MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff > Replies
FilmBuff's Replies
It's far from pointless, and it was somewhat common in the past. Just as an opera has an overture, and a break between acts, so to did longer and more prestigious films. I've seen 2001 in a theater twice, once in the '90s and once a few weeks ago, and both times they started with the overture. The lights go down, the curtains remain closed, and about 3 minutes of music plays. Then the curtains open and the film begins. It's an effective way to build up a film, just as the intermission is a great way to provide a clean break between the film's two major acts.
I watched Lawrence of Arabia recently as well. Coincidentally, as with 2001, I'd only seen it once before, in a theater, and saw it again this past summer at a nearby theater. On both occasions the film was shown with its overture and intermission, as well as the entr'acte music, which is the overture music again to lead into the second act, after the intermission, and the exit music. As with 2001, it lends a gravitas to the film, and provides a much more fulfilling and complete experience.
Finally, I also had the chance to see Seven Samurai this past summer. It was a great summer for seeing epic classics apparently! While that has no overture, it does have an intermission, and as with the other two films it serves to reset things and provide a necessary thematic break between acts.
It isn't based on Clarke's novel. It's almost the other way around. Clarke wrote the novel along with Kubrick as Kubrick was making the film, so while it isn't exactly a novelization of the film, it's closer to that than it is to being an original work.
I'm with you. I want to see it, and will judge it on merit, not box office.
Failure is a relative term. The article means it might not recoup very much of its large production cost. I can think of plenty of films that failed at the box office, but that no one would call a failure. Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, The Big Lebowski, Mulholland Drive, Fight Club, and lot more, including The Fountain, as you pointed out.
You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to prove it.
I'm an atheist, but I acknowledge that I can't disprove god's existence any more than a religious person can prove it. The burden of proof falls on whoever is trying to persuade another person, which in your case is proving there isn't a god.
A religious person believes because of faith. He can't help having faith any more than I can help not having it. Neither one of us can prove we are right, so when you state outright that the other side is wrong, it's up to you to prove it.
He exposes grifters.
You have it precisely backwards. Cohen only punches down. Walsh took on the people at the top.
Are you a silent film fan, or developing an interest in them? International Silent Film Day is September 29, which is a week from today as I write this. Depending upon where you live, there may be a film screening near you.
https://silentmovieday.org/participate-1
If not, it might be an excuse to watch one at home, though silent movies lose a lot when watched at home.
In most cases, at least in the U.S., films were sent to theaters without any instructions regarding music, and theater owners did what they wanted. Many theaters had no sound at all, and simply projected the film. Some had a piano, others an organ, and the nicest theaters had a full orchestra. Prestige releases often came with a score, but again, what was ultimately played was up to the theater owner. Short films rarely came with anything, and the music was left to the whim of the musician(s) in the theater, if any.
The Soviet Union's film industry was far smaller, and it's possible they did things differently. Perhaps the studios there did include some musical instruction when the sent out films, though if they did it's likely been lost over time, or it's tucked away in a vault along with the original film stock.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I also don't see this as a particularly right-leaning board or site. It seems fairly split, and more or less in tune with the rest of the country.
It's more that the vast majority of what you describe as "lies he's told since 2016" were media fabrications, along with Russian collusion, drink bleach, very fine people, the rape, the N.Y. trial, and far more than one can list here, have all been shown to be media fabrications, and this feels like the tipping point.
I was an anti-Trump moderate in 2016, but I paid attention and saw what was happening. I notice that since 2020 more and more left-leaning people have embraced Trump, but since the debate I've heard even far-left activist types say versions of "I hate Trump, but will hold my nose and vote for him for the sake of the country." That's shocking to me.
I have no idea what you do or don't believe, but perhaps someday those in power will do something that even you will be unable to deny, or to rationalize, and you'll suddenly understand why so many Americans will support a political outsider who is fighting against the system, even if he is a boorish man.
Racism is racism, and it's all bad. That's the message of the film, and my belief as well.
I watched it today, and the film did not seem to misrepresent her at all. One effective thing the film did was to allow the anti-racists to speak their piece, and gave them a lengthy forum to share their views. Unlike Borat, and other similar films, we don't get quick snippets that are clearly manipulated to seem like "gotcha" moments. Rather, the opposing side is given most of the film's runtime to make their point. That their point sounds ridiculous to 99% of viewers is indicative of how moronic the anti-racist and DEI movements are.
Do you typically like films of that era?
I disagree. There were numerous things said during the debate that were dismissed by Harris and the moderators as untrue that have since been proven true. I know the hardcore Harris followers will vote for her no matter what, but any moderate or undecided voter who is paying attention will notice and it will likely sway their vote.
https://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Lincoln-and-The-Struggle/dp/B001G5T6O4
Everything I've seen by Griffith has been fantastic. I've never seen The Struggle, however, and it has a reputation for being not very good. It was badly reviewed, and didn't perform well at the box office. It's also the last movie Griffith ever directed.
If you are a fan of Griffith, as I am, you may want to watch it once you've seen most of the rest of his major works.
Now that it has come out that he was right, and that is happening, I think that may sway many people his way.
Did you just assume Hawk's gender?
I barely know who he is, and don't care about his life at all. I was responding to the topic at hand. He cheated on his wife and now has a baby with another woman. That's terrible behavior.
If he wanted this to remain a personal issue, he would not have issued a public statement about it.