Awful
Bloated, shabby and overbearing and overlong....bit like Mark himself.
best ever book of coincidence
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/coincidence/6477814
The narration completely put me off.
share[deleted]
Correction: anyone who likes Mark Cousins' favorite movies and shares his rather superficial view of film history (Hollywood = bad; rest of the world = great) will love this rather shoddily made and unfocused ego trip.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
Not really - his belief in the studio system that created them as inherently negative prevails.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
His contradictory account of film noir is one example - one moment he's claiming Hollywood was just making pappy Betty Grable flicks in the mid-40s while Europe is being so innovative and groundbreaking that 'adventurous' American filmmakers are leaving the country to open their eyes to the possibilities of cinema the studio system is blind to (even though there was a war on that limited European films' distribution!), the next he's talking about film noirs made years before the Italian neo-realist films he draws a rather incompatible comparison with and implies inspired the change in tone in US pictures. It's as if he's trying to clumsily separate the studio produced noirs - which he regards as individualistic pictures made by auteurs - from studio product made by the same producers and studios, and is so determined to give the credit for the genre to Europe rather than Hollywood that he ties himself up in chronological knots. You also have to wonder why he dug up archive interview footage of Joseph H. Lewis and chose to run it without the sound so the audience could only get Cousins' interpretation of his films - which makes you suspect the only reason he used the infamous Bogdanovich interview with John Ford was because the director was being so typically noncommunicative that there was no danger of his contradicting Cousins viewpoint.
"Security - release the badgers."
Wrong oh so wrong.
You need to listen and look not bitch and whine.
He criticises AND PRAISES the Studio system. He states the pitfalls and then acknowledges the fact that many great films only existed because of this system.
YOu only have to see the recent episode (where Hollywood gets one scene for over half the running time) where he praises foreign cinema to see the fairness. Because after all that, when he gets back to America, he praises every single film he covers...just as he did the Indian/Japanese/Chinese/Mexican films before.
Is he stretching thing too far? Well, yes. He covers so much in so short a time. But even then we see and hear from films and film makers we hardly ever see or hear and the series is already of epic length.
The best he could do...and we should praise it.
My only real criticism (so much to cover in so short a time aside) is the relative lack of British coverage. They may not be high brow....But how could any show of 50's cinema ignore the HUGE success and influence of 'Hammer'?
The sheer global scope means things get stretched...but no other film series has ever had this scope. So we can give thanks for that.
www.beardyfreak.com
YOu only have to see the recent episode (where Hollywood gets one scene for over half the running time) where he praises foreign cinema to see the fairness
No, I only cited one specific example from one episode where he claims that a film not seen in the USA until 1941 was one of the influences on a genre/movement that started at the beginning of the 40s (he sets the date at 1941), which clearly predates the extract from a mid-40s Hollywood musical that he claims was the only kind of product Hollywood was interested churning out until adventuruous directors looked to Europe (the little matter of a war going on notwithstanding). It's that kind of pretzel logic to force the the facts to fit his argument - and failing miserably - that is one of the show's major shortcomings.
He covers so much in so short a time. But even then we see and hear from films and film makers we hardly ever see or hear
Thus far that really isn't true. It's been a lot of the usual suspects, both in clips and interviews, which is another major shortcoming of the series: he's preaching to the choir (and a very small choir at that) rather than breaking new ground.
no other film series has ever had this scope.
Nonsense. Kevin Brownlow and David Gill's Hollywood or even their later Cinema Europe are just a couple of examples of series with a wider scope, better production values, a more focused narrative and a much, much higher level of research and information. Indeed, Hollywood genuinely helped change the popular conception of silent cinema and spurred on regular restorations of silent films. All Cousins' series does is parade his favorites in a stream of consciousness approach that often demonstrates fuzzy thinking at best.
"Security - release the badgers."
"Kevin Brownlow and David Gill's Hollywood".
"Cinema Europe"
You said it yourself! Epic yes...focused on just one aspect? YES.
It's called *beep* "Hollywood"! It's called "Europe"!
"Odyssey" is Hollywood AND Europe.....AND India, AND Japan, AND, South America, AND the Middle East, AND Asia, AND South America, AND Britain.
And it translates to the same old clips from the same old films with a scattershot script that shows little insight and at its worst actively attempts to rewrite the history of cinema to support Cousins' biases. And, as you say yourself, he has little interest in British cinema - though that will probably change when he gets to Ken Loach, who he insists speaks with the authority of the British film industry and whose demands must be taken seriously. And after the fiasco of Cousins' supporting Loach's successful blackmail attempt on the Edinburgh Film festival over their screening an Israeli film, you can bet Cousins will be skipping over cinema from that particular part of the world.
"Security - release the badgers."
No, I only cited one specific example from one episode where he claims that a film not seen in the USA until 1941 was one of the influences on a genre/movement that started at the beginning of the 40s (he sets the date at 1941), which clearly predates the extract from a mid-40s Hollywood musical that he claims was the only kind of product Hollywood was interested churning out until adventuruous directors looked to Europe (the little matter of a war going on notwithstanding).
I'm at a disadvantage having not yet seen the installment in question, but I suspect you're pointing to some ambiguity resulting from sloppiness in assembling the narrative, rather than any sort of intentional effort to mislead. The first major noir cycle continued right to the end of the '50s, and was, indeed, influenced--often heavily--by the neo-realist pictures. That suggests he's talking about a later era than the early '40s--the late '40s or early '50s. That would make his comment about "adventurous directors" going to Europe fit as well, because people like Orson Welles and Jules Dassin did, in fact, go to Europe and set up shop there at this time.
---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/
He's quite clear about those adventurous directors working in Europe during the war years, which is his rationale for claiming Hollywood was only interested in escapist musicals during the war years. That's not just sloppy, it's plain idiotic.
"Security - release the badgers."
I'm at a disadvantage having not yet seen the episode. The only American directors I can immediately recall going to Europe during the war were those who joined the military.
---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/
One of the show's many problems is that for all the disapproval Cousins demonstrates over what he sees as the misuse of the word 'classic' by lesser mortals in his opening, he frequently misuses language and the film extracts he uses to illustrate them so that there is only one possible interpretation, which is that he's making a palpably absurd statement. The notion that adventurous American directors were somehow making films in Europe during the war - a notion surely even Cousins couldn't believe - is one of them from his "I'm right, you're all wrong" approach and phrasing/editing.
"Security - release the badgers."
TrevorAciea: Have read through all the posts and feel you are closer to reality than some of your critics. Mr. Cousins to us seems more interesting in hammering home his political prejudices then delivering a historical treatise on film.
share"It is epic, brave, challenging TV at its best."
Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, much as I am entitled to switch off the documentary on account of my disliking of the commentary.
"Anyone who truly loves cinema will love this magnificent production."
The irony of this statement is a little overbearing for my liking.
(edit: spelling mistake)
Anyone who truly loves cinema will love this magnificent production.
shareBS. Anyone who hates the Hollywood studio system on principle and loves Cousins' favorite foreign films might like it if they can overlook how shoddily made and verbose it is. Everyone else will find it shallow, meandering and not particularly informative.
"Security - release the badgers."
Jesus that post was smug. You've basically just said that everyone who doesn't like it is too stupid to understand it, really? Opinions? Heard of them? Or consensus? The consensus being that Cousins is pretentious and condescending and that it generally isn't as epic,brave and challenging as you suggest. And then just to top it off you insinuate that you can't be considered a true lover of film if you don't like it.
But then maybe i'm just ignorant and stupid.