Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Easy Riders, Raging Bulls Era: Deep Cuts & Favorites of the 60's and 70's
#1
Partly as anticipation of the '69 setting of QT's next film, and partly because of re-reading Peter Biskind's book, I've been on a run of films from this time period that I either hadn't seen in forever or had thumbed my nose at/ never bothered with.

Just last nite I watched THE BOSTON STRANGLER (first time) + NIGHT THEY RAIDED MINSKY'S.

STRANGLER was kind of amazing. Underrated Richard Fleischer used split screen/ multi image to create atmosphere of unease, panic, and fractured mind. Curtis was unbelievably good.

(film had to be influence on what Fincher did with ZODIAC)

Friedkin's MINSKY's opens with a blending of period b & w film footage and newly shot color images, setting mood and sense of time and place (roaring twenties NY). The cast is fantastic. I found it very funny and bittersweet.

My big takeaway during this marathon is Paul Mazursky might've been the definitive artistic chronicler of the Boomer journey - from BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE, ALEX IN WONDERLAND to BLUME IN LOVE all the way through DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS, he pretty much humorously depicts shifting cultural mores and spiritual beliefs/ ideas. Even HARRY & TONTO -with an older generation protagonist- hits at where the people were at.

I've also fallen in love with the subgenre of square or old school men woke by manic pixie hippie chicks.

An old favorite I'm again obsessed with: CISCO PIKE.  Kristofferson's breakout; THE film that captures hangover haze of post-60's defeated hedonism and burnt out excess. It's like THE BIG SLEEP to INHERENT VICE's LEBOWSKI. Oddly, a hangout flick for me, and as essential an LA flick as LONG GOODBYE.

Another obsession: Altman's M*A*S*H. I might be in minority, digging it now more than when it was a hip title. god Gould!

[Image: tumblr_pd1yetMpfp1r4nvv3o1_500.jpg][Image: preview.jpg]

On deck for me: revisiting PUTNEY SWOPE + Van Peebles' WATERMELON MAN (look for it next month on TCM!) + films of Kenneth Anger


Some titles that jumped up in estimation this go around: REPULSION (unnerving to the point of almost being too much -few films make me this uncomfortable. Might be Polanski's genre masterpiece), A LIZARD IN WOMAN's SKIN (almost a response film to Argento's CRYSTAL PLUMMAGE; perfect companion piece), WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT?, WHERE'S POPPA?, THE LANDLORD, SKIN GAME, COOGAN'S BLUFF, PLAY MISTY FOR ME, THX- 1138 (theatrical cut), and Hopper's THE LAST MOVIE

All recommendations are appreciated.


"Did Cledus call you a legend?!"  "Uh-huh."

"The engines have stopped now. We all know we are going down. Last call for alcohol

Sure wish I could have another round"
Reply
#2
This only serves as a reminder that "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is maybe one of the more damaging books about Hollywood to ever be published. I guarantee you there's an entire generation of people that read that book, and thought it was okay to put the lives and well being of their actors and crew in danger because "It's all about the art, maaaaaaaaaaaaan - know the ledge, brah!" I know because I bought into it. I know because I went to school with those guys.

(The less said about his lionization of sexual predators like Beatty, Polanski, Evans, Nicholson, Hopper, et al, the better)

And that's not even getting into the fact Biskind spent more than enough time around Weinstein for his follow up to hear the stories that everyone heard. Truth is, he probably could have run those stories down as he answered to nobody. But he didn't want to.

In short: Sixties and seventies mythologizing needs to either die, or be rewritten. Or we need to foreground the voices that don't often get heard from when we talk about what a tremendous decade it was.

Maybe read Eve Babitz tomorrow nite, E.
home taping is killing music
Reply
#3
My main takeaway from the book was that everybody in Hollywood around this time was a drugged-up jerk. The one anecdote I recall was Louise Fletcher describing how Altman mocked her from the audience as she was on stage signing thanks to her deaf parents.

I recently watched THE LAST MOVIE and was frankly annoyed. I probably shouldn't have read this Robin Green profile of Hopper from that time period before watching it - https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cul...er-711156/

(08-30-2018, 03:48 PM)boone daniels Wrote: This only serves as a reminder that "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is maybe one of the more damaging books about Hollywood to ever be published. I guarantee you there's an entire generation of people that read that book, and thought it was okay to put the lives and well being of their actors and crew in danger because "It's all about the art, maaaaaaaaaaaaan - know the ledge, brah!" I know because I bought into it. I know because I went to school with those guys.

(The less said about his lionization of sexual predators like Beatty, Polanski, Evans, Nicholson, Hopper, et al, the better)

And that's not even getting into the fact Biskind spent more than enough time around Weinstein for his follow up to hear the stories that everyone heard. Truth is, he probably could have run those stories down as he answered to nobody. But he didn't want to.

In short: Sixties and seventies mythologizing needs to either die, or be rewritten. Or we need to foreground the voices that don't often get heard from when we talk about what a tremendous decade it was.

Maybe read Eve Babitz tomorrow nite, E.
I don't recall Sharon Waxman spilling the beans on Weinstein in 2001's Rebels on the Backlot, which was focused, in part, on Tarantino.
Reply
#4
I wonder if Boone realizes his argument is straight from the reactionary conservative playbook. Boooooo.

(not a diss, just strongly disagree)

I forgot to mention one of my favorite first time viewings: THE WORLD OF HENRY ORIENT. Delightful! Someone had said it would make a great double bill with GHOST WORLD, and that's absolutely true. George Roy Hill sometimes is dismissed as a journeyman, but his filmography is actually quite impressive.

From the period: HENRY ORIENT, THROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, BUTCH & SUNDANCE, + SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE are all fantastic, and have a stylistic stamp. I wouldn't go so far as to argue for auteur status, but at very least he's a master craftsman.


"Did Cledus call you a legend?!"  "Uh-huh."

"The engines have stopped now. We all know we are going down. Last call for alcohol

Sure wish I could have another round"
Reply
#5
(08-30-2018, 05:33 PM)Fat Elvis Wrote: I wonder if Boone realizes his argument is straight from the reactionary conservative playbook. Boooooo.

This is really fucking unfair. I'm genuinely hurt. It's like you didn't even think through what I was saying.

There's account after account in the Biskind about people - be they fellow stars, but more often than not, they're women - being bullied and pressured into doing things they didn't want to do in the name of great art, or getting a perfect shot. And that stuff is lionized and burnished (Biskind also does this in his Beatty biography), and I was arguing, from my own personal experience, that that lionization has had unintended consequences that are worth discussing. Sarah Jones's death in particular springs to mind because it was framed as the kind of same style of "cut corners, do what it takes" filmmaking:

According to one media report, Miller may have cut corners before. A local news station released a DVD made by Miller’s production company, Unclaimed Freight, in which crewmembers bragged about their “guerrilla style” filmmaking during the production of the 2013 movie CBGB, which included allowing a small child to roam in a field of cows and another scene in which a piano was dropped down a staircase. In the DVD, Miller says, “I don’t think it’s dangerous at all to have a little kid running with cows, do you think? No. No.”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/m...man-685976

Of course, we could bring up the TWILIGHT ZONE deaths, which arguably put the final nail in the coffin of this kind of filmmaking - for a time at least - moreso than a million HEAVEN'S GATE did. But you, once again, have this idea of who I am and what I believe even though we've done this back-and-forth before and that's a little frustrating, brother.

Truth is, although it may surprise you, I love a lot of films of the period, and you've sparked my interest for some of these flicks. I love a lot of art that is, shall we say, problematic. I love a lot of music from this period, too. And novels. I just didn't want this to turn into yet another "Man, the 1970s! Weren't they fucking great?!" thread. And since you framed it around the Biskind book, I think it's worth pushing back against that book's mythology. I wonder if in 20 more years it'll get the treatment that HOLLYWOOD BABYLON is currently getting from Karina Longworth.

Although, I'm serious - you'd really dig Eve Babitz, I think - fun, gossipy, tales from this period, written in this period. Beautiful writing from a fascinating woman who was at the center of a lot of this, from designing covers for Buffalo Springfield, posing nude with Stravinsky, and dating both Jim Morrison and Harrison Ford, among others. Her work is brilliant, and is enjoying a resurgence:

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/04...-silverman

Start with SLOW DAYS, FAST COMPANY.

https://www.amazon.com/Slow-Days-Fast-Co...1681370085

(Regarding Waxman - I'd have to go back and look, but I think she at the very least, did her own reckoning/grappling with her part in the mythologizing of Weinstein at the time of Backlot, which is more than I can say for a lot of journalists from this period, including Biskind.)

Anyway, to maybe get this back on topic, if we're gonna talk about 1970s problematic faves, we gotta bring up my main man, Bob Fosse, who directed what's maybe my favorite movie of all time, ALL THAT JAZZ. I couldn't make it to the recent retrospective of his work, Julie Klausner went to them all and wrote up her thoughts. Worth checking out:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultur...ival-diary
home taping is killing music
Reply
#6
(08-30-2018, 05:33 PM)Fat Elvis Wrote: argument is straight from the reactionary conservative playbook. .

a time and place for everything
Reply
#7
I'll check out that recommendation, Boone. And I want to reiterate I didn't want to diss,  just don't take your position.

Another favorite god Gould:

[Image: DlzTVs0XgAAZPFx.jpg] 

I'm ALMOST at the point of BUSTING > FREEBIE & THE BEAN


"Did Cledus call you a legend?!"  "Uh-huh."

"The engines have stopped now. We all know we are going down. Last call for alcohol

Sure wish I could have another round"
Reply
#8
Except, like always, rather than have an actual discussion, you say things like "reactionary conservative" or "I don't agree." I'd much rather you argue and let me hear your point of view. It's frustrating - why start these threads if you're not going to engage with them?
home taping is killing music
Reply
#9
I just blind bought "Eve's Hollywood" + ""Slow Days, Fast Company".

Boone, when you say "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" corrupted an entire generation, to me that is reactionary as hell. Documenting doesn't equal endorsing. And to me lothario doesn't equal predator. (semantics maybe, but still)

I've never heard any direct complaints against Beatty/ Nicholson, have you?

And I may be the wrong person to argue with, because I think Peter O'Toole is the hero of THE STUNT MAN. (kidding. sort of)

I thought championing films WAS engaging. Oh, well...


"Did Cledus call you a legend?!"  "Uh-huh."

"The engines have stopped now. We all know we are going down. Last call for alcohol

Sure wish I could have another round"
Reply
#10
I've reached the point in life when the phrase "Your heroes will always disappoint you" comes true more and more.
While I no longer always think of these creatives as "great people," I try not to let that get in the way of appreciating the work. Sometimes I can do it, sometimes I can't.

Even I suffered from Big Shot Fever once when a short-film of mine won a cable-TV award a million years ago.
Fortunately, I noticed my behavior and curbed it right away before my swelled head hit the floor.
Reply
#11
(08-30-2018, 06:10 PM)boone daniels Wrote: Except, like always, rather than have an actual discussion, you say things like "reactionary conservative" or "I don't agree." I'd much rather you argue and let me hear your point of view. It's frustrating - why start these threads if you're not going to engage with them?

Boone!  

Just an educated guess, but given what he’s posted here, maybe Elvis wanted to discuss the art being generated at this time, and morning the wrongness of the societal norms on Hollywood of the early 70’s. Doesn’t seem like that’s the intended gist of the thread. And that’s why he may not be engaging you in a way you’d prefer. 

ALthough, I totally agree with you re: the damage that hagiography likely caused (having just reread it myself), Elvis wants to get into Elliot Gould movies here, man.

(08-30-2018, 06:10 PM)boone daniels Wrote: Except, like always, rather than have an actual discussion, you say things like "reactionary conservative" or "I don't agree." I'd much rather you argue and let me hear your point of view. It's frustrating - why start these threads if you're not going to engage with them?

Boone!  

Just an educated guess, but given what he’s posted here, maybe Elvis wanted to discuss the art being generated at this time, and morning the wrongness of the societal norms on Hollywood of the early 70’s. Doesn’t seem like that’s the intended gist of the thread. And that’s why he may not be engaging you in a way you’d prefer. 

ALthough, I totally agree with you re: the damage that hagiography likely caused (having just reread it myself), Elvis wants to get into Elliot Gould movies here, man.
If you're happy, you're not paying attention.

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny: 
Glad that you guys worked that out amongst yourselves.

Reply
#12
This thread is exactly what I predicted it would be when I opened it.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
#13
Sorry!
If you're happy, you're not paying attention.

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny: 
Glad that you guys worked that out amongst yourselves.

Reply
#14
(08-30-2018, 06:41 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: This thread is exactly what I predicted it would be when I opened it.

a time and place for everything

everyone playing their pre-ordained roles


no free will
Reply
#15
(08-30-2018, 06:41 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: This thread is exactly what I predicted it would be when I opened it.



Reply
#16
(08-30-2018, 06:44 PM)atomtastic Wrote:
(08-30-2018, 06:41 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: This thread is exactly what I predicted it would be when I opened it.

UNSTOPPABLE FORCE, MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT?




Reply
#17
It’s been a few years since I read Biskind, but my general impression wasn’t necessarily lionizing. Some people come off better than others, of course, but overall it came across as some of the best movies being made by some of the worst people.

Anyway, I got another of his books a couple Christmases ago, Seeing Is Believing, about ‘50s Hollywood, but haven’t cracked it yet. Anybody read?
Originally posted by Schwartz on Cool as Ice ("When a girl has a heart of stone, there's only one way to melt it. Just add Ice."):
"It's not just a mixed metaphor, or that the stone is one that is melting...but the ice is actually making it melt. (kisses fingers) Magnifique."
Reply
#18
Responding as thoroughly as I can:

1. The name of the thread and the first sentence of Elvis' post mentions Biskind's book (as well as the QT film, which I'm not gonna touch for the moment). That, in of itself, seems meant to provoke discussion about the book, as well as obscure Elliot Gould jams. If the latter was the intended gist, then I didn't get that from the framing.

2. Depiction is not endorsement. You'll get no argument from me there. But that's not what Biskind's book, and, rather, his entire body of work, does. It's hagiographical, and I'm glad I'm backed up by neil in this.

3. I did not say corrupted an entire generation. I said that Biskind's choice to treat this period and subject as hagiography was tremendously influential on a generation of filmmakers vis a vis the ethos that "only the work matters" and "you can treat people like crap if you're a good artist." And that ethos has, as we've seen, allowed...bad behavior to flourish. (I'd also argue that this book led to giving the world ENTOURAGE, but that's a different argument.)

4. Warren Beatty's "lothario" reputation for sexual coercion with, among others, underage women is well known. I can't even believe that's being argued. Furthermore, Roman Polanski anally raped a teenage girl at Jack Nicholson's house. Finally, who have been among Roman's biggest cheerleaders when it comes to getting the case thrown out? Who wanted to see if there was a way for him come to the 2003 Oscars? Beatty and Nicholson. So claiming that they were just "lotharios" is pretty naive in this day and age.

5. "Championing films is engaging." Sure, but it's also trying to change the subject because you don't want to deal with difficult questions. "Oh, well...." Once again, Elvis, this is the thing you do that annoys me the most - rather than get into a topic, you sort of play off on how sad it is that people aren't getting into it on your terms. And before you come back with "Boone, you weren't either, you were just being reactionary," I outlined in my last post some things I enjoy about these movies. Which brings me to...

6. Elvis wants to talk about obscure Jimmy Caan movies, let's talk about them. Or ones with Gene Hackman. I love NIGHT MOVES. I also posted a piece about Fosse that I think we could get into.
home taping is killing music
Reply
#19
What sticks in my craw about the book were the out of line cheap shots at ROCKY.
Reply
#20
Obscure Jimmy Caan: SLITHER

W.D. Richter!

An almost stoned dream road picture.

Caan, Kellerman, Boyle, Lasser. Nothing quite like it.


"Did Cledus call you a legend?!"  "Uh-huh."

"The engines have stopped now. We all know we are going down. Last call for alcohol

Sure wish I could have another round"
Reply
#21
That sounds like a lot of fun. I'm definitely interested in checking it out. Thanks for the tip. Smile
home taping is killing music
Reply
#22
(08-30-2018, 07:51 PM)boone daniels Wrote: Responding as thoroughly as I can:



3. I did not say corrupted an entire generation. I said that Biskind's choice to treat this period and subject as hagiography was tremendously influential on a generation of filmmakers vis a vis the ethos that "only the work matters" and "you can treat people like crap if you're a good artist."  And that ethos has, as we've seen, allowed...bad behavior to flourish. (I'd also argue that this book led to giving the world ENTOURAGE, but that's a different argument.)

I would argue the mentality goes way further back than the 70's. Golden Age Hollywood... even the theatre... the stories are there. Many artists/directors are guilty of having a singular mindset, since forever... Just me, maybe, but I think you can celebrate the work *the art* without condoning all aspects that went into making it.

That used to be understood, at least with people I knew.

I posted this in the Critic thread after her death, but Margot Kidder's words fit here, too, I believe:

https://film.avclub.com/random-roles-mar...1798215851

AVC: That’s a cinematic period that’s been romanticized and documented in books like Peter Biskind’s Easy Riders, Raging Bulls.

MK: "Yeah, but [Biskind] missed the whole essence of that. He made it seem sordid. I was saying to Paul Schrader that he missed the idealism and the passion of that era in Hollywood, but also in American life, that ’60s sense of optimism and hope. He made it all about drugs, when to most of us, that just meant pot and magic mushrooms. He made it seem like we were all shooting heroin into our eyeballs. But that’s part of the whole ’60s and what it represented: feminism and civil rights and trying to stop the war. Hopefully we’re starting to see some of that optimism again, through the excitement around Obama."


"Did Cledus call you a legend?!"  "Uh-huh."

"The engines have stopped now. We all know we are going down. Last call for alcohol

Sure wish I could have another round"
Reply
#23
It has nothing to do with having a "singular mindset." There are a lot of great artists - Spielberg, for example - who seem to have figured out how to have a "singular mindset" and not be awful on set to people.

I also think it's incredibly reductive and not at all constructive to just sort of handwave away the discussion here as "Oh, every time is like that."

Any period in history can be a horror show, sure. Just like any period - like, say, the 60s* - can be seen as this bright, shining time of optimism and excitement. But art is political. Life is political. And let me be clear: I'm not dismissing the work because of who made them, or the times in which they were made. I love CHINATOWN, for fuck's sake. I'm just saying that pretending like you can look at anything as just the art without a socio-political context of the time and place in which they were made and who made them is folly. That's a delusion that we've been under since...well, forever. And it seems like people and critics and artists are starting to wake up from that delusion, and navigate the scary unknown that comes after.

The one thing I have come back to, time and time again, when these issues come up, that nobody really seems to get because there's this reputation I have as a conservative social justice warrior, is this: context matters. Time. Place. Politics. Current context. Past context. (For example, I'd argue that Kidder is talking abut the early to mid 1960s, which was pretty much dead by the time Bobby Kennedy got shot, right around the time Biskind's book opens.) That context can or cannot be with judgement attached to it. But it matters. It all matters, and it's all worth discussing. Otherwise we're just having the same circle jerk about these ribbon of dreams, these empathy machines, that we always have.

And if you think that's not worth discussing, if you'd much rather just celebrate "the work," ask yourself when the last time you caught a Cosby Show rerun was.

*Although let's not forget that the same folks that "stopped the war" then got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and tanked the global economy. That context matters, too.
home taping is killing music
Reply
#24
I saw Freidkin's "Sorcerer" this year and was surprised to read about the middling critical reception it received upon release. The newly created blockbuster era probably didn't help.
Reply
#25
Back in my film school late 80s and early 90s, I did so much research on the Movie Brats. Read all the books on Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, De Palma and those on the edge contemporaries like Friedkin, Schlesinger, Cimino and Frankenheimer. These were my heroes. Of course, back then there were maybe two or three books each on these guys if you were lucky, as film directors for the most part weren't household names and there was no internet yet. Everybody knew Spielberg but nobody's blue-collar mom or dad knew anything about box office totals or stuff like that.

The books that were available then were basically library-style information collections. Where they grew up, went to school, their film influences and work. Not quite biographies but more in line with a sterile style of collegiate investigation of them. Lots of footnotes, no pictures. All you really got to know about them personally were the things they'd mention on Late Night with David Letterman or on their LaserDisc commentary tracks.

I guess it all boils down to where you draw the line. What's acceptable and what isn't. And that's always changing.

That said, yeah, let's talk 70s awesomeness. Elliot Friggin' Gould, man. Love his output back in the old days. I just stared watching WHO? last night, and don't quite know what to make of it yet. Last week I finally had the chance to see THE LONG GOODBYE on the big screen in good old 35mm and it was glorious. While I don't think I'll ever go full on BUSTING > FREEBIE AND THE BEAN, I do really dig 'em both.

And James Caan. I had a CaanFest a few years back, ordering as many of his WB titles from the Warner Archives as they had. COUNTDOWN, HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT, SLITHER, THE RAIN PEOPLE, RABBIT RUN... He's even the model for a character in something I'm writing right now. (Inspired by elements from both his work and Clint Eastwood's.) A real 70's tough guy throwback, hopefully.
Reply
#26
Re: Nicholson/Beatty . . . they're rumored to have had underground tunnels connecting them to the Playboy Mansion. You don't get that rep without earning it.

Not sure if it's still on Filmstruck, but there's a Canadian film called THE SILENT PARTNER from the mid-to-late 70s starring Gould and Christopher Plummer that's well worth checking out.

Following up on my question about Waxman, she claims the NYT spiked her story on Weinstein in 2004 - https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/0...mes-243600

Waxman would go on to found her own online publication, The Wrap, in 2007 ... where she didn't say anything about Weinstein for over a decade. That's weird, right? Seems to me like she could have done some more there. Hope I'm not shaming her by pointing this out. I'm guessing I will be told shortly.

As for "your heroes always disappoint you" . . . don't make actors your heroes. That's just good sense.
Reply
#27
As the Social Justice Arbiter, I declare Mangy pointing out the flaws in Sharon Waxman's reporting as...NOT SHAMING.

Anyway, I've found a lot of these streaming services are pretty good for tracking down some of these obscure gems. I think they had WINTER KILLS, a film I've been meaning to see for years, on FilmStruck for a while. FilmStruck in particular does a lot of good 1970s SF.

Let's not forget that the 1970s was a golden age for the TV movie. I have such fond memories of the Dan Curtis stuff like THE NIGHT STALKER. Carl Kolchack - now there's a hero. Brooklyn Horror Fest here in NYC is doing a whole panel on it:

https://www.filmnoircinema.com/program/2...orror-film
home taping is killing music
Reply
#28
Quote:As the Social Justice Arbiter, I declare Mangy pointing out the flaws in Sharon Waxman's reporting as...NOT SHAMING. 

[Image: giphy.gif]

FilmStruck is a goldmine. Feels like I've been able to catch up on every classic movie I've missed over the last year. 

I actually watched EASY RIDER all the way through for the first time when I got the service. Am I bad filmatologist if I say that I was fairly bored until Jack showed up?
Reply
#29
I think that’s pretty much the consensus on EASY RIDER these days. TWO-LANE BLACKTOP is better anyways!
Reply
#30
I have that whole box set that Criterion did of those films with EASY RIDER, FIVE EASY PIECES, HEAD, etc. I need to break into that one.

FIVE EASY PIECES is maybe my favorite Jack.
home taping is killing music
Reply
#31
I really wish I liked THE FORTUNE better. I wanted it to be another ISHTAR.
Reply
#32
Speaking of FilmStruck, THE HOLY MOUNTAIN and EL TOPO are on there. Haven't seen either, and we got a big new TV recently. Might have to check those out.
home taping is killing music
Reply
#33
I love FIVE EASY PIECES. I remember my dad haaaated that scene with the waitress, because he thought Jack was being too mean to her, and the people he saw it with all cheered. Looking back, it's pretty clear that this was another example of Jack's character being a troubled jerk.

I went back and forth on getting the BBS set, but just bought the standalone FEP Blu instead. If they'd just release THE LAST PICTURE SHOW separately, I'd be fine.

I think the most underrated movie from the filmmakers mentioned in Biskind's book is ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE. It's as if people have never been able to process that Scorsese was able to do a sensitive romantic dramedy. People even talk about SORCERER more than they talk about that one. Ellen Burstyn is a treasure.

EDIT: I saw EL TOPO for the first time a few months ago. I'm always a fan when genre trappings are used to smuggle in a whole bunch of weirdness. I was hoping FilmStruck would have SANTA SANGRE as well, but no luck.
Reply
#34
What's funny about FIVE EASY PIECES is I think Jack is way more unsympathetic in something like AS GOOD AS IT GETS.

Speaking of Jack, I resisted ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST for a long time, dismissing it callously and ridicuously as the kind of Boomer rebellion pap I hate. I finally watched it for a film class a few years back, and loved it. It's stayed with me since.

I haven't seen LAST PICTURE SHOW. For some reason, something about Bogdonavich always puts me off. (And I'm not sure why.)

One of the biggest stars of the 1970s - Barbara Streisand. ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER is one of those movies that is almost a time capsule, both in its design, themes, and length. It's very long, but man, it is a trip. I also recommend FOR PETE'S SAKE, from 1974. Suppose you could call it regressive, but I think it works - the physical, wacky comedy on display is killer.
home taping is killing music
Reply
#35
Alfred Lutter in ALICE is one of the greatest child performances out there. The scenes between him and Burstyn could be pulled right out of my childhood. Scorsese really gets how quickly kids an go from hilarious to frustrating and right back to hilarious.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)