Wellesnet Message Board

by **Welles Fan** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 7:42 pm

LOL-I didn't say I go a lot; just that it is comfortable when I do go. BTW-my wife and I went to the Kubrick film (EYES WIDE SHUT). I thought it an exercise in tedium myself. I still remember the audience reaction to it. When the film was over, and the credits started, you could hear a ripple of a snicker (kinda like the "wave" in snicker form). I heard the snicker quite well, because my wife and I joined in.

We were able to sit comfortably through FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and BRANAGH'S HAMLET, both looong movies (but not boring, IMO).

There's long and there's long. I agree that movies are (in general) too long. Today, a movie that has 100-105 minutes of real content will be padded out to 2 hrs. I can sit through 2-1/2 hours of GOODFELLAS or HENRY V, but not a 2-1/2 hour James Bond movie.

by **Rick Schmidlin** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 1:08 am

Audience's around the world have sat through my 4 1/2 version of GREED at festivals with no problem. I have screened it in London,Greece,Moscow,Berlin, Venice,New Zealand (Chris Banks made it through)Brazil,S.F.,NYC,Portland,Copenhagen(last week),Taos,N.M,AFI Fest L.A.,Telluride with no problem or complaints.

by **dmolson** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 2:35 am

Sounds delicious. Any chance you might bring it up here to Vancouver, Rick? While our film festival leans heavily to foreign and Pacific Rim films, it has been know to show a grand classic now and then... As my wife says, it's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it

by **jaime marzol** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 3:21 am

rick:
i didn't say i had a problem sitting though a good movie that is over 2 hrs long. i said i have a problem sitting through a crappy movie that is over 2 hrs long.

i made an innocent comment about 8 posts ago about having a problem with long films and current state of theater comfort, and it was blown totally out of contex.

so i'm taking it all back. i made a mistake. i meant to say, "i love sitting through long crappy movies, and the more unconfortable the chair, the better. it adds to the overall crappy film experience."

lets see some one turn that around.

.................

by **jaime marzol** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:09 am

DMOLSON:
last few film festivals i considered going to, took 4 minutes of looking over the offerings to know that these film festivals were not for me. but lots of happy people showed up ready to sit and enjoy third world independent films.

it's like a trend, "lets go see what the poor unfortunates overseas are doing with their tiny films."

by **Rick Schmidlin** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 12:28 pm

JM, the comment I made about GREED was in no way pointing the finger at you. I was commenting on the audiences for a depressing silent film filled with stills and projected on a screen lasting 4 1/2 hours. The point I guess I was making is length does not matter depending on the films content. In regard to Vancouver DM if I was invited to present it there I would surely do so and attend.
Now in regard to the tiny foreign film comments in that arena I really do not think you know what you are talking about! This seem to be a bias based on little experience with films that never get American distribution even in the big city's. Film is an international language you have to listen.

by **Jeff Wilson** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 1:13 pm

Foreign film is far more interesting to me right now than American film. Jaime, I can understand if you don't want to sacrifice time on films you think might be bad, because we all have limited amounts of time, but to ignore the rest of the world in terms of current cinema (or past cinema for that matter) is a mistake. I wish we had more of it here onscreen in Detroit.

by **jaime marzol** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 1:26 pm

rick, i didn't think you were pointing a finger. and what you are offering in those 4 1/2 hrs is a cultural exprience that only a certain type would show up to. i am one of those who shows up to such things, gladly pays my money to go in, and gladly drops my money at the vendor tables.

since you told us about cinecom, i've been lobbying with a few friends to rent some suvs and make the trip across america.

unfortunately most of my friends are short sighted wimps who have had every speculative bone kicked out of their bodies, and i still have all my speculative bones intact.

jaime c:
on the foreign policy type thing we were talking about:
through history producers who didn't have their eye on the pulse of the public lost dough. the marx brother's best film, DUCK SOUP, was a financial failure, it poked fun at government when rosevelt, and the new deal, and a time of national optemism. AMBERSON's demise can be directly linked to pearl harbor. so at this time with the state of the world, a comedy about a bumbling group of suicide bombers who target an all night grocery store, would not be a wise $30 million investment. (but if you could make it for 10K, you might have a winner.)

so to answer your question before we got into the seating thing. more than some political crap that is 'imposed' on filmmakers, it's something the money guy will be aware of before he parts with his nut. when the nut doesn't come back, he's out of business.

this is probably why so many patriotic films have come out and are being slated. the public is flocking to them i hear. welles' THE STRANGER was a pot boiler. nazis hiding about among americans was a real issue that had the public's attention.

but all this is just my opinion which i have forwarded at no charge. none of it was thought out, or researched in any way.

...............

by **Rick Schmidlin** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 1:34 pm

It seems to me that the ratio of good non English language foreign films is about the same as good English language films. What international festivals and distributors in the U.S. (unfortunately in selected cities) try to do is present a good balance. Film is a universal language as Welles knew, to learn to understand this great body of past and present international works is the weed out the bad in our cinema and replace it with the good in thiers. This way the ratio of great movies to see in one year is increased and you grasp a higher understanding in the art of world cinema.

by **Welles Fan** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 3:15 pm

TCM has been showing a longer "Restored" GREED with stills cut in for the missing stuff. Is that the same version as was shown at the festival? I taped it one night but have not seen it all because it was on late (in fact, thanks for the reminder-I forgot about it!). I have seen the previously available 2-1/2 hr version though, and this new one was definitely longer. I did not find the stills as obtrusive as I have in restorations of sound films (like LOST HORIZON and A STAR IS BORN).

Also, I'm sure anyone showing up for a "long" version of Greed would sit through it, else they wouldn't have shown up at all. If it were playing at the local plex, that would be another matter.

BTW, Jaime M-as to the differing tastes of you and your wife-been there. My wife does not understand that certain films do indeed need to be watched over and over. Also, our tastes in movies are wildy different. She does not like movies that are tragic in tone or violent. I remember us both going to the plex one weekend-I saw the Civil War epic GLORY, (which I loved), and she saw STEEL MAGNOLIAS (which I hated when I saw it on video-she still has not seen GLORY). At least we both like Classical music and go to the opera together!

by **jaime marzol** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 4:03 pm

.............

yes, we have wildly different tastes. but she does sit through a lot of the films i like and recognises quality. she loved branagh's HAMLET, as i did. and when we go to plays there is never any argument, it's always some existing work, not some new story about some one with modern problems.

but her tv taste suuuuuuucks! she watches that ladies channel, and she has no problems with stations like tnt, and all those modern cop shows. that shit is like shark repelent to me. it chases me out of the living room faster than a torch can chase away frankenstein.

welles fan, it was schmidlin who did that GREED with the stills. i don't know if you know this, but the way your post was worded, it didn't sound like it.

by **Rick Schmidlin** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 5:08 pm

Yes "GREED" that is been screened on TCM is the same as what I screened all over de world.

Best,

by **Welles Fan** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 1:01 am

Re: GREED. No, I didn't know it was the same project, but when Rick posted about I thought it might be. I'm glad that all the talk of long films brought it up, because when I taped it off TCM, I had just turned to the channel when they were announcing it was coming up, in a longer version than had previously been released (though not 9 hours), so I quickly popped a tape in the VCR. It was late, and I couldn't stay up for it, so I watched some of it and went to bed. Unfortunately, I have a notorious habit of not labeling tapes, so I forgot I'd taped it until Rick mentioned it. Now I need to go through about 5 or 6 unlabeled tapes to find it.

When I was referring to the stills being used to replace footage, what I was getting at is that the technique is much more successful in silent films than in sound, IMO. Since a silent film is visuals punctuated with title cards and a music score, the shift from moving pictures and title cards to still pictures and title cards is much less jarring than when it is used in a talkie.

BTW-I have a tape of another von Stroheim that I've never watched-THE WEDDING MARCH. It's supposed to be one of his greatest works, but I've never found the time to watch it. Anybody else seen it?

by **Welles Fan** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 1:11 am

Hee hee-I just found the tape and started playing it, and TCM host Robert Osbourne was quite fulsome in his praise of Rick's achievement!

See you all in about 4-1/2 hours!

by **Rick Schmidlin** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:00 am

Thank's for giveing GREED a spin and watching it.

Wellesnet Message Board

Orsons Picks

Who is online