Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (RESULTS)
Polls: 1994 (Oct 20th), 1997 awards (Oct 24th), 1940s (Oct 26th), Shorts (Nov 16th), Knockout competition (Round 2)
Challenges: Horror, TSPDT, Latin America + Caribbean, 2020 schedule
Film of the Week: Finis terrae, November nominations (Nov 1st)

Le nouvelle cinéphile

Post Reply
watchayakan
Posts: 53
Joined: Nov 28, 2014
Contact:

Le nouvelle cinéphile

#1

Post by watchayakan » November 30th, 2014, 6:29 am

Hi, everybody! My name's Mike, I'm 24, and I didn't start to get into film as an art form until I was 22. As such, I'm still making my way through a number of films that are seen essential classics and I have only watched 25-50 foreign movies in total. I think that Christopher Nolan is pretty rad, Rope is better than Vertigo, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is the obvious inferior to Terminator 2: Judgment Day. I do not say these things to anger any of you, merely to let you know that I know my opinion is way off base to the average serious cinephile.

I intend to use this log for watching movies that I had never heard of before becoming interested in cinema. So that means no Coen brothers movies (except Hudsucker Proxy, never heard of that one before) or Goddard films, but the more esoteric or at least more foreign films. So while I had heard of Seven Samurai before two years ago I had never heard of Ran, so I intend to watch that.

I'm hoping to be able to read through this and see how my thinking on directors and writers and other aspects of filmmaking change.

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8270
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2

Post by jvv » November 30th, 2014, 7:16 am

Welcome to the forum Mike. :cheers:

Maybe the iCM Forum Film World Cup could be interesting for you. Lots of foreign films!

Limedebois
Posts: 3280
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Contact:

#3

Post by Limedebois » November 30th, 2014, 9:11 am

Welcome.

If your name is Mike, your title tends to think that you're a girl. Try 'Le nouveau cinéphile' instead. If it's a reference to 'la nouvelle vague', 'vague' is feminine. It would work with 'Ma nouvelle vague' for instance.

Lucky Mike. Plenty...

watchayakan
Posts: 53
Joined: Nov 28, 2014
Contact:

#4

Post by watchayakan » November 30th, 2014, 9:47 am

Limedebois on Nov 30 2014, 02:11:42 AM wrote:Welcome.

If your name is Mike, your title tends to think that you're a girl. Try 'Le nouveau cinéphile' instead. If it's a reference to 'la nouvelle vague', 'vague' is feminine. It would work with 'Ma nouvelle vague' for instance.

Lucky Mike. Plenty...
You'd think that after ten years of French classes I might know the language...

Apparently I do not have permission to edit the topic title so I guess I'm a girl now.
Last edited by watchayakan on November 30th, 2014, 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29604
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#5

Post by mightysparks » November 30th, 2014, 9:55 am

watchayakan on Nov 30 2014, 02:47:50 AM wrote:
Limedebois on Nov 30 2014, 02:11:42 AM wrote:Welcome.

If your name is Mike, your title tends to think that you're a girl. Try 'Le nouveau cinéphile' instead. If it's a reference to 'la nouvelle vague', 'vague' is feminine. It would work with 'Ma nouvelle vague' for instance.

Lucky Mike. Plenty...
You'd think that after ten years of French classes I might know the language...

Apparently I do not have permission to edit the topic title so I guess I'm a girl now.
tehe Not sure why we had it set that way, I just changed the permissions so you can change the title.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

watchayakan
Posts: 53
Joined: Nov 28, 2014
Contact:

#6

Post by watchayakan » November 30th, 2014, 10:13 pm

Stalker

Stalker is a 1979 Russian film by Andrei Tarkovsky. The first part of the film to really shock me was when it transitioned into colour. It made me jump in my seat - I was immediately impressed. A lot of the cinematography was amazing. The lingering shots and the slow zoom in gave me the creeps on a number of occasions. And the use of lighting on the dead couple was pretty cool. I found myself debating whether or not it was a corpse until all of a sudden it seemed clear that there were two skeletons.

In terms of the story, I found myself completely buying this Zone stuff until the Writer decided not to go into the room. All of a sudden I found myself wondering if any of this is real, if perhaps I bought into the premise because everyone in the movie did. And I thought this until the final scene which I really dislike because I love the idea that the characters belief transferred to me. Also, until that scene I thought the Stalker was such a tragic character - here is a man who is incapable of having any faith in his fellow man to such a point that he has to believe the stories about a place called the Zone so that he has something to believe in. This is also why he would not enter the room. If it turned out to be nothing, then he would be so disillusioned that he would probably kill himself, possibly like Porcupine.

That's not to say that there aren't fantastical elements before the final scene, but I found myself able to explain them away.

My favourite character was probably the Writer. His monologue in the sand room seemed to be a pretty heavy indictment on the very thing we do on this forum - gobble up movies and ask "What next?!" I got the impression that he was the director' or writers's mouthpiece as he made sure that as a viewer we are thinking in philosophical and poetic terms.

Overall I really liked the movie and would probably have absolutely loved it if not for the ending. But if I am being honest, this movie is making me wonder if it makes any sense to let a scene spoil ones that precede it. I mean, the movie still did make me think about a bunch of stuff before it crushed those thoughts. Hmm.

Post Reply