Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated

In article <1129823117.445146.89620.DeleteThis@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
tomcervo <tomcervo.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>"1) Worst film? Depends on how you define. Least entertaining by
>modern standards is probably Cimarron"
>
>Gosh no--it's an amazing thing to see, once you discard any aesthetic
>sense. Much better than the book, which consists of DESCRIPTIONS of the
>action scenes. Study Richard Dix for a while and you'll know a lot
>about the 30's, the way that Harrison Ford tells you a lot about the
>90's.

>And compared to the 60's remake, it's "Hell's Hinges".

I never figured out why they threw away the ending in the Glenn
Ford version. I think the Dix version - where he dies in the arms
of his wife - while sentimental - wraps up his wanderlust.

But Ferber's novels have been made into film after film after film
and seem to reflect a lot of the times they were about.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:15:01 GMT, bv.DeleteThis@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:

>In article <1129823117.445146.89620.DeleteThis@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>tomcervo <tomcervo.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>>"1) Worst film? Depends on how you define. Least entertaining by
>>modern standards is probably Cimarron"
>>
>>Gosh no--it's an amazing thing to see, once you discard any aesthetic
>>sense. Much better than the book, which consists of DESCRIPTIONS of the
>>action scenes. Study Richard Dix for a while and you'll know a lot
>>about the 30's, the way that Harrison Ford tells you a lot about the
>>90's.
>
>>And compared to the 60's remake, it's "Hell's Hinges".
>
>I never figured out why they threw away the ending in the Glenn
>Ford version. I think the Dix version - where he dies in the arms
>of his wife - while sentimental - wraps up his wanderlust.
>

?????????

Well, sure. It's hard to wander when you're DEAD.

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

John Harkness wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2005 19:21:32 -0700, "tomcervo" <tomcervo.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"He may be the most extreme case of a director who was not on the
>>cultural radar through his entire career -- it took the French to
>>recognize him for what he was."
>>
>>But the Oscar isn't really a "cultural" award--re Altman's comments on
>>the musical mafia that gave the award to a member of the Old Boys Club
>>the year that "Nashville" (I think) was in the running (which may
>>explain HIS exclusion). Hawks made a LOT of money for a lot of people
>>and pleased a lot of audiences. I know that he had a reputation for
>>coldness, and didn't make the kind of movies mistaken for
>>"prestige"--no Oscar at all is better than one for "Sergeant York".
>
>
>
> Go back and read the reviews of the 30s and 40s --- certain directors
> WERE on the cultural radar. Ford, Hitchcock, Lubitsch (who is actually
> named in the Ninotchka trailer -- "only lubitsch could have directed
> it') Capra, King Vidor, then the writers who moved to the director's
> chair -- Huston, Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder.
>
> Hawks doesn't REGISTER -- no one talks about Hawks in any terms but as
> a good all-round director. He's simply not considered as a great
> director
>
> It took the French, voraciously absorbing American films in the
> post-war era, to put Hawks together in a way that Americans hadn't.
> (As Sarris notes, Americans were shocked at the elevation of Hawks,
> while the French never quite got the American fondness for Ford).
>


Doesn't that indicate a -- ahem -- certain cultural bias for the French,
as well as the Americans.

For years we were told tha tthe reason we didn't get much of Ozu's work
exported to the US is that his films are so culturally Japanese. Yet it
turned out when we finally got a chance to see his silents that his
stuff has a great deal in common with Leo MacCarey and George Stevens.
Very accessible.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:14:05 GMT, Bob Lipton <boblipton DeleteThis @nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

>John Harkness wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2005 19:21:32 -0700, "tomcervo" <tomcervo DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"He may be the most extreme case of a director who was not on the
>>>cultural radar through his entire career -- it took the French to
>>>recognize him for what he was."
>>>
>>>But the Oscar isn't really a "cultural" award--re Altman's comments on
>>>the musical mafia that gave the award to a member of the Old Boys Club
>>>the year that "Nashville" (I think) was in the running (which may
>>>explain HIS exclusion). Hawks made a LOT of money for a lot of people
>>>and pleased a lot of audiences. I know that he had a reputation for
>>>coldness, and didn't make the kind of movies mistaken for
>>>"prestige"--no Oscar at all is better than one for "Sergeant York".
>>
>>
>>
>> Go back and read the reviews of the 30s and 40s --- certain directors
>> WERE on the cultural radar. Ford, Hitchcock, Lubitsch (who is actually
>> named in the Ninotchka trailer -- "only lubitsch could have directed
>> it') Capra, King Vidor, then the writers who moved to the director's
>> chair -- Huston, Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder.
>>
>> Hawks doesn't REGISTER -- no one talks about Hawks in any terms but as
>> a good all-round director. He's simply not considered as a great
>> director
>>
>> It took the French, voraciously absorbing American films in the
>> post-war era, to put Hawks together in a way that Americans hadn't.
>> (As Sarris notes, Americans were shocked at the elevation of Hawks,
>> while the French never quite got the American fondness for Ford).
>>
>
>
>Doesn't that indicate a -- ahem -- certain cultural bias for the French,
>as well as the Americans.
>
>For years we were told tha tthe reason we didn't get much of Ozu's work
>exported to the US is that his films are so culturally Japanese. Yet it
>turned out when we finally got a chance to see his silents that his
>stuff has a great deal in common with Leo MacCarey and George Stevens.
> Very accessible.
>
>Bob

It's not a question of Americans "getting" Hawks' films -- it's a
question of how he was ignored as a great director. It's kind of
puzzling that someone who made so many great films across three
decades managed to dodge recognition at home. It's not like his films
were obscure or hard to see.

CErtainly there's a whole set of critical prejudices in place at the
time, and Hawks was a mere "entertainer" in an era that tended to
inflate the literary/social qualities of films over the cinematic and
particularly over genre stylists -- Stanley Kramer got six Oscar
nominations (He even won a NYFCC Award for his direction of The
Defiant ONes), but John Ford's Westerns were viewed as a decline for
the socially responsible director of The Grapes of Wrath. (the only
one of Ford's Westerns to get an Oscar nom was Stagecoach, a far less
interesting film than almost any of the post-war westerns).

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

In article <p2ogl19es5rdgf728ps7ouh9lr7b2be2jo DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
John Harkness <jharkness DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:15:01 GMT, bv DeleteThis @wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>
>>In article <1129823117.445146.89620 DeleteThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>tomcervo <tomcervo DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>>"1) Worst film? Depends on how you define. Least entertaining by
>>>modern standards is probably Cimarron"
>>>
>>>Gosh no--it's an amazing thing to see, once you discard any aesthetic
>>>sense. Much better than the book, which consists of DESCRIPTIONS of the
>>>action scenes. Study Richard Dix for a while and you'll know a lot
>>>about the 30's, the way that Harrison Ford tells you a lot about the
>>>90's.
>>
>>>And compared to the 60's remake, it's "Hell's Hinges".
>>
>>I never figured out why they threw away the ending in the Glenn
>>Ford version. I think the Dix version - where he dies in the arms
>>of his wife - while sentimental - wraps up his wanderlust.
>>
>
>?????????

>Well, sure. It's hard to wander when you're DEAD.

Well the ending of the Dix/Dunne version wraps things up.

While the Glen Ford version has him dying in WWI in Europe. It
feels like somone said "It's too long - lets cut the ending.

As it is the Ford version runs longer than the Dix version - but it
was one that seemed to emphasize the wide screen the vast expanses
of the West - at the expense of the story.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased coming from the West - and my grandfather
homesteaded in the Idaho Territory - when things were still as
unsettled as they were in Oklahoma and the land wasn't quite as
forgiving.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

Your Pal Brian wrote:

> At least they got Barry Levinson covered.

Who directed arguably the best American film of the last 20 years:
"Avalon."

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

>Who directed arguably the best American film of the last 20 years:
>"Avalon."

>This is a troll, right?

He did say arguably. And he's just the man to argue it.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

FredT wrote re THE GREAT ZIEFIELD:
>
> I enjoy the hell out of that film. I know it's not at all accurate, but
> it's a lot of fun to me. I'm not saying it deserved the Oscar though, just
> that it's not a bad film. (I don't know if you were saying it was very bad,
> or just that it didn't deserve the award.)
>

I'm afraid I was saying I thought it was a bad film. I can't sit
through it without going to sleep. But hey, I'm also one of those
people who stays wide awake for THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH ! Not that I
thougt the film deserved to win best Picture, I just thought, like you
for TGZ, TGSOE was one hell of an entertaining ride.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

John Harkness wrote:

> On 21 Oct 2005 07:40:09 -0700, "Feuillade"
> <Feuillade.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

>> Your Pal Brian wrote:

>>> At least they got Barry Levinson covered.

>> Who directed arguably the best American film
>> of the last 20 years: "Avalon."

>> Tom Moran

> This is a troll, right?

Wrong.

> I don't think I'd even put it in my top fifty of
> the last 20 years...

Then I'm not sure I'd want to hear your top fifty of the last 20 years.

But for the record, I would consider the two best American films of the
past 20 years to be:

1) Avalon
2) The Truman Show

Everything else is a distant third.

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

On 21 Oct 2005 07:40:09 -0700, "Feuillade" <Feuillade.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

>Your Pal Brian wrote:
>
>> At least they got Barry Levinson covered.
>
>Who directed arguably the best American film of the last 20 years:
>"Avalon."
>
>Tom Moran

This is a troll, right?

I don't think I'd even put it in my top fifty of the last 20 years...

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

mikegebert DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:

But first quotes me:

>> Who directed arguably the best American film
>> of the last 20 years: "Avalon."

>> This is a troll, right?

> He did say arguably.

Yes, I did. Thanks for noticing.

> And he's just the man to argue it.

You know, I don't really feel that I *need* to argue the point.

People are feel to agree or disagree. But in my opinion, "Avalon" is a
film that gets better every time I see it. And it's one of the very
few films of the past 20 years that bears comparison with the great
films of the more distant past.

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

And you aren't trolling? What are the merits of the Truman Show that
weren't, you know, written all before and better in 1973's PBS Series
"American Family?"

I believe Avalon is a detailed multi-layered film about the
Americanization of immigrants post-war- it's highly connected to the
splintering of society and the way extended families gave way to
relationships with corporations in the suburbanization process. The
scene when the kids' grandfather comes off the boat and the kid
responds "he's like 4 feet tall" is a really well-made metaphor for the
USA's unshackling from European traditions, particularly royalty. But
Avalon left out a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, such as the
effect that desegregation had on a racist
"need" for the suburbs. Top 100 US films in 20 years? ok. Top 20
nostalgia films of the last 20 years? I'll by that. but Top 5
nostalgia films? Please. No. Like the 1950s suburbs themselves,
there is too much veneer gravitas and not enough handmade
craftsmanship.

Aren't many of the same themes present in nostalgic films like Radio
Days and Christmas Story written as well or better? Isn't Cry-Baby a
more realistic portrayal of 1950s Baltimore? ok, it's not, but what
Cry-Baby DID show is a conflict- something for the characters to deal
with and overcome to reflect a theme. What is the conflict in Avalon?
The cousins drift apart and that's it. oh well, innocense is lost in
the face of modernity.

I don't even think, whatshisname, Aidan Quinn is doing a great job with
his character- a lot of phoning in.

And the whole thing where we see the fire start from the fireworks and
the parents say that the fire was faulty wiring. That point was always
muddled to me. Levinson tells us explicitly that the kids start the
fire then drops it.

I know a film professor of mine loved the cinematography, but it's
merely above average to me.

I'd be up for some counter arguments for either film, but I'd want some
evidence.

Don
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated 

"You cut the turkey??"

Better than cutting the cheese.

Mike S.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Film That Won and Best Film Never Nominated