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

AfterHours

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

Facetious wrote:

The rating for The Gold Rush on your Greatest Films list is for the reconstructed 1925 cut? What do you think of the 1942 re-release?

Ive seen both multiple times but I dont remember which I preferred actually. When I get back around to revisiting it, Ill note it, and maybe ratings for each.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

Facetious wrote:

Loving the new Shadows upgrade.
By the way, what makes North by Northwest an all-time masterpiece and Hitchcock's best for you?

Its too extensive for me to go into a lot of details at the moment. Maybe Ill say more next time I revisit...

Basically though: every character, predicament, scene, dialogue and so on holds a multiplicitous identity/meaning/allusion. Nothing is what it seems or even if it apparently is on the surface, it has multiple other points to it -- all the key characters (villians too) and spaces have double, triple, quadruple or more meanings, reasons, ulterior purposes/motives, multiple identities and so on. A relentless spectacle of irony and directorial gamesmanship and suspense and spectacular theatrical artifice of world/plot and character building based on a single moment of mistaken identity. All the way down to the never ending vibrant artifice of the scenes and imagery. The film's colors, rhythm, montage, images, scenes and outcomes could all be said to be presented from the impetus and through the worldview of the mocking/ironic tone of Thornhill's series of interactions at the very beginning of the film, then hurrying his secretary past the expectant passenger into the taxi, then with his summation to her: "In the world of advertising, there's no such thing as a lie. There's only expedient exaggeration." The film becomes an relentless accumulation of multiplicity, a monument of meaninglessness (none of it had to happen) that reveals (thus, by accident and lie) many things about Thornhill, who becomes an interchangeable character of fluid identities through all the scenes of the film (ex: Ad exec ... Kaplan ... car crash/drunkard ... jailed criminal [with mother "out to get him" with her testimonial against his defense and confirming his alcoholism] ... breaking and entering [escaping mother and the gangsters -- also gardener and house guest host!] ... murderer [of a politician no less! Everyone look at the murderer holding the murder weapon!!!] ... fugitive on the run ... romantic getaway ... involved in government scheme/spy/conspiracy ... train conductor/baggage man ... "farmer" hunted/attacked by lethal crop duster! Crop dust that pest!!! ... "death scene" [run over by truck] then, a car thief!! ... art dealer then crowd nuisance! One must make a bid at an auction! ... caught by police!! ... gets "killed" again [by Eve, Rushmore] ... etc, and so on throughout the film all the way up to the final shots where he saves Eve's life, pulling her up from the mountainside and straight into bed [the ultimate "orgasmic" jump cut, from the brink of death to the brink of sex!] while the "train" thrusts into the "tunnel", Thornhill [Hitchcock?] fulfilling his sexual conquest!!! ... all the while wearing the suit that by contrast, continually mocks his original identity/image) ... Near the end he has "become" Kaplan (saving Eve, taking charge of the situation as if it's his operation) as he has now lived his imaginary life to the fullest (the irony is that he had to become his mistaken identity all along to get his life back) ... By further allusion/subtext, the film portrays Hitchcock playing out his fantasies and perversities and fears and audience games (the playing of the audience from every angle "like a piano", the total paranoia of the work is the completion of a career made of this [from every angle and genre, seamlessly in one film], the relationship/annoyances of mothers, the skepticism [fear?] of homosexuality [Vandamm and his 2nd in command], the icy blonde he is obsessed with [Eve], the person he wishes he could be [Grant], and so on). And then all the locales/scenes have their own multi-faceted sinister and mocking/satiric progression of meanings [images as ironic counterpoint to what's happening], culminating in the irony of climbing the faces of Mt Rushmore while locked in a governmental/political/spy conspiracy, mocking and ridiculous (a gag among an endless series) ... The whole film is a nightmare where Thornhill is thrust into crazy, terrifying, life-threatening circumstances constantly, where his whole life is its smorgasbord, replaced and completely upended, but also (irony upon ironies) played/directed/visualized with flair and gamesmanship and cheerfulness, light-hearted tone and colorful palette and enthusiastic rhythm. And throughout, Thornhill meets this with class and wit, in his favorite suit no less (finally changing when he becomes his own man, a new man, Kaplan).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

Top 10+ Music, Movies, and Visual Art of the Week (2020)

NOTE: This is a log of my favorite works of music, cinema and/or visual art for the given week. The rankings here will not necessarily parallel my overall rankings, as these are only what I favored for the given week. To qualify for inclusion, the work must be rated 6.8/10 or better (or at least was at some point during the week). This log will also include updated ratings for my various lists (below the "Top 10+" section)

Below that, there will be a running listing of my "Top 50 Works of Art of the Year". This is simply a log of my favorite art over the course of this whole year, whether old or new to me. This list is cumulative, week-to-week, until its final standings at the end of the year.

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

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

Top 10+ Music, Movies, and Visual Art of the Week(s): 8-10-2020 - 9-13-2020
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1966)
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
Blonde On Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)
Highway 61 Revisited - Bob Dylan (1965)
Spirit of Eden - Talk Talk (1988)
Lorca - Tim Buckley (1969)
Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985)
The Tenant - Roman Polanski (1976)
Forrest Gump - Robert Zemeckis (1994)
Casino - Martin Scorsese (1995)
Blue - Joni Mitchell (1971)
Parasite - Bong Joon Ho (2019)
Jagged Little Pill - Alanis Morissette (1995)
A Fish Called Wanda - Charles Crichton (1987)
Carrie - Brian DePalma (1976)
Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994)
Picnic at Hanging Rock - Peter Weir (1975)
The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972)
Late Spring – Yasujiro Ozu (1949)
The Truman Show - Peter Weir (1998)
The Conversation - Francis Ford Coppola (1974)
The Stranger - Orson Welles (1946)
Before Sunrise - Richard Linklater (1995)
Three Colors: Red - Krzysztof Kieslowski (1994)
Contact - Robert Zemeckis (1997)
Enemy of the State - Tony Scott (1998)
Total Recall - Paul Verhoeven (1990)
Heat - Michael Mann (1995)
Runaway Train - Andrei Konchalovsky (1985)
Sisters - Brian DePalma (1972)
Beetlejuice - Tim Burton (1988)
Groundhog Day - Harold Ramis (1993)
Suspicion - Alfred Hitchcock (1941)
Stagecoach - John Ford (1939)
Exotica - Atom Egoyan (1994)
The Pillow Book - Peter Greenaway (1996)
If... - Lindsay Anderson (1968)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day - James Cameron (1991)
The Insider - Michael Mann (1999)
Amateur - Hal Hartley (1994)
Shame - Ingmar Bergman (1968)
Nurse Betty - Neil Labute (2000)
The General - Buster Keaton (1926)
Under the Skin - Jonathan Glazer (2014)
Night of the Living Dead - George Romero (1968)
To Die For - Gus Van Sant (1995)
Secret Ceremony - Joseph Losey (1968)
Raiders of the Lost Ark - Steven Spielberg (1981)
Shallow Grave - Danny Boyle (1994)
Monsieur Verdoux - Charlie Chaplin (1947)
My Cousin Vinny - Jonathan Lynn (1992)

FAMILIAR FILMS - RE-RATED:
Underground - Emir Kusturica (1995) 8.4/10 to 8.3/10
Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994) 8.3/10 to 8.1/10
The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972) 8.2/10 to 7.9/10
Last Year at Marienbad - Alain Resnais (1961) 7.9/10 to 7.7/10
Three Colors: Red - Krzysztof Kieslowski (1994) 8.3/10 to 7.6/10
The Tenant - Roman Polanski (1976) Not Rated to 7.5/10
The Conversation - Francis Ford Coppola (1974) 7.7/10 to 7.5/10
Late Spring – Yasujiro Ozu (1949) 7.5/10 to 7.4/10
Forrest Gump - Robert Zemeckis (1994) 7.3/10 to 7.4/10
Casino - Martin Scorsese (1995) 7.1/10 to 7.4/10
A Fish Called Wanda - Charles Crichton (1987) 7.2/10 to 7.3/10
Carrie - Brian DePalma (1976) Not Rated to 7.3/10
Suspicion - Alfred Hitchcock (1941) 7.3/10 to 7.2/10
Picnic at Hanging Rock - Peter Weir (1975) Not Rated to 7.2/10 ...always been a very difficult film to rate confidently so could be higher (lower?)...
Stagecoach - John Ford (1939) 7.3/10 to 7.2/10
Exotica - Atom Egoyan (1994) 7.3/10 to 7.1/10
The Pillow Book - Peter Greenaway (1996) 7.3/10 to 7.1/10
If... - Lindsay Anderson (1968) 7.3/10 to 7.1/10
Amateur - Hal Hartley (1994) 7.3/10 to 7.1/10
Raiders of the Lost Ark - Steven Spielberg (1981) 7.4/10 to 7.1/10
Shallow Grave - Danny Boyle (1994) 7.3/10 to 7.1/10
Under the Skin - Jonathan Glazer (2014) 7.3/10 to 7.0/10
To Die For - Gus Van Sant (1995) 7.3/10 to 7.0/10
Heat - Michael Mann (1995) Not Rated to 7.0/10
Contact - Robert Zemeckis (1997) Not Rated to 7.0/10
The Insider – Michael Mann (1999) Not Rated to 7.0/10
Enemy of the State - Tony Scott (1998) Not Rated to 7.0/10
Total Recall - Paul Verhoeven (1990) Not Rated to 6.9/10
Shame - Ingmar Bergman (1968) 7.3/10 to 6.9/10
Nurse Betty - Neil Labute (2000) 7.2/10 to 6.9/10
Secret Ceremony - Joseph Losey (1968) 7.3/10 to 6.9/10
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) Not Rated to 6.9/10
Night of the Living Dead - George Romero (1968) 7.1 to 6.8/10
Before Sunrise - Richard Linklater (1995) Not Rated to 6.8/10
Groundhog Day - Harold Ramis (1993) Not Rated to 6.8/10
Beetlejuice - Tim Burton (1988) Not Rated to 6.8/10
Monsieur Verdoux - Charlie Chaplin (1947) 7.3/10 to Not Rated/Probably below-7.3/10
Monty Python's Life of Brian - Terry Jones (1979) Not Rated to 6.6/10
The Social Network - David Fincher (2010) Not Rated to 6.5/10
Poltergeist - Tobe Hooper (1982) Not Rated to 6.1/10
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi - Richard Marquand (1983) Not Rated to 5.6/10
Jurassic Park - Steven Spielberg (1993) Not Rated to 5.5/10
My Cousin Vinny - Jonathan Lynn (1992) 6.8/10 to 4.9/10
Sleepless in Seattle - Nora Ephron (1993) Not Rated to 4/10

NEWLY ASSIMILATED FILMS - RATED:
Parasite - Bong Joon Ho (2019) 7.3/10
Runaway Train - Andrei Konchalovsky (1985) 6.9/10
Sisters - Brian DePalma (1972) 6.9/10
Before Sunset - Richard Linklater (2004) 5/10
Before Midnight - Richard Linklater (2013) 4.5/10 ...the ratings difference between the last two and the first one is not some dramatic dive in technical quality. They're all honest portraits of stages of life and how couples meet, bond and treat each other (flaws and all). But the first one has a near-continuous tension and is thus a lot more emotionally involving and a bit more moving too. The last two have tension as well, but much more fleetingly, momentarily, temporarily. The last two are maybe even of a higher integrity in terms of reality being filmed (with a greater concentration on real-time, idleness, some ultra long takes), and never less than mildly enthralling throughout their playing time, with great conversations and so on. Even though I respect Linklater's work in making all three and how "un-Hollywood" he kept them, I can't think of much reason to see the last two again as most of their interest is in seeing where the characters from the first film end up in relation to each other (do they meet again, do they date again, do they stay together, do the break up?), and this interest is held mostly on the strength of the first film and the tension it developed, the table it set (to the degree the next two parts refer back to this, and use it as counterpoint, they tend to be stronger than otherwise). But the first one's magic is entirely from itself and in relation to its own time constraints and circumstances. All three films feature exceptional, naturalistic acting. Delpy and Hawke seem like they have been in a real relationship the whole time, and one easily forgets they are watching a movie, not real lives and characters.

TOP 50 WORKS OF ART OF THE YEAR (2020)
Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgement) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1512; 1541)
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1966)
The Last Supper - Leonardo Da Vinci (1497)
Blonde On Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
Stanza della Segnatura - Raphael Sanzio (1511)
Highway 61 Revisited - Bob Dylan (1965)
Marketa Lazarova - Frantisek Vlacil (1967)
Appetite For Destruction - Guns N' Roses (1988)
I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die - Country Joe and The Fish (1967)
Far From Heaven - Todd Haynes (2002)
The Last Judgment (Vienna) - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1482-1508)
The Third Man - Carol Reed (1949)
The Night of the Hunter - Charles Laughton (1955)
Solaris - Andrei Tarkovsky (1972)
Spirit of Eden - Talk Talk (1988)
Lorca - Tim Buckley (1969)
Leon: The Professional - Luc Besson (1994)
Da Capo - Love (1966)
Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985)
The Beethoven Frieze - Gustav Klimt (1902)
Metamorphose de Narcisse - Salvador Dali (1937)
Inside Out - John Martyn (1973)
Rock Bottom - Robert Wyatt (1974)
Doors - The Doors (1966)
Let the Evil of His Own Lips Cover Him - Lingua Ignota (2017)
Come and See - Elem Klimov (1985)
Symphony No. 5 - Gustav Mahler (1902)
Piano Sonata No. 32 in C Minor - Ludwig van Beethoven (1822)
The Rules of the Game - Jean Renoir (1939)
Implosions - Stephan Micus (1977)
Symphony No. 41 in C Major - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1788)
Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937)
Jagged Little Pill - Alanis Morissette (1995)
Down Colorful Hill - Red House Painters (1992)
Happy Sad - Tim Buckley (1968)
All Bitches Die - Lingua Ignota (2017)
Pirates - Rickie Lee Jones (1981)
Zen Arcade - Husker Du (1984)
L’Avventura – Michelangelo Antonioni (1960)
After Hours - Martin Scorsese (1985)
Ugetsu - Kenji Mizoguchi (1953)
Mona Lisa - Leonardo Da Vinci (1505)
Bad - Michael Jackson (1986)
Private Dancer - Tina Turner (1984)
The Tenant - Roman Polanski (1976)
Virgin of the Rocks - Leonardo Da Vinci (1483-1486)
Bonnie & Clyde - Arthur Penn (1967)
The Graduate - Mike Nichols (1967)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 09/14/2020 17:47; edited 16 times in total

Facetious

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

AfterHours wrote:

NEWLY ASSIMILATED FILMS - RATED:
Before Sunset - Richard Linklater (2004) 5/10
Before Midnight - Richard Linklater (2013) 4.5/10 ...the ratings difference between the last two and the first one is not some dramatic dive in technical quality. They're all honest portraits of stages of life and how couples meet, bond and treat each other (flaws and all). But the first one has a near-continuous tension and is thus a lot more emotionally involving and a bit more moving too. The last two have tension as well, but much more fleetingly, momentarily, temporarily. The last two are maybe even of a higher integrity in terms of reality being filmed (with a greater concentration on real-time, idleness, some ultra long takes), and never less than mildly enthralling throughout their playing time, with great conversations and so on. Even though I respect Linklater's work in making all three and how "un-Hollywood" he kept them, I can't think of much reason to see the last two again as most of their interest is in seeing where the characters from the first film end up in relation to each other (do they meet again, do they date again, do they stay together, do the break up?), and this interest is held mostly on the strength of the first film and the tension it developed, the table it set (to the degree the next two parts refer back to this, and use it as counterpoint, they tend to be stronger than otherwise). But the first one's magic is entirely from itself and in relation to its own time constraints and circumstances. All three films feature exceptional, naturalistic acting. Delpy and Hawke seem like they have been in a real relationship the whole time, and one easily forgets they are watching a movie, not real lives and characters.

I disagree that Before Sunset and Before Midnight are interesting mostly in relation to the first film. They can be evaluated as standalone snapshots of a relationship.
However, they're obviously still meant to be viewed as part of a trilogy. So I would argue that the way they build upon the first film and use it as counterpoint actually adds to their depth, because they have a reference point over which they can layer new perspectives, going beyond the first film and complicating its insights. The trilogy only grows in profundity over time in my opinion (although as a standalone film I think Before Sunset is the best and Before Midnight is the worst). Anyway I think rating criteria should be able to accommodate sequels and their partial dependence on other works' content.
The point about the last two films not having continuous tension is interesting and seems to be a substantial factor in the ratings but I have to strongly disagree, because of how, as I already mentioned, they are constantly engaging with previous events and adding depth to them. I would be able to expand on this much better if I get around to rewatching.
What would you rate the trilogy as a whole, by the way?

AfterHours

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

Facetious wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

NEWLY ASSIMILATED FILMS - RATED:
Before Sunset - Richard Linklater (2004) 5/10
Before Midnight - Richard Linklater (2013) 4.5/10 ...the ratings difference between the last two and the first one is not some dramatic dive in technical quality. They're all honest portraits of stages of life and how couples meet, bond and treat each other (flaws and all). But the first one has a near-continuous tension and is thus a lot more emotionally involving and a bit more moving too. The last two have tension as well, but much more fleetingly, momentarily, temporarily. The last two are maybe even of a higher integrity in terms of reality being filmed (with a greater concentration on real-time, idleness, some ultra long takes), and never less than mildly enthralling throughout their playing time, with great conversations and so on. Even though I respect Linklater's work in making all three and how "un-Hollywood" he kept them, I can't think of much reason to see the last two again as most of their interest is in seeing where the characters from the first film end up in relation to each other (do they meet again, do they date again, do they stay together, do the break up?), and this interest is held mostly on the strength of the first film and the tension it developed, the table it set (to the degree the next two parts refer back to this, and use it as counterpoint, they tend to be stronger than otherwise). But the first one's magic is entirely from itself and in relation to its own time constraints and circumstances. All three films feature exceptional, naturalistic acting. Delpy and Hawke seem like they have been in a real relationship the whole time, and one easily forgets they are watching a movie, not real lives and characters.

I disagree that Before Sunset and Before Midnight are interesting mostly in relation to the first film. They can be evaluated as standalone snapshots of a relationship.
However, they're obviously still meant to be viewed as part of a trilogy. So I would argue that the way they build upon the first film and use it as counterpoint actually adds to their depth, because they have a reference point over which they can layer new perspectives, going beyond the first film and complicating its insights. The trilogy only grows in profundity over time in my opinion (although as a standalone film I think Before Sunset is the best and Before Midnight is the worst). Anyway I think rating criteria should be able to accommodate sequels and their partial dependence on other works' content.
The point about the last two films not having continuous tension is interesting and seems to be a substantial factor in the ratings but I have to strongly disagree, because of how, as I already mentioned, they are constantly engaging with previous events and adding depth to them. I would be able to expand on this much better if I get around to rewatching.
What would you rate the trilogy as a whole, by the way?

It was pretty casually, haphazardly written on my part so perhaps a bit unclear, but if you look back at it youll see that I said that the 2nd and 3rd films are good in relation to them using the 1st film as counterpoint etc. The main point being that they are not that great otherwise, even if respectable for their honesty, unforced drama, free-ish form, naturalist acting and so on. Rating overall would possibly be like 7.2-7.5. Instant estimate: 7.4 ... Though if they were truly 1 film they probably wouldve been made differently
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Facetious

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

AfterHours wrote:

Facetious wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

NEWLY ASSIMILATED FILMS - RATED:
Before Sunset - Richard Linklater (2004) 5/10
Before Midnight - Richard Linklater (2013) 4.5/10 ...the ratings difference between the last two and the first one is not some dramatic dive in technical quality. They're all honest portraits of stages of life and how couples meet, bond and treat each other (flaws and all). But the first one has a near-continuous tension and is thus a lot more emotionally involving and a bit more moving too. The last two have tension as well, but much more fleetingly, momentarily, temporarily. The last two are maybe even of a higher integrity in terms of reality being filmed (with a greater concentration on real-time, idleness, some ultra long takes), and never less than mildly enthralling throughout their playing time, with great conversations and so on. Even though I respect Linklater's work in making all three and how "un-Hollywood" he kept them, I can't think of much reason to see the last two again as most of their interest is in seeing where the characters from the first film end up in relation to each other (do they meet again, do they date again, do they stay together, do the break up?), and this interest is held mostly on the strength of the first film and the tension it developed, the table it set (to the degree the next two parts refer back to this, and use it as counterpoint, they tend to be stronger than otherwise). But the first one's magic is entirely from itself and in relation to its own time constraints and circumstances. All three films feature exceptional, naturalistic acting. Delpy and Hawke seem like they have been in a real relationship the whole time, and one easily forgets they are watching a movie, not real lives and characters.

I disagree that Before Sunset and Before Midnight are interesting mostly in relation to the first film. They can be evaluated as standalone snapshots of a relationship.
However, they're obviously still meant to be viewed as part of a trilogy. So I would argue that the way they build upon the first film and use it as counterpoint actually adds to their depth, because they have a reference point over which they can layer new perspectives, going beyond the first film and complicating its insights. The trilogy only grows in profundity over time in my opinion (although as a standalone film I think Before Sunset is the best and Before Midnight is the worst). Anyway I think rating criteria should be able to accommodate sequels and their partial dependence on other works' content.
The point about the last two films not having continuous tension is interesting and seems to be a substantial factor in the ratings but I have to strongly disagree, because of how, as I already mentioned, they are constantly engaging with previous events and adding depth to them. I would be able to expand on this much better if I get around to rewatching.
What would you rate the trilogy as a whole, by the way?

It was pretty casually, haphazardly written on my part so perhaps a bit unclear, but if you look back at it youll see that I said that the 2nd and 3rd films are good in relation to them using the 1st film as counterpoint etc. The main point being that they are not that great otherwise, even if respectable for their honesty, unforced drama, free-ish form, naturalist acting and so on. Rating overall would possibly be like 7.2-7.5. Instant estimate: 7.4 ... Though if they were truly 1 film they probably wouldve been made differently

I got what you meant, but my point was that they're good in themselves too (the main thing we disagree on) on top of which they gain depth in the context of the trilogy/the first film. I would encourage rewatching, I might write something on them myself soon too.
So if the ratings for the last two rise, the trilogy has a shot at 8+? Seems fair.
Yes they would be made differently if they were 1 film, in the same way most albums would be made differently if they were one long piece.

Facetious

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

What's the deal with Forrest Gump?

Facetious

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

AfterHours wrote:

Sleepless in Seattle - Nora Ephron (1993) Not Rated to 4/10

Worst Scaruffi 7? (Or is that Kenny G/XXXtentacion?)

Anyway, thoughts on it?

AfterHours

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

Facetious wrote:

What's the deal with Forrest Gump?

Gump as a character in juxtaposition to his environment, the scenes, all the history he traverses (and unknowingly causes or contributes to), is a multi-faceted metaphor for the sort of American mindset that is clueless to its own history and what his country meant, how it came to be. At the same time as he "accidentally" represents all of American history, and at the same time that he is unaware of it, the film (almost miraculously) manages to make him an embodiment of its most profound sentiments and ideas. He is played both for laughs and other angles but, most surprisingly, becomes an increasingly tragic and moving character as the film progresses. And he doesn't seem aware of it except in relation to Jenny's failings and eventual death, and it is here that, with all that has accumulated, it becomes (seriously) among the most moving films of all time. This is a little startling (almost embarrassing) to experience as a "serious cinephile" because the film is shot in such a thoroughly Hollywood, highly Americanized, all-but-manipulative and highly commercial way, but nevertheless done with the utmost care and expertise, and it works anyway because this is all also a conflation of its themes, so is not only being done for superficial reasons; it is presented through the emotional visage and mindset that it is portraying, and so grows into an unusual and surprising, achingly heartbreaking, and genuinely inspiring film. The filmic language as it unfolds, develops parallel to how one's opinion and feelings and maybe even prejudice towards Gump would. At first one doesn't believe in it because it maybe seems too obvious, shallow or obtuse and unaware of itself, but then the craft becomes so thoroughly enjoined to what is occurring in the character and emotional arc (where Gump eventually overflows with feelings we weren't sure he was capable of realizing), that it is quite an experience, and seems impossible (like Gump's achievements) for being so. As the film progresses, one realizes their stories (Gump and Jenny) and arcs have been a merging of two separate ways of dealing with the same series of historical events and that, together, they have amounted to the both sides of American history over that time and contributed, generated or been affected by its consequences/outcomes. One remains (or seems) mostly oblivious to it (Gump, with the exception of being aware of the deepest feelings of all: love), and one is wholly aware of what is going on and been through but is punished because of and despite this (Jenny). One has remained, impossibly, a wholly innocent, decent human being, ironically, despite all he has seen and gone through (Gump). One has been ruined by all of it (Jenny). The cinematic montage and gradation that has led us here, and how they eventually come together for the last period of her life, and have a child together, represents a compassionate love and reconciliation of these two mindsets/ways of life, these two different world-views, these different political spectrums (and so on), and, again, this becomes unusually moving as metaphors for the world we live in (particularly if living in the US, but universal nonetheless), and again, because it is presented so thoroughly through the visage of the romanticized-American-dream mindset that doesn't really know its history (all the historical scenes double as reality and as the altering of, accidental, unbeknownst and superficial -- comic-tragic -- view of history itself; Gump and Jenny each side, and Gump, both sides at once).

The astonishing portrayal by Hanks should be mentioned as an amazing balance between comedy and tragedy, a composite of both often in the same circumstance; the more one sees the film, the more merged or ambiguous the portrayal seems to become.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

Facetious wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Sleepless in Seattle - Nora Ephron (1993) Not Rated to 4/10

Worst Scaruffi 7? (Or is that Kenny G/XXXtentacion?)

Anyway, thoughts on it?

I guess? Maybe?

Occasionally, it's a mildly-original romantic comedy but not original or consistently enough to overcome its utter lack of suspense and predictable outcomes (that don't have enough creativity or emotional expression to render them compelling even if one knows what happens). The relationship between Meg Ryan and Pullman is a bit too pointless and hard to believe, even annoying to watch at times (wondering to oneself: why is this in the film? Was this really their best idea for the central conflict that she has to overcome to hook up with Hanks?). Despite having seeing the film on two separate occasions years back, I was surprised to learn this time that Sven-motha-f-ing-Nykvist is the cinematographer (wut?!). He manages to squeeze in some artistry here and there. The opening shot might be one of the great average looking and boringly lit shots of all time, and it seems to promise a sort of secret-subtextual-masterwork of sorts. The shot is of the cemetery during his wife's funeral and then suddenly the camera lifts to magically reveal the entire city-scape that was hidden (by point-of-view) behind the hill, a metaphor for the whole film. There are several scenes in a sort of empty darkness that are unusual for such a stereo-typical movie (most of the shots at Hank's home, and when he and Ryan's scenes are being juxtaposed). So Nykvist manages to not completely have his balls cut by Ephron's direction. There is the mildly original part of his son being the primary causation of his dad's finding his next wife. This is kinda compelling at times, but gets a bit idiotic (not that cinema has to be realistic) when his son travels alone to New York and to the Empire State building (even harder to believe than a Home Alone movie). There is the mildly original story line of two people essentially falling in love over the radio without ever meeting, and it is mildly compelling how the movie juxtaposes the two characters when they are thinking about each other in different circumstances but very similar points of view and cinematography, as if meeting mentally but not physically. But these are all fleeting and temporary and the film too often falls into the same predictable outcomes and lack of suspense that a thousand other romantic comedies do. I doubt Scaruffi truly gives it a 7, and won't think so in this case unless he also hyperlinks it as such, but if he does it's likely because of the points about the film that do sometimes separate it from the usual schlock ... but for me it was continually mitigated when it's best points were followed by poor choices (likely to ensure it was a "hit"; but would have been much superior if its greater insights, artistic choices and expressions WERE the whole film and continually developed instead of almost always mitigated by these other cliches that "we must include in this because it is a Hollywood Rom-Com with Tom Hanks that we expect to rake in lots of money").
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings