Since there are 16 movies tying for “last place” on this top 100 (all at #91), it means that I’ve got some leeway in choosing the order of movies. So the next film alphabetically was The Deer Hunter, but that’s over three hours long!? And I’ve got things to do tonight. So I’m watching this Jean Vigo movie instead, which is only 44 minutes long.
The only other Vigo thing I’ve seen is L’Atalante, which was spiffy… but so weird.
And again, this is weird. I know, Vigo isn’t going for naturalism or anything, but it’s so odd.
Though the film was not an immediate success with audiences, it has proven to be enduringly influential. François Truffaut paid homage to Zero for Conduct in his film The 400 Blows (1959). The anarchic classroom and recess scenes in Truffaut’s film borrow from Vigo’s film, as does a classic scene in which a mischievous group of schoolboys are led through the streets by one of their schoolmasters. Director Lindsay Anderson has acknowledged that his own film if…. was inspired by Zero for Conduct.
I don’t know… It feels like pretty undigested disgust for Vigo’s school situation (presumably) vomited onto the screen.
I wonder whether this would have been as famous as it is if it hadn’t been banned for over a decade in France. I mean, it’s good, but…
OK, the weirdest thing about the list of 100 best movies I’m doing is that Cassavetes has four movies on it.
I mean, there’s nobody on here with more movies than Cassavetes.
I wonder whether that’s an artefact of the age of the participating voting directors… or is Cassavetes the best director ever? I’ve only seen a couple of his movies.
And whenever I see his name, this song starts playing in mah branes:
So what’s my take on Cassavetes? Hm…
Well, everybody’s faces are so shiny. Cassavetes is like the 70s distilled.
The film’s original release, at 135 minutes in length, was a commercial disappointment and the film was pulled from distribution after only seven days. At a May 17, 2008, George Eastman House screening in Rochester, Gazzara said he “hated” the original cut; “it’s too long”, he had told Cassavetes.
Eventually, Cassavetes decided to re-edit the film, and it was re-released in 1978 in a new 108-minute cut. The 1978 version is the one that has been in general release since that time, though both versions of the film were issued in The Criterion Collection’s John Cassavetes: Five Films box set, marking the first appearance of the 1976 version since its original release.
Perhaps I should have been watching the shorter version, which may be the one everybody’s seen.
Because, yes indeed, this is very slow. But I usually love slow movies, so perhaps not.
[time passes]
Well, I can certainly that this is something that would bomb at the box office. Large parts are set in a strip club… but while strip clubs are usually depressing, this one is downright morbid. It’s like a bizarre cabaret thing. Is it all a metaphor for Cassavetes’ movies!?!
Everything here is depressing, really. It’s a very 70s movie.
The plot is slightly convoluted and doesn’t make much sense: Why’d the mobsters go after a somewhat high-profile guy (a club owner) for their killer? You’d think they have dozens of guys ready to go without all the shenanigans.
But apart from the movie not making much sense, there are some really gripping scenes. I do not understand why this movie made the list, though. Is it because of the slightly complicated history it had when being released? People love rediscovered movies, whether they’re any good or not.
On the other hand, Bruce LaBruce voted for this movie, so I’m probably wrong.
There’s scenes here I really like; that are utterly original. But I just lost interest in this movie like fifteen minutes in. Perhaps I should have watched the short version.
This is interesting. The elderflower almost clashes with the bison grass, but then the vermouth kind of muddles the waters… There’s a lot going on, and it’s not unpleasant, but it’s not really a winner, either.
By the way, does anybody know of a version of Futura with better keming? The “AV” in the first image looks … bad. I’ve bought two versions, but they both have this problem.
The DVD of this I bought has La jetée as the main attraction, and this movie as the extra. Which makes sense, because I’ve heard of La Jetée, but I haven’t heard of this movie. Which makes me excited.
I really love the central conceit of this movie: It’s a woman doing a voiceover, telling us (the viewers) mostly about what she’s (or Marker’s?) been told by some man. Or something: I don’t think it’s totally clear who “he” and “I” are in the narration at all times? Or is it?
This is a documentary, basically, about Japan, but this overt distancing results in an elegiac tone and imbues everything with importance.
But… this basically goes through all the worst exoticising bits you’ve already seen from any documentary about Japan. “Oooh, it’s so exotic!” you’re meant to say, and while this may be excused by being en early example of the genre, it’s still rather annoying.
The bits from Guinea-Bissau don’t have this problem. I think.
[time passes]
OK, it’s more complicated than that. I mean, what this movie is about. I can totally see why it’s on the OTB list, but… it’s still not completely clicking with me.
Oh, man. I have no recollection of having seen this movie, but every scene there’s a kind of primeval recognition. Could I have seen this, like, on TV as a child or something?
It’s deja vu all the way for me.
I must have been scared shitless while watching this.
So I can’t really look at this in any sensible way: I’m totally captivated by all the scenes, but I don’t know whether it’s because they’re really good scenes or because of my possible history with this movie.
ANYWAY.
This 2K restoration looks awesome, and it’s not even Criterion.
I do feel like it loses some tension about halfway through. It’s a wonderful descent into nightmare, but when turning into one sort of movie from another, it becomes something slightly more gimmicky. OK, that’s a too-strong word, but you feel there’s a… twist… coming up… Which cheapens it.
