Sergio Leone Web Board
General Information => General Discussion => Topic started by: grandpa_chum on September 28, 2004, 05:52:44 PM
-
I hate to say it this way because although he's my favorite director i don't believe he was the greatest most influential director or even had the most talent (i think hitchcock gets that title) but who do you think, among directors, are even in leones league and comparable to him... worthy of being in the same sentence.
I mean there are a lot of great directors and a lot of respectable choices for "favorites", but who do you think deserve to be in the upper echelan(no idea how to spell) of directors... simply the best and greatest.
My personal updated list(with the guidance of some knowledgable posters)...
Sergio Leone
Alfred Hitchcock
Stanley Kubrick
John Ford
Orson Welles
AKira Kurosawa
David Lean
Charlie Chaplin
Frank Capra
Victor Fleming
what are your thoughts...
-
john houston
frank capra
charlie chaplan
sidney lumet
david lynch
and....
roger corman
-
Can't say i agree with lumet... but the other 5 are excellent directors...
-
Can't say i agree with lumet... but the other 5 are excellent directors...
agreed. let me replace lumet's name with mr. john sturges. does that work for you GP_C ?
-
???
How about David Lean and Sam Peckinpah?
-
Akira Kurosawa
Werner Herzog
-
can't believe i forgot kurosawa and lean... sturges is a whole hell of a lot closer to leone than lumet was.
this is great... so many directors i didn't realize made so many great movies... this has really been a learning experience for me... you guys are great!
-
Kurosawa
Herzog
Welles
Visconti
and the one who i think is best, Fellini
and Tarantino, nah, only kidding, he only thinks he is, lol ;D
-
The Brothers Coen.
Haven't seen The Ladykillers though which I gather is their first poor film in a long time.
-
I don't think the coen brothers are quite top notch directors... they're good, but not with the likes of the guys mentioned before... btw, i happen to think that ladykillers is one of there best.
-
what do you guys think of victor fleming(gone with the wind/wizard of oz) and micheal curtiz(casablanca/angels with dirty faces/robin hood)?... those two are still on the fence for me
-
Martin Scorsese. Yasujiro Ozo. Terry Gilliam. There are many favourites not on your list. But I think these three definately deserves a place.
-
Giuseppe Tornatore ;D
I guess Oliver Stone deserves to be mentioned too, and maybe also Don Siegel for those of us (including me) who like Eastwood-movies ;)
-
8) hola amigos! yes, it is difficult to place directors next to Leone. I mean in my opinion, George Miller directed a movie that holds a place in my heart as dear as GBU and that would be MAD MAX 2 a.k.a. THE ROAD WARRIOR, however the rest of his movies don't match up. but stylistically, there are some other directors with an often Sergio-inspired and/or influence...
Luc Besson (LEON)
Michael Mann (HEAT)
Sam Raimi (THE QUICK & THE DEAD)
Christophe Gans (BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF)
... among others.
-
I love oliver stone and don siegel, and i like gilliam... but as far as my personal list there is no way i would put them up there with leone and the other greatest of greats... i also personally don't care for besson, mann or raimi. haven't seen enough of tornatore, gans, or ozu to have an opinion... Still not sure on scorsese... raging bull and taxi driver were great and i like bringing out the dead surprisingly but i haven't seen much else.
... btw, don't take these criticisms personally and don't take my list as a declaration... it's just a personal reference of who i believe to be as great or close to leone.
-
Well, so far an impresive list. I'm not sure what criterior we are going by.
Bernado Bertoluci had some Leonesque epic landscapes in I think it was "Out Of Africa".
Lina Wertmuller in "Seven Beauties" has Paqqualino Settebelzze in a loveable rougue character similar to Tuco.
So many movies so little time.
-
???
Is anyone here a John Frankenheimer fan? He directed a number of acclaimed films such as SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, SECONDS, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and THE BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ, but I love him for his fabulous WWII action film THE TRAIN, and for the big racing film GRAND PRIX.
-
Ingmar Bergman is another brilliant director, although I haven't seen enough of his work to decide how he compares to my other favourites.
Also Dario Argento, while not as diverse was pretty much the maestro in his own field.
-
amazingly i've never seen a burtolucci film... although i am eager to.
-
I've got some Fellini lined up next in my Netflix queue - and I suspect he exerted a STRONG influence upon Leone. I've only seen snippets of his work in the past, but there's definitely a lot of the absurd/surrealistic that Leone borrowed. Also the fascination with unusual, sculptural and less than beautiful faces (Al Muloch, Don Miguel Rojo, Baker, eg). "La Dolce Vita" was just released on DVD this week.
-
To me, the greatest director of all time is Akira Kurosawa. Films like Ikiru, Shichinin no samurai (aka Seven Samurai) and Rashomon are amongst the best ever made and my personal favorites. I'm also very fond of anime director Hayao Miyazaki, who very recently made masterpieces like Mononoke-Hime (aka Princess Mononoke) and Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi (aka Spirited Away). But of course I'm not saying he is much of an influential director, at least not outside of anime (which is, I might add, truly a fullfledged way of making films, not just for making kids stuff!). The same (when it comes to influence) might be said about Takeshi Kitano, another favorite of mine. His best work? Hana-Bi, Kidzu Ritan (aka Kids Return) & Kikijuro no natsu. Haven't seen his Dolls yet though.
Other favorites of mine include Stanley Kubrick, F.F. Coppola, of course Leone, Sidney Lumet and Zhang Yimou.
-
speaking of takeshi kitano... i've only seen "brother", but it was a great movie... if you can make it past the subtitles than i highly suggest it. not sure how popular it is, a friend of mine got me into kitano a while a ago.
-
gotta agree with u David Aaronson.
For me its between Kurosawa and Fellini, with Leone and Welles maybe just behind.
Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanshiro Sugata, Dersu Uzala, Kagemusha, Ran!
You name, if its done by Kurosawa its usually amazing. ;D
The thing with Kurosawa is he crossed the language barrier because his films are not exclusively Japanese in theme, theyre still relevant worldwide.
-
speaking of takeshi kitano... i've only seen "brother", but it was a great movie... if you can make it past the subtitles than i highly suggest it. not sure how popular it is, a friend of mine got me into kitano a while a ago.
I think it's the least of all his films, so, if you want to explore his work, you're in for a treat! I highly recommend Hana-Bi, it's an absolute masterpiece.
As for subtitles, I'm Dutch, and I'm used to subtitles to the point where I find it hard to follow a movie in my own language sometimes.., :P
-
gotta agree with u David Aaronson.
For me its between Kurosawa and Fellini, with Leone and Welles maybe just behind.
Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanshiro Sugata, Dersu Uzala, Kagemusha, Ran!
You name, if its done by Kurosawa its usually amazing. ;D
The thing with Kurosawa is he crossed the language barrier because his films are not exclusively Japanese in theme, theyre still relevant worldwide.
Anything by Kurosawa is indeed good. However, I didn't like Ran as much as I expected I would... but I was influenced by lack of sleep and food at the time... :-\
-
I don't watch Kurosawa time and again like I do Leone but having said that, the duels are fantastic. The gory one at the end of Sanjuro nearly made me choke on my coffee when I first saw it, and the two guys fighting first with bamboo sticks then with swords in Seven Samurai is so atmospheric. Beautifully shot.
All this talk of Japanese films though has reminded me of a film I taped off TV years ago but got lent out and was never seen again.
It was B&W, very slow but very involving. The title sounded something like Lapsong Suchong (but it wasn't) and involved a brother and sister being imprisoned at a very young age by a rival feudal lord who had conquered their fathers land. By the by they escaped and the daughter (the son got killed I think) eventually found her mother but she'd gone mad (I do like a happy ending!). Does anyone know the name of this film and any other details??
-
Kurosawa, definitely.
What about Riddley Scott?
-
Kubrick
Kurosawa
Hitchcock
Tarantino (in terms of entertainment value)
Takeshi Kitano
Bunuel
Polanski
-
I think the closest director to Leone is Sam Peckinpah as Cross of Iron is the logic extrapolation of what Leone did. Except in this film the music is less noticeable, I personnaly think no director ever made a such good symbiose between film and soundtrack than Leone did.
For the time being, I like what Ridley Scott does. He is one of the only European film maker to have reached the top of Hollywood box office. As an English an, he brings a certain European sensitivity that we aren't used to see at hollywood. See Gladiator: Ridley took the bet of reviving the peplum and suceeded. And when you watch Gladiator it isn't like an Hollywood movie(even if it is a superproduction), this film has something "out of time". And a great score too, like ine Leone films. It's definitely a film wich has something of Leone spirit.
-
Hmmmm
Leone
Hitchcock
Kurosawa
Fritz Lang
Hawks
Ruben Mate
Wells
Chag Cheh
Tarantino
Besson
Rodriguez
The Coens
Guy Ritchie (though he needs to bounce back)
James Whale
Curtiz
Siegel
Budd Boetticher
Capra
Preston Sturges
John Sturges
Lots more but those are some of my favorites off the top of my head.
-
Got to drag this thread up again...
John Boorman
Director of Hell in the Pacific, Deliverance, Excalibur, Hope and Glory and The General. It's really annoying that so many of his films aren't released in the UK but are in the US and Europe, despite him being from the UK
-
Yea Boorman is good, there aren't many DVD releases of his films out here either or at least I haven't seen any
-
Yea Boorman is good, there aren't many DVD releases of his films out here either or at least I haven't seen any
unfortunately his best isn't POINT BLANK
but DELIVERANCE, EXCALIBUR, ZARDOZ(wierd) HELL IN THE PACIFIC(his second best film IMO) EMERALD FOREST and others are out there on dvd
-
I do have Zardoz, and would like to get Deliverance, but I haven't seen it in the local stores,
-
I've got Hell in the Pacific, Deliverance and Excalibur. The one I really want to see is The General, his biopic of Irish crime boss Martin Cahill.
-
I love Excalibur, it's beautifully shot. Great soundtrack too, excellent use of Wagner.
Is Point Blank on DVD yet?
-
Is Zardoz actually any good then? I was a little put off by the tacky looking sci-fi plot and Sean Connery. It's about the only John Boorman film you can get over here other than the ones I've got already.
-
Its a bit strange, more Barbarellaish, more a Utopia gone sour theme, its out there, lol.
-
I didn't see Francis Ford Coppola on this list - he should be on simply for Godfather's I & II, let alone Apocalypse Now and the Outsiders.
-
I'm kind of disappointed to see that this thread has become little more than Lists of Directors Beside Leone I Happen to Like.
In an attempt to make matters more interesting, I propose that we follow more closely Grandpa's original idea. He used the term "league" which means more than the fact that all members are of comparable abilities; it also implies that all members are playing by the same rules. And the limiting parameter that needs to be applied to the set is, IMHO, the use of Cinemascope, or the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
This necessarily excludes many many many good directors from consideration (including my personal fave, Hitchcock) but so be it. Rather than compare apples with oranges, let's instead speak of the relative merits of Golden Delicious, Granny Smiths, Fujis..... In other words, who are, with Leone, the Poets of 'Scope? My list includes (but may not be limited to):
Kurosawa
Lean
Kubrick
Carpenter
-
Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick, Welles, Fellini
-
I'm kind of disappointed to see that this thread has become little more than Lists of Directors Beside Leone I Happen to Like.
Agreed, hence I've only mentioned a few:
Kurosawa, Herzog, Boorman
-
How do I find who used Cinemascope? Is there an easy way to weed out directors?
-
Widescreenmuseum.com has info and lists on Cinemascope and other comparable formats.
-
But Kurosawa's best weren't made in cinemascope at all... in fact, they were made in what some nowadays would refer to as 'Full Screen'.
-
How do I find who used Cinemascope? Is there an easy way to weed out directors?
what do you mean by weed out?
are you saying cinemascope is somehow superior?
-
But Kurosawa's best weren't made in cinemascope at all... in fact, they were made in what some nowadays would refer to as 'Full Screen'.
Well, there is room for disagreement here. My personal feeling is that Kurosawa's best films *were* made in 'scope, and that the use of the wider aspect ratio is one (though by no means the only) reason why.
Even if you disagree, though, it still makes sense to limit comparisons of Leone's Westerns to Kurosawa's Tohoscope films (or to other director's films shot in scope). Why? I contend that a scope film is as different from a full-frame film as an apple is from an orange, or as a novel is from a short story.
It would be worth little to contend, for example, that Hemmingway's short stories are better than Fitzgerald's novels (although I prefer the former to the latter), but there is profit in comparing, say, _A Farewell to Arms_ with _The Great Gatsby_. The fact that they are both novels means that they were composed under similar if not identical rules; "leagues" are only possible when members are held to the same standards.
-
what do you mean by weed out?
are you saying cinemascope is somehow superior?
No I'm just trying to judge by the criterior set forth by dave, and by the way the widescreen museum is a great site, I've barely scratched the surface in it, lol, so it may be awhile before I can digest and form some opinions.
Thanks for the site find dave.
-
Ok dave,
Well checked out the widescreen site and kept checking the filmographies for each type, no Leone films, so I say what gives?
A little searching around and I find that Leone used Techinscope, which was a cheaper film saving method altogether different.
I email the curator at the Widescreen Museum and here is his smart alec answer:
> Why no filmography for Techniscope?
>
1. Because I'm lazy.
2. Because there's no good source
3. Because nobody really cares about this crummy little system.
MBH
History of Techniscope:
http://jkor.com/peter/techniscope.html
In the 1960's, anamorphic cinematography was more popular in Italy than the United States. However, the added cost of anamorphic production often meant a reduction in some other aspect of production. Italian producers did not have the luxury of relatively large budgets, like their American counterparts. Then Technicolor in Rome came up with an interesting alternative, a new system know as Techniscope.
Significantly, the system employed normal spherical lenses. Anamorphic lenses at the time, were more expensive to hire, needed more light, and were less sharp. In addition, working with anamorphic's narrower depth of field, was considered a limitation by cinematographers in the 1960's. The horizontal angle of view of a standard 18mm lens on a Techniscope camera was equivalent to that of 35mm 'scope lens. The 18mm lens has a substantial increase in depth of field, compared to the 35mm lens. So this effective increase in depth of field was seen as a significant advantage of the Techniscope system at the time. The use of readily available standard lenses was an undeniable bonus to both cinematographers and producers alike. These lenses performed better, cost less, were more available, and there was a wide variety to choose from.
However, the 35mm camera needed modification for shooting the Techniscope system. The movement was changed to expose a two-perforation area instead of the normal four-perf. pull-down configuration. In addition, the camera aperture was changed to 1 : 2.35 along with the viewfinder markings. A re-centring of the lens axis was not necessary with this system. Mitchell, Arriflex and Eclair, among others, produced these modified cameras. The two perf. pull-down meant another significant advantage of Techniscope, because the film stock now lasted twice as long as the equivalent length required for normal 35mm cameras.
On a specialized optical printer, Technicolor added a 2 x 1 anamorphic squeeze and, at the same time, optically 'blew up' the half-frame image to the full, 4 perf., anamorphic format. It could then be projected in the same way as regular CinemaScope/anamorphic films in virtually any cinema around the world. Despite this 50% enlargement of the image, Techniscope was usually clearer and sharper than CinemaScope at the time. It was ironic that it performed better than the system it tried to emulate. While the laboratory work was slightly more expensive than normal, production costs in film stock were cut in half. And there were further savings by avoiding the need to hire the more expensive anamorphic camera lenses.
A summery of the advantages of Techniscope are as follows:
1). The cost of the camera negative is halved, and therefore, the processing costs are also halved.
2). The ease and efficiency of shooting "a 'scope picture" but with normal spherical lenses. A wide range of high-quality, spherical prime and zoom lenses, can be utilized. These are generally much lighter and faster than anamorphic lenses, and are more readily available.
3). A better standard of image sharpness, and greater depth of field, is achieved through the use of lenses of shorter focal length.
4). It is possible to film for twice as long without reloading. Negative wastage is also reduced because 'short ends' are longer and hence more 'useable'.
5). Camera noise is reduced due to the fact that less film is moved through the transport mechanism.
6). A saving on the extra cost of hiring anamorphic lenses.
7). Techniscope allows for the extraction of a variety of 35mm and 16mm prints in both standard and anamorphic formats. The most common are: [A] the standard 2 : 1 squeezed anamorphic print with a 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio; standard masked prints 1.66 : 1, 1.75 : 1 and 1.85 : 1; and [C] 16mm prints.
Ok so Here is a short list of some better known titles that were shot in Techniscope (in chronological order) ...
The Ipcress File (United Artists 1965)
Fistful of Dollars (United Artists 1967)
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (United Artists 1967)
The Long Day's Dying (Paramount 1968)
Once Upon a Time in the West (Paramount 1969)
A Fistful of Dynamite
[Duck You Sucker] (United Artists 1972)
American Graffiti (Universal 1973)
Not a whole lot to choose among.
-
Thanks for that info, which I for one found really interesting. It is worth noting that Leone got such good results from such an "inferior" format. Also, many if not most of the Spaghettis were shot in Techniscope.
The comment about achieving greater depth-of-field is also important. I know that Kurosawa often used telephoto lenses, which tends to flatten images and make them appear 2-D. One thing that Leone has over just about everyone is his ability to combine depth-of-field with panoramic vistas. Take, for example, Angel Eye's intro in GBU, the shot that begins the farmhouse slaughter scene. LVC rides into the frame in long shot, dismounts and walks toward the camera. Just when you think he is about to hit a mark that will allow him to be perfectly framed in medium shot, he keeps coming, getting impossibly close, until we get one of the greatest CUs in cinema history. That shot gives me chills every time I watch it, and it was the kind of thing that only Leone could have delivered.
-
Spielberg
Kubrick
Leone
That are 3 favorites of mine.
-
Since Close Encounters was filmed in a 'scope aspect ratio, Speilberg, according to my way of thinking, certainly qualifies for consideration.
-
I still fail to see what aspect ratio or film type has to do with filmmaking talent and ability... it is simply the medium on which they capture their art, as far as i'm concerned motion-picture is as specific as it should get... as opposed to a painting or a photograph or a book... within that it really makes no difference, it takes just as much talent and ability to make a movie in 1.66:1 as it does cinemascope, it's just working with what you got and some movies simply look better in broader aspect ratios and i wouldn't want them refilmed in a wider one...
back on topic... after giving in a few months of thought and seen a shitload more movies and hopefully evolved as a film viewer... i give you the updated and a bit more exclusive list of directors I believe to be as talented, if not more, as leone in the art of filmmaking...
Sergio Leone
Sam Peckinpah
Stanley Kubrick
Luis Bunuel
on the outside looking in... aka one or two more, as of yet undiscovered, great viewings away
John Milius
Woody Allen
Orson Welles
David Lean
Alfred Hitchcock
John Ford
Sergio Corbucci
Longshots, but from what i've seen they have a shot to get there apon more, as of yet undiscovered, viewings
Sidney Lumet
The Coen Brothers
Don Siegel
Charlie Chaplin
Elia Kazan
Steven Spielberg
-
I still fail to see what aspect ratio or film type has to do with filmmaking talent and ability... it is simply the medium on which they capture their art, as far as i'm concerned motion-picture is as specific as it should get... as opposed to a painting or a photograph or a book... within that it really makes no difference, it takes just as much talent and ability to make a movie in 1.66:1 as it does cinemascope, it's just working with what you got and some movies simply look better in broader aspect ratios and i wouldn't want them refilmed in a wider one...
I actually think it takes more talent and ability to make a good film in scope than it does to make a good film in another aspect ratio, but that really wasn't the point I was making earlier. Gramps, you raised the idea of a league, and now you're trying to tell us that if people are using bats and balls and a diamond, it's baseball and nothing but. I say the bigs are different than any other kind of play, and even among the majors there are reasons to distinguish between National League teams and American League teams. When teams play by different rules, comparing records is not always possible.
The same applies to film genres. I think it is fairly easy to compare Leone with Peckinpah, Kubrick, Lean and Mann: all made films that have a quality that could be described as "epic" (Scope is one, but not the only, element that contributes to this quality). Other directors, who were no less great than those just mentioned, did their work on smaller canvases. Their films are no less beautiful, perhaps, but because they were developed according to different "rules", comparisons of their films with films of the epic type can't really be useful. How can you say that Leone is better than Hitchcock, for example, or that Hitchcock is better than Leone? What's the basis for comparison? I don't think you can really say anything except reveal your preference for epic over thrillers, or thrillers over epic, as the case may be.
I have no problem at all, however, when it comes to comparing filmmakers and films that operate *within* a particular genre. I know in my bones that OUATITW is a better film than either Lawrence of Arabia or 2001, just as I know that either of those latter films is better than Gladiator (to say nothing of Fall of the Roman Empire being better than Gladiator). They are just similar enough to make comparisons possible.
So Gramps, I find your league metaphor helpful, even if you didn't intend for anyone to apply it so strictly. Maybe a filmmaker can do epic without Cinemascope, just as a major league team can stay in a pennant race without playing long ball. But epics shine in Cinemascope, and crowds like to see their fair share of homeruns.
-
well put... and i guess i have to admit that i'm not trying to say anything other than my preference... you are absolutely correct, if you are trying to make arguments for who was the best in general terms, but this is entertainment, and all i feel comfortable judging by is my personal enjoyment of their films... why do i think leone is better than say hitchcock, because i enjoy his films more, and to be more specific to the idea of looking at a director separately from his specific films, i enjoy leone's direction more than hitchhock's... i can even say that if i were to come across a great script for a thriller, i would rather see leone, peckinpah, kubrick, or bunuel directing it rather than hitchhock... i think my preference for their directing goes beyond genre, and actually one of the things i looked at when i was deciding who i thought was in leone's "league" was whether or not they made me love a film, when i basically hated the genre, as leone did with OUATIAmerica... peckinpah did it with a mexican crime movie(alfredo), kubrick did it with a musket-war movie(lyndon), and bunuel did it with an artsy almost completely surreal movie(discreet charm)... other directors have made movies that transcended genre, but not to the extent these 4 have done, in my eyes anyway, along with having made the best movies in their own genre.
-
I think using aspect ratio as a way of pairing down Leone's league is sort of silly. Why don't we list only the the great directors who were also Italian, or who were the same height weight as Sergio?
My list consisted of outstanding genre directors who made or make films that transcend the limits of the genres they work in. That's what Sergio did and would have done regardless of aspect ratio.
-
Dave does make a great point... but i agree, regardless of era, genre, technique, or country of origin it's not really what the guy has to work with, its how he works with it, kubrick for instance made great films in almost all of the different aspect ratios, does that make him better or worse than leone no, but i guess technically dave could argue he is in a different league and again maybe that is a bad word, i only meant up there with, as great as or greater... and i think to go on anything other than personal preference(which generally has nothing to do with aspect ratio as long as it's the original ratio the film was shot in)... after all it is art, there is no system other than personal preference.
i may be getting long winded... but another thing that seems flawed about seperating directors according to aspect ratio is the fact that most great directors used varying aspect ratios at pretty random times in their career progression... does Once Upon A Time In America put leone out of his own league and does 2001 put kubrick out of his own league because they went against the directors usual ratio
-
Okay, maybe talking about directors isn't really the best way to go. Leone is unique in that he hit a homerun for every at bat. Of course, when you only have 6 at bats, your percentage can be phenomenal, and another player of equal talent can look worse by simply having to step up to the plate more frequently. So the best thing to compare is not really directors, but films. Even great directors made turkeys if they make enough of them.
I suggest that we nominate films that are in the same league with those made by Leone. I am going to continue to use the league metaphor that Grandpa Chum created (if even inadvertantly) because that is what makes the exercise interesting for me. I am going to be thinking in terms of "epic filmmaking" and I am going to use aspect ratio as one (but not an exclusive) criteria (films made prior to Cinemascope can qualify; for example, Gone With The Wind is rightly considered an epic (I just don't happen to like it)). But I am going to exclude great films that are in "other leagues" (which is why there will be no Hitchcock, for example, even though I think he was a great, great filmmaker). Of course, you all can play the game anyway you see fit. Okay, enough, here is my first tentative list of films:
Only Angels Have Wings
My Darling Clementine
Red River
Objective Burma
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Winchester 73
Vera Cruz
Lola Montes
River Kwai
El Cid
Lawrence of Arabia
The Leopard
The Train
Cheyenne Autumn
Zulu
Lord Jim
Fall of the Roman Empire
Von Ryan's Express
Grand Prix
2001
The Wild Bunch
True Grit
Patton
Barry Lyndon
A Bridge Too Far
The Thin Red Line
Black Hawk Down
A lot of war films and westerns? That might be because the epic descends from The Odyssey/The Illiad, which are about war and adventure. This list will probably expand as I see more Peckinpah this year.........
-
yeah, pat garrett and billy the kid would definitly qualify along with ride the high country and maybe bring me the head of alfredo garcia, although the latter seems to almost be in a league all it's own, that is it's not really a western or an epic.
-
Yeah, Gramps, I know what you mean about Alfredo Garcia. I just watched it on the new DVD a week ago, and it blew me away. But it really is hard to classify. Maybe, like you say, it's in a league of its own........
-
I just saw Bertolucci's Novecento. WOW! As good as any Leone movie I've seen. Very much on par with Leone's style. The only things I think were lesser than Leone was the camera work, the aspect ratio and the use of music. The camera work is too sloppy for the kind of shots Bertolucci tries to achieve. His vision is amazing, but sometimes the camera movements are too jarry, too fast, or uneven. Just imagine how much more great the movie would have been had someone like Delli Colli handled the cinematography.
Then there's the aspect ratio. It seems too small for the kind of shots he wants to achieve. Of course it's his choice what he uses, but there's so much more in the shot that seems crammed in there and cut off and it makes the camera work have even more of a kind of half-assedness about it. As much as it is his preferences, he could've achieved much more and it would've fit the epic scope of the movie more to have had a wider lens. Maybe he did feel oppressed? :(
I'm not saying his visual style is terrible, I just think there was enough room to improve it rather than coming off just a little half-assed in certain areas. Maybe the combination of his style and a more hindering lens isn't his problem, maybe it's just Storaro?
Also, had his use of music been approached with the importance that Leone approaches it with, 1900 would've been way more deep and defined I think.
I think Bertolucci is very much on par with Leone, but in areas where he could've moved much further and gone to greater heights without having to go out on a limb to do it he could've made a movie like 1900 way better. I'm a little ignorant as I haven't seen other classics like Spider's Stratagem or The Conformist, but five hours seems like good enough time to get to know Bertolucci I should think :)
1900 has to be one of the most artsiest, ambitious films I've ever seen.