scenes, as if she is being watched over throughout, by a presence (Candyman) from beyond the grave. Perhaps also (ambiguously) the oppressive perspective of the "white-affluent" over the poor urban neighborhood? (just a thought, I'd have to revisit again to crystallize my thoughts on that). ... ... Also, several creepy "POV" shots while she is investigating, as if she is being "watched", peered at, as if a voyeur is tracking her (again, such as Candyman).

The film moves every bit as fluidly as those you mention, so these sorts of themes is what I would recommend paying attention to, what the less thrilling scenes are contributing to, introducing, developing, as this can cause one to see, upon recognition of their purpose and value to what the film is doing, that perhaps any boredom or issues with the pacing were unfounded. So, not just watching the movie, but asking oneself, looking for, WHY the director is including this or that scene (as opposed to cutting it or not shooting it in the first place) and what THEME(s) is it introducing/conveying/developing. In any great film, there is more being expressed (usually MUCH more) than what is being shown on its most superficial level (Psycho for instance, since you mention it and being on the topic of horror, is among the most extraordinary examples of this in film history, WAY beyond its "surface" plot/excitement/suspense).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

@TiggaTrigga

The reason why I emphasize attending to "themes" and "thematic development" is because it's a little more specific (for cinema, which is usually narrative based) than saying "concept" (from which it simply derives from, criteria-wise) and it's not as stifling/limited as saying "follow the story/plot". One should of course follow the story/plot (in most films where it is applicable), but "within" that, there are (with better films) usually multiple parallel themes being developed which less astute film-viewers miss or just don't pay attention to or don't consider applicable to the viewing experience (especially those brought up on too much TV and too much mainstream cinema, and that never ventured beyond that). If it's, say, a Tarkovsky film (ESPECIALLY Solaris-forward) the "plot" is generally very thin and the director is mostly developing and alluding to themes/ideas (any "plot" being just a foundation from which to examine these). Spielberg, a very talented director (and a very polished middle ground, one might say, between "mainstream plot-driven" and more "ideas-driven cinema"), perhaps also teaches viewers that this is an ideal way of expression, which isn't bad in itself (again, a fine director with multiple superbly crafted and compelling films), but honing one's viewing tendencies on that (and alike directors such as Lean, Zemeckis, etc) and not looking past that may "train" viewers to not look much further than that "middle ground". I guess I'm kind of saying that someone who finds Tarkovsky "boring" (or Tarr, or Kubrick's 2001, etc) is of course perfectly entitled to that view, but there is a good bet that he/she may be too reliant on more plot/story driven cinema and not that which goes beyond or subverts plot for more "idea-driven" cinema (or, in other words, the development of themes, not just "plot"; and in Tarkovsky's case very profound and personal ideas/themes). Hence, paying attention to themes and thematic development can help one further hone one's ability to see the value in what the director is conveying even in the scenes of less obvious tension, excitement, etc (why I estimated it might prove applicable to your brief reasoning about Candyman). Note that the above doesn't mean "all thematic development is created equal" ... and so, imo as per my criteria, it still comes down to: how much emotional/conceptual/creative depth, or however stated ... and when comparing the best to the best, I would stress comparing how "singular" their artistic vision, without losing their alignment to emotional/conceptual (or "thematic") impact and development (attending to both developmental consistency and peaks). In the higher ratings, it of course gets increasingly difficult to "separate" in regards quality between two or more greats, and one could practically go insane trying! Brick wall

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

EXPLANATION: WHAT IS THIS LOG??? Go here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...094#571094

For my criteria page, go here: http://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/vi...hp?t=15503

To visit my Main lists, go here:
Greatest Classical Music Works: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15098
Greatest Albums (Rock & Jazz): https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15276
Greatest Films: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15558
Greatest Paintings: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15560
Greatest Works of Art: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=16117

Bold = Newly added
Bold + Italics = Was already listed but recently upgraded/downgraded

Top 10+ Music, Movies, and Visual Art of the Week(s): 8-15-2022 - 9-4-2022
Improvisie - Paul Bley (1971)
Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958)
Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994)
Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937)
2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick (1968)
Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976)
Irrlicht - Klaus Schulze (1972)
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
The Magnificent Ambersons - Orson Welles (1942)
The Graduate - Mike Nichols (1967)
Blade Runner - Ridley Scott (1982)
Videodrome - David Cronenberg (1983)
The Shining - Stanley Kubrick (1980)
The Lady from Shanghai - Orson Welles (1948)
The Doors - The Doors (1966)
Are You Experienced? - Jimi Hendrix (1967)
Strange Days - The Doors (1967)
Bonnie & Clyde - Arthur Penn (1967)
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior - George Miller (1981)
Rosemary's Baby - Roman Polanski (1968)
Lost Highway - David Lynch (1997)
Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - Stanley Kubrick (1964)
Inland Empire - David Lynch (2006)
Robocop - Paul Verhoeven (1987)
The Silence of the Lambs - Jonathan Demme (1991)
Mean Streets - Martin Scorsese (1973)
The Third Man - Carol Reed (1949)
LA Confidential - Curtis Hanson (1998)
The Birds - Alfred Hitchcock (1963)
Kiss Me Deadly - Robert Aldrich (1955)
After Hours - Martin Scorsese (1985)
The Killer - John Woo (1989)
Hard Boiled - John Woo (1992)
Carrie - Brian DePalma (1976)

Top 10+ Albums/Movies/Visual Art for the Week(s) - Rated 2.8/10 to 6.7/10
Jigoku - Nobuo Nakagawa (1960)

FAMILIAR FILMS - RE-RATED:
Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985) [The Final Cut, 142 minutes] 9.0/10 to 8.9/10
Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976) 8.2/10 to 8.3/10
The Lady from Shanghai - Orson Welles (1948) 8.3/10 to 8.2/10
2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick (1968) 7.9/10 to 8.1/10
Rosemary's Baby - Roman Polanski (1968) 8.3/10 to 8.1/10
Lost Highway - David Lynch (1997) 8.1/10 to 8.0/10
The Magnificent Ambersons - Orson Welles (1942) 7.3/10 to 7.7/10
Inland Empire - David Lynch (2006) 8.1/10 to 7.6/10
Blade Runner - Ridley Scott (1982) [The Final Cut, 117 minutes] 7.5/10 to 7.6/10
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia - Sam Peckinpah (1974) 7.6/10 to 7.5/10 ... Update from weeks ago, just forgot...
The Phantom of Liberty - Luis Bunuel (1974) 7.6/10 to 7.5/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
Irma La Douce - Billy Wilder (1963) 7.6/10 to 7.5/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
Children of Paradise - Marcel Carne (1945) 7.6/10 to 7.5/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
Videodrome - David Cronenberg (1983) 7.4/10 to 7.5/10
After Hours - Martin Scorsese (1985) 7.6/10 to 7.5/10
The Manchurian Candidate - John Frankenheimer (1962) 7.6/10 to 7.5/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
The Third Man - Carol Reed (1949) 7.7/10 to 7.5/10
The Birds - Alfred Hitchcock (1963) 7.6/10 to 7.4/10
Johnny Guitar - Nicholas Ray (1954) 7.5/10 to 7.4/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior - George Miller (1981) 7.3/10 to 7.4/10
Dead Man - Jim Jarmusch (1995) 7.5/10 to 7.4/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
Ran - Akira Kurosawa (1985) 7.5/10 to 7.4/10 ... Update from months ago, just forgot...
LA Confidential - Curtis Hanson (1998) 7.6/10 to 7.3/10
Kiss Me Deadly - Robert Aldrich (1955) 7.5/10 to 7.3/10
The Killer - John Woo (1989) 7.5/10 to 7.3/10
Hard Boiled - John Woo (1992) 7.4/10 to 7.3/10
The Shining - Stanley Kubrick (1980) 7.0/10 to 7.2/10
Carrie - Brian DePalma (1976) 7.3/10 to 7.1/10
The Silence of the Lambs - Jonathan Demme (1991) 7.1/10 to 7.0/10
Jigoku - Nobuo Nakagawa (1960) Not Rated to 4.1/10 (I think I had it at 6.8 on last viewing around 2012) ... The art direction (particularly during the "hell" sequence, sometimes before), camera placements/angles and the dark lighting (sometimes inspired, and even if there is some intriguing artistry here, other times it is awkward and probably covering for its low budget) hold some interest, along with its unusual framing at times (often closing off sets, interiors, environments to frame them as a more abstract theatrical production more so than "cinema"; even if there are some inspired sequences there are also many scenes where the lighting seems unnecessary and more than likely due to its low budget), but the acting and editing and "plot" and themes are generally quite clumsy and even its efforts at shock, subversion and "Bosch-ian" sequences can't overcome the fact that these characters and situations are too silly and poorly conceived (all the characters are one-dimensional, for instance) to care about them, to feel really any suspense at their predicaments, or any of the circumstances presented. Believe it or not, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away (roughly 2010-2011), I actually rated this 8.8/10 (for a couple weeks if memory serves). I guess I was very impressed by its visuals at the time (which still have their moments) and the "Hell" sequence in particular, but this now probably holds the record on my lists for the steepest drop from a once (very) high position. In short, it has some points of interest but way too carelessly conceived by and large, and too much of it is either a bore or awkward/silly for its more inspired moments to salvage it.

TOP 50 WORKS OF ART OF THE YEAR (2022)
Sistine Chapel: Ceiling and The Last Judgment - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1512; 1541)
Lorca - Tim Buckley (1970)
Rock Bottom - Robert Wyatt (1974)
St. Peter's Basilica - Michelangelo Buonarroti, Donato Bramante, Carlo Maderno and Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1626) [Architecture]
Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985) [The Final Cut, 142 minutes]
Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937)
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea - Neutral Milk Hotel (1997)
The Velvet Underground and Nico - The Velvet Underground (1966)
The Beethoven Frieze - Gustav Klimt (1902)
Daydream Nation - Sonic Youth (1988)
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
Spiderland - Slint (1991)
Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966)
North by Northwest - Alfred Hitchcock (1959)
Desertshore - Nico (1970)
Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock (1958)
Possession - Andrzej Zulawski (1981)
Piano Sonata No. 20 in A Major - Franz Schubert (1828)
Isenheim Altarpiece - Matthias Grunewald [includes sculpture by Nikolaus Hagenauer] (circa 1512-1516)
The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa - Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1652) [Sculpture and Architecture]
The Gates of Hell - Auguste Rodin (1889 "Expressionist" Version) [Sculpture]
Laughing Stock - Talk Talk (1991)
Piano Sonata No. 32 in C Minor - Ludwig van Beethoven (1822)
Marquee Moon - Television (1977)
The Doors - The Doors (1966)
Blue - Joni Mitchell (1971)
Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958)
Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Ludwig van Beethoven (1808)
Symphony No. 6 in A minor "Tragic" - Gustav Mahler (1904; 1906)
Psycho - Alfred Hitchcock (1960)
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon - Pablo Picasso (1907)
Europe After The Rain II - Max Ernst (1942)
Piano Sonata in B Minor - Franz Liszt (1853)
Sandham Memorial Chapel: The Resurrection of the Soldiers & War Murals - Stanley Spencer (1929)
Violin Concertos Nos. 1-4, "The Four Seasons" - Antonio Vivaldi (1723)
Symphony No. 4 in E Minor - Johannes Brahms (1884)
Symphony No. 8 in B Minor "Unfinished" - Franz Schubert (1822)
Piano Sonata No. 23 in F Minor "Appassionata" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1805)
The Sacrifice - Andrei Tarkovsky (1986)
St. Matthew Cycle: The Calling of St. Matthew; The Inspiration of St. Matthew; The Martyrdom of St. Matthew - Michelangelo Caravaggio (1602)
The Last Supper - Leonardo Da Vinci (1497)
Y - The Pop Group (1979)
Piano Sonata No. 30 in E Major - Ludwig van Beethoven (1820)
It's Such a Beautiful Day - Don Hertzfeldt (2012)
Apollo and Daphne - Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1625) [Sculpture]
Medici Chapel: The Sagrestia Nuova - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1555) [Sculpture and Architecture]
I Lie Here Buried With My Rings and My Dresses - Backxwash (2021)
Early Bourgeois Revolution in Germany - Werner Tubke (1987) [aka, "Peasants' War Panorama"]
Jagged Little Pill - Alanis Morissette (1995)
Pieta - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1499)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 09/06/2022 06:32; edited 37 times in total