Films with a beautiful, literate script

[WICKES]

Can anyone recommend a film with a beautiful script?

There is a British film (sadly little known outiside the British Isles) called Withnail and I, which has such amazing, poetic language. For those who haven't seen it, it is a tragic comedy about two drunken, out of work actors living in a filthy apartment in London at the end of the 1960s. One is an eccentric, upper class alcoholic, the other is an angst-ridden, lower middle class friend desperate to escape their life. There must be some fans of that film on here.

Lawrence of Arabia (script by Robert Bolt) and A Clockwork Orange (which bravely retains Burgess' extraordinary language) also deserve a mention.

[cafolini]

Vittorio de Sica's The Bicycle Thief. Federico Fellini's Amarcord, and The Clowns.

[Desolation]

True Grit (the new one) has some of the most beautiful language in the dialogue that I've ever heard.

Just about any of Woody Allen's movies would be pretty high up there too.

[Emil Miller]

Citizen Kane scripted by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles.
Here's just a sample of one of the greatest screenplay's ever written.
Strictly for grown ups and literate youngsters.

http://youtu.be/16WC_Dyo6Fo

[Charles Darnay]

Purple Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen)

Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen)

Life is Beautiful (Benigni)

Or anything written by Giuseppe Tornatore.

[Climacus]

Lawrence of Arabia (script by Robert Bolt) . . .
Bolt's A Man for All Seasons is top-notch. The script of the original play is a little better (it's more involved too, with a subplot omitted in the film). But the film-script is good too.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The opening of Manhattan is brilliant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyaj2P-dSi8

...as is the rest of the film.

[Lokasenna]

True Grit (the new one) has some of the most beautiful language in the dialogue that I've ever heard.

Just about any of Woody Allen's movies would be pretty high up there too.

I think a lot of the Coen Brother's films qualify, and I'd agree with Woody Allen.

If Life is Beautiful can be up there, then another foreign marvel is The Lives of Others - a German friend of mine said it was beautifully written.

[Paulclem]

Under Milk Wood with Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole and Elizabeth Burton is brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fvcW5VJOAI

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll put in another vote for almost anything the Coens have done, and same goes with Tarantino, as long as you realize what he's trying to do with film. Some other movies that popped in my head were The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, and the films of Christopher Nolan.

[mortalterror]

The film which is most like Withnail and I is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. When I think of a literate script I mostly think of the dialogue, the best examples of which are usually screen adaptations of plays such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Julius Caesar, or Glengarry Glen Ross. There are a lot of great literary adaptations of novels like The Godfather and Gone With the Wind. There are also many visually beautiful films, or just good films, which I see most people here suggesting. If you want a more specific type of film your criteria will have to be more specific, otherwise you are just going to get a list of people's favorite art films.

[Gregory Samsa]

The Unbearable Lightness of Being is a great movie.

[PeterL]

The script of Lolita that Nabokov wrote was pretty darned beautiful. Alas, it has never been made into a mvie.

[JuniperWoolf]

Anything by Aronofsky, especially The Fountain or Pi.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Can anyone recommend a film with a beautiful script?

There is a British film (sadly little known outiside the British Isles) called Withnail and I, which has such amazing, poetic language. For those who haven't seen it, it is a tragic comedy about two drunken, out of work actors living in a filthy apartment in London at the end of the 1960s. One is an eccentric, upper class alcoholic, the other is an angst-ridden, lower middle class friend desperate to escape their life. There must be some fans of that film on here.

Lawrence of Arabia (script by Robert Bolt) and A Clockwork Orange (which bravely retains Burgess' extraordinary language) also deserve a mention.


Withnail and I is the finest film known to Man
Hilarious and some fantastic quotes.

[WICKES]

Withnail and I is the finest film known to Man
.

:smile5: I am your friend for life!!

Strange that this masterpiece is so little known outside Britain. Maybe the cynicism and humour are too British?

[Emil Miller]

Here's a critique of a film in which Clifford Odets attacks yet another facet of US society with a razor sharp script and an over the top but riveting performance by the two main protagonists.
Just take a look at that brilliant black and white photography as well as listening to the dialogue.

http://youtu.be/sZk_cgltj2A

[Patrick_Bateman]

:smile5: I am your friend for life!!

Strange that this masterpiece is so little known outside Britain. Maybe the cynicism and humour are too British?

"Right you f***er, I'm going to do the washing up!"

Come on! That's funny in any language or culture :)

But yes sir I am also perplexed by the fact this film is only destined for 'cult' status.

[WICKES]

"Right you f***er, I'm going to do the washing up!"

Come on! That's funny in any language or culture :)

But yes sir I am also perplexed by the fact this film is only destined for 'cult' status.

I do think that film has certain characteristics which make it distinctly British: the love of weird, eccentric, almost grotesque characters; the class distinctions and tensions; the bleakness of the ending. But the central message of the film (life's a ***** and not worth it, but keep laughing anyway) gets to the essence of the British national character (if such a thing exists). Add into the mix an upper class homosexual and a central character who is a raging alcoholic, plus the grey skies and drizzle, and you have Britain in a nutshell!

Oh, and it ends with him quoting Shakespeare!

[Darcy88]

The film The Lion in Winter has outstanding dialogue, the best I've ever seen in a movie. It was based on a Broadway play and starred Peter O'toole and Katherine Hepburn. The acting is also top notch.

[Calidore]

Surprised The Princess Bride hasn't been mentioned yet.

[Helga]

Woody Allen of course I also love 'The legend of 1900' it is based on a book I haven't found in English but the movie is simply beautiful and wonderful and sad.... I love it, and it stars Tim Roth and he is always great!


Edit: just checked on Amazon and it was translated in 2011! Finally!!

[PoeticPassions]

I am also going to vote for Woody Allen and the Coen Brothers (Fargo!)..

but I would also put on the list most Charlie Kaufman films (Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Synecdoche, New York etc)

And also added to the list, American Beauty

[kelby_lake]

Films based on plays tend to be a good bet. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a brilliant example and also a landmark in the history of film censorship. As someone previously said, The Lion in Winter is also good. Pretty much any adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play is also going to contain some great dialogue. And for literate musical films, you can't go far wrong with My Fair Lady.

Perhaps this is a controversial choice but Disney's version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is pretty well scripted for a kids film.

[Emil Miller]

Films based on plays tend to be a good bet.

I tend to agree, because most of the donkey work has already been done and it's much more difficult to cobble together a script from a novel for example.
One of the best examples of this is Francis Ford Coppola's script for the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby in which whole chunks of the original dialogue were incorporated in to the screenplay.

[KCurtis]

I tend to agree, because most of the donkey work has already been done and it's much more difficult to cobble together a script from a novel for example.
One of the best examples of this is Francis Ford Coppola's script for the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby in which whole chunks of the original dialogue were incorporated in to the screenplay.
Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies. Though some of them are good. I have not seen the movies based on the Jane Austen books, I plan on reading Pride and Prejudice first.
One movie I loved was Call of the Wild, by Jack London. The narration was taken exactly from the book, and I thought it was well done, although the subject matter was brutal, I love his writing.

[Charles Darnay]

Woody Allen of course I also love 'The legend of 1900' it is based on a book I haven't found in English but the movie is simply beautiful and wonderful and sad.... I love it, and it stars Tim Roth and he is always great!


Edit: just checked on Amazon and it was translated in 2011! Finally!!

Yes! Legend of 1900 is one of my favourites, and I'm definitely going to check out the book.

[Gregory Samsa]

Der Himmel über Berlin (Wings of Desire) written by Peter Handke should also be mentioned.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies. Though some of them are good. I have not seen the movies based on the Jane Austen books, I plan on reading Pride and Prejudice first.
One movie I loved was Call of the Wild, by Jack London. The narration was taken exactly from the book, and I thought it was well done, although the subject matter was brutal, I love his writing.

Gatsby was directed by Jack Clayton who had spent all of his working life in cinema and had a distinguished career in British films before landing the plum job of Scott Fitzgerald's novel. The production values were exceptional and the period feel couldn't be faulted, but you are right, Robert Redford was at odds with the part as was Mia Farrow with hers. Bruce Dearn was the only major character who fitted the bill as Tom, and Wilson and Myrtle Wilson were also spot on. The scenes in Wilson's garage are exactly as described in the book but Clayton was handed a poisoned chalice because the book is really unfilmable on account of Fitzgerald's highly developed prose style. That's why all extant versions have failed but, having seen the others, I would say that Clayton's comes nearest as a cinematic portrayal of one of America's greatest novels.
I haven't seen Call of the Wild but I remember reading it as a boy on the recommendation of a school teacher.

[Charles Darnay]

Gatsby was directed by Jack Clayton who had spent all of his working life in cinema and had a distinguished career in British films before landing the plum job of Scott Fitzgerald's novel. The production values were exceptional and the period feel couldn't be faulted, but you are right, Robert Redford was at odds with the part as was Mia Farrow with hers. Bruce Dearn was the only character who fitted the bill as Tom, and Wilson and Myrtle Wilson were also spot on. The scenes in Wilson's garage are exactly as described in the book but Clayton was handed a poisoned chalice because the book is really unfilmable on account of Fitzgerald's highly developed prose style. That's why all extant versions have failed but, having seen the others, I would say that Clayton's comes nearest as a cinematic portrayal of one of America's greatest novels.


I thought that while Redford's Gatsby didn't work extremely well, the pairing of him and Waterston was excellent.

Despite my lack of faith in the director I am getting my hopes up for de Caprio as Gatsby.

[Emil Miller]

I thought that while Redford's Gatsby didn't work extremely well, the pairing of him and Waterston was excellent.

Despite my lack of faith in the director I am getting my hopes up for de Caprio as Gatsby.

I think Redford and Waterston did as well as could be expected in their scenes together but Waterston seemed rather mannered and reticent and not as I imagined him to be in the book. Of course, it's difficult to play the outsider within a close-knit group of people and I suppose allowances should be made for that. I'm afraid the director of the forthcoming version doesn't inspire confidence in me either.

[KCurtis]

I do think that film has certain characteristics which make it distinctly British: the love of weird, eccentric, almost grotesque characters; the class distinctions and tensions; the bleakness of the ending. But the central message of the film (life's a ***** and not worth it, but keep laughing anyway) gets to the essence of the British national character (if such a thing exists). Add into the mix an upper class homosexual and a central character who is a raging alcoholic, plus the grey skies and drizzle, and you have Britain in a nutshell!

Oh, and it ends with him quoting Shakespeare!

Okay, now I want to see it. I like it already. If it is British, I will watch it.

[Desolation]

but I would also put on the list most Charlie Kaufman films (Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Synecdoche, New York etc)

I love Kaufman...I can't believe I forgot to mention him.

Synecdoche, New York was one of the biggest mind-****s I've ever seen in cinema. It had a real impact.

I'd also add:
Million Dollar Baby
Taxi Driver
2001: A Space Odyssey (very little dialogue, but pure cinematic poetry nonetheless)
Apocalypse Now

[KCurtis]

Gatsby was directed by Jack Clayton who had spent all of his working life in cinema and had a distinguished career in British films before landing the plum job of Scott Fitzgerald's novel. The production values were exceptional and the period feel couldn't be faulted, but you are right, Robert Redford was at odds with the part as was Mia Farrow with hers. Bruce Dearn was the only character who fitted the bill as Tom, and Wilson and Myrtle Wilson were also spot on. The scenes in Wilson's garage are exactly as described in the book but Clayton was handed a poisoned chalice because the book is really unfilmable on account of Fitzgerald's highly developed prose style. That's why all extant versions have failed but, having seen the others, I would say that Clayton's comes nearest as a cinematic portrayal of one of America's greatest novels.
I haven't seen Call of the Wild but I remember reading it as a boy on the recommendation of a school teacher.

You are right about the book being unfilmable due to Fitzgerald's writing. I don't think the characters of Gatsby and Carraway can be captured on film - and unless Leo DiCaprio and Toby McGuire give more than brilliant performances, I am skeptical about the version coming out in December of 2012.

[Emil Miller]

Okay, now I want to see it. I like it already. If it is British, I will watch it.

Forget it or check out the videos on YouTube, it's like all 'cult movies', designed to appeal to those under the age of thirty and usually forgotten thereafter. For a film that really reflects the UK character of its time, just watch Tunes of Glory which has terrific performances by all concerned under the careful direction of Ronald Neame. No pseudo quirky dramatics but a straightforward story about real people, as opposed to phony 'eccentrics' whose behaviour is obviously contrived and is neither amusing or interesting.

http://youtu.be/weBJNrj6g-E

[WICKES]

Forget it or check out the videos on YouTube, it's like all 'cult movies', designed to appeal to those under the age of thirty and usually forgotten thereafter.

That is really unfair. It's not a studenty comedy glorifying drinking; it's a profoundly moving and deep tragedy (with lots of comic moments) about a man on a downward spiral. Withnail also has just about the most beautiful, poetic language of any film I know. Add in the haunting music and you have a film which leaves me so emotionally drained that I can only bear to watch occasionally.

[Darcy88]

I also have to mention the film Brick, written and directed by Rian Johnson. And not just because I have a total man crush on its star, Joseph Gordon-Levitt. The dialogue in that movie is superb. Combined with its lovely visuals and haunting score its quite a sensual treat.


Brad Bramish: Hey! What are you doing here?
Brendan Frye: Just listening.
[long pause while Brad stares at him]
Brendan Frye: All right, you got me. I'm a scout for the Gophers. Been watching your game for a month, but that story right there just clenched it. You got heart kid. How soon can you be in Minneapolis?
Brad Bramish: Yeah?
Brendan Frye: Cold winters, but they got a great transit system.
Brad Bramish: Yeah?
Brendan Frye: Yeah.
Brad Bramish: Oh, yeah?
Brendan Frye: There's a thesaurus in the library. Yeah is under "Y". Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Varenne Rodin]

I love Brick! The juice in the country glass. All of it.

[mortalterror]

Brick was just awful. The characters were all broken down, world weary cynics who lived in the suburbs and hadn't finished high school yet. Humphrey Bogart was the real deal in The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon and these kids were pale imitations. The writing was out of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and Micky Spillane and it just doesn't work if the characters haven't seen anything of life. It was silly, almost good, but at turns just ludacris and silly.

[Darcy88]

Brick was just awful. The characters were all broken down, world weary cynics who lived in the suburbs and hadn't finished high school yet. Humphrey Bogart was the real deal in The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon and these kids were pale imitations. The writing was out of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and Micky Spillane and it just doesn't work if the characters haven't seen anything of life. It was silly, almost good, but at turns ludacris and silly.

I don't know. The music was stellar. Some of the shots were picture perfect. In aesthetic terms I found it amazing. Some scenes were just brilliant and I think the main character was interesting and compelling. I've met a few people who hated it, so I know where you're coming from. I for one loved it. Its not original, but compared to most of the stuff to come out of Hollywood in recent decades it sure does create the impression of originality. Its not a profound movie, most of its merits lay on the surface. But that surface shines brilliantly in my opinion.

[MarkBastable]

Shakespeare in Love
The Princess Bride
Manhattan
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
Goodbye, Mr Chips
The Railway Children


I don't think that Withnail is quite the work of genius that it's cracked up to be, though it is a very good comic evocation of a specific way of life at a specific time in British recent history (take my word for it). It'd be interesting to know whether it would have been as successful had someone other than Richard E Grant been playing the lead - and it's significant that that's almost impossible to imagine.

[Jack of Hearts]

Crimes and Misdemeanors- Not very many films deal in a comparative study of moral nihilism and maintain a semblance of wit about it.

Of course, all the classic Woody Allen films are literate and good to watch. One that doesn't get mentioned a lot is Sweet & Lowdown, which borrows elements from another beautiful/literate film from the 1970's, Paper Moon.

Would also recommend Louis Malle's Souffle au Coeur and another French film that everybody knows, Les Quartre Cents Coups.

It's all just a matter of taste, though.






J

[PoeticPassions]

I love Kaufman...I can't believe I forgot to mention him.

Synecdoche, New York was one of the biggest mind-****s I've ever seen in cinema. It had a real impact.


Yeah, I agree. It was probably also one of the most depressing films I have ever seen. I couldn't stop thinking about it for a long time...

[Emil Miller]

Crimes and Misdemeanors- Not very many films deal in a comparative study of moral nihilism and maintain a semblance of wit about it.

Of course, all the classic Woody Allen films are literate and good to watch. One that doesn't get mentioned a lot is Sweet & Lowdown, which borrows elements from another beautiful/literate film from the 1970's, Paper Moon.

Would also recommend Louis Malle's Souffle au Coeur and another French film that everybody knows, Les Quartre Cents Coups.

It's all just a matter of taste, though.


J


Are we talking about the script of these films here? I have seen The Four Hundred Blows but couldn't say whether the script was particularly literate as it was translated into sub-titles.

[Jack of Hearts]

Well, the dialogue certainly was. The script itself was translated into visual imagery and sound, so to speak.









J

[Emil Miller]

Add into the mix an upper class homosexual and a central character who is a raging alcoholic, plus the grey skies and drizzle, and you have Britain in a nutshell!



Well I can definitely agree with you here.

[hawthorns]

Scripts are crap these days.

Maybe the best ever, imho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1S3LBDT3vk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL512090F8A7A9DBAA

"He told me and, on the instant, it was as though someone had switched off the wireless, and a voice that had been bawling in my ears, incessantly, fatuously, for days beyond number, had been suddenly cut short; an immense silence followed, empty at first, but gradually, as my outraged sense regained authority, full of a multitude of sweet and natural and long-forgotten sounds – for he had spoken a name that was so familiar to me, a conjuror's name of such ancient power, that, at its mere sound, the phantoms of those haunted late years began to take flight."

[KCurtis]

Well I can definitely agree with you here.


I thought that while Redford's Gatsby didn't work extremely well, the pairing of him and Waterston was excellent.

Despite my lack of faith in the director I am getting my hopes up for de Caprio as Gatsby.

I don't know much about the director, he could get it right. Coppola didn't. And DeCaprio can only work with what he is given by direction and a script - I think. We will see.

[kelby_lake]

Well, Luhrman is known for glitzy excess so it should look good, although the excess is often quite camp. I think the elevator scene will be taken full advantage of...

[joelavine]

Chinatown
Rear Window
Notorious
Smiles of a Summer Night
Autumn Sonata
Persona
Fanny and Alexander
Scenes from a Marriage
Hannah and her Sisters
The Shop Around the Corner
The Lady Eve
Sullivan's Travels
Under the Sand
Swimming Pool
The Verdict
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Look At Me
Weekend
Let the Right One In
The Sixth Sense
All About Eve
Ran
The Law of Desire
Nashville
Eat Drink Man Woman
The Wedding Banquet
Life is Beautiful
A Special Day
Midnight
Twentieth Century

[Chris 73]

Forget it or check out the videos on YouTube, it's like all 'cult movies', designed to appeal to those under the age of thirty and usually forgotten thereafter. For a film that really reflects the UK character of its time, just watch Tunes of Glory which has terrific performances by all concerned under the careful direction of Ronald Neame. No pseudo quirky dramatics but a straightforward story about real people, as opposed to phony 'eccentrics' whose behaviour is obviously contrived and is neither amusing or interesting.

http://youtu.be/weBJNrj6g-E

Absolute nonsense. One of the finest films known to humanity. Funny,profane,literate and very moving.

Anywhoo, Silence Of The Lambs also gets my vote. Some beautiful and striking passages there.

Edit: I may be a tad biased here.

[Chris 73]

Shakespeare in Love
The Princess Bride
Manhattan
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
Goodbye, Mr Chips
The Railway Children


I don't think that Withnail is quite the work of genius that it's cracked up to be, though it is a very good comic evocation of a specific way of life at a specific time in British recent history (take my word for it). It'd be interesting to know whether it would have been as successful had someone other than Richard E Grant been playing the lead - and it's significant that that's almost impossible to imagine.

Michael Maloney (who?) was offered the role but turned it down. He thought it was homophobic.

[Emil Miller]

Well, Luhrman is known for glitzy excess so it should look good, although the excess is often quite camp. I think the elevator scene will be taken full advantage of...

What's to take of advantage of? Two drunken guys get into a lift and the operator thinks they're going to fool round with the controls. End of story.

[Prairie]

All these are good choices, but I still have to vote for the film written by the man who changed my life, Horton Foote.

There is no adaptation as luminous and quietly powerful as To Kill A Mockingbird.

[educatedNreverS]

Requiem for a dream is the most most beautiful film I have ever seen. It contains all the feeling, which movies simply can't cover in most circumstances because there is only so much time available, that the most emotional and passionate works of literature present. The climax is orgasmic, pretty much everyone has seen it or at least heard of it. Had to mention it though. Also check out any Tarentino movie....

[Kafka's Crow]

Lolita was made into a film in 1998 starring Jeremy Irons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkB7cCfhkY4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

My personal favourite was ’Wit' starring Emma Thompson:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wit-Region-NTSC-DVD-US/dp/B00005MKKV/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327510699&sr=8-1

[LunarPlexus]

"Harold and Maude" Was just gorgeous. There are some very silly moments, but it's all put together so beautifully. Anything that comes out of Maude's mouth is lovely and so true, no matter how many times I watch that movie I shed some tears.

"Women in Film" is pretty obscure, but if you can get hold of it, it's so worth watching. It's a series of monologues by three women, and it's gut-wrenching. Portia Di Rossi plays an ego-maniacal whacko, and listening to her is almost hypnotizing.

[Kafka's Crow]

Emma Thompson on 'Wit':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US4ocX7oxGQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Sancho Panza]

It is clear to me that the bast script ever written is that for the film Donnie Darko. For example:

Donnie:
Why do you wear that stupid bunny suit?
Frank:
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?


Donnie:
You are such a f*ckass.
Elizabeth:
Did you just call me a f*ckass? You can go suck a f*ck.
Donnie:
Oh, please, tell me Elizabeth, how exactly does one suck a f*ck?


Donnie: (reading poem in class)
A storm is coming, Frank says
A storm that will swallow the children
And I will deliver them from the kingdom of pain
I will deliver the children back the their doorsteps
And send the monsters back to the underground
I'll send them back to a place where no-one else can see them
Except for me
Because I... am Donnie Darko.


And not forgetting:

Roberta Sparrow:
Every creature on this earth dies alone.


What more do you need?

[Desolation]

Requiem for a dream is the most most beautiful film I have ever seen. It contains all the feeling, which movies simply can't cover in most circumstances because there is only so much time available, that the most emotional and passionate works of literature present. The climax is orgasmic, pretty much everyone has seen it or at least heard of it. Had to mention it though. Also check out any Tarentino movie....

I can't even look at a still from that movie without going into convulsions. It was a very effective film, I'll give it that...But it's also about the most unenjoyable high-quality movie ever made. Whenever anyone tells me that they "like it" I can't help but feel that they missed the point.

[Chris1991]

The lion in winter 1968

[KCurtis]

Well, Luhrman is known for glitzy excess so it should look good, although the excess is often quite camp. I think the elevator scene will be taken full advantage of...
The only thing that happened in the elevator was that Nick was helping the drunk guy-nothing more, read it again.

[AjaxAscendant]

Up in the Air (2010). It's true, listen:


How much does your life weigh? Imagine for a second that you're carrying a backpack. I want you to pack it with all the stuff that you have in your life... you start with the little things. The shelves, the drawers, the knickknacks, then you start adding larger stuff. Clothes, tabletop appliances, lamps, your TV... the backpack should be getting pretty heavy now. You go bigger. Your couch, your car, your home... I want you to stuff it all into that backpack. Now I want you to fill it with people. Start with casual acquaintances, friends of friends, folks around the office... and then you move into the people you trust with your most intimate secrets. Your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents and finally your husband, your wife, your boyfriend, your girlfriend. You get them into that backpack, feel the weight of that bag. Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life. All those negotiations and arguments and secrets, the compromises. The slower we move the faster we die. Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star crossed lovers, monogamous swans. We are not swans. We are sharks.

[Emil Miller]

The only thing that happened in the elevator was that Nick was helping the drunk guy-nothing more, read it again.

It makes no difference, there is a juvenile obsession with trying to prove that various people whether real or fictitious are homosexual. I have just re-read the passage concerned for the seventh or eighth time and there is nothing, repeat nothing, to suggest any sexual connotation in it : unless, that is, you want to read into it something that isn't there. This fixation is even extended to the spark notes cartoon video in which both Mr. McKee and Nick Carraway are shown in their underwear in McKee's bedroom, when the book mentions only that McKee is in this state of undress as he drunkenly refers to his book of photos before presumably going to sleep, which is what men often do when they have had too much alcohol. Moreover, the aforementioned video says that Nick is in love with Gatsby whereas at no point in the story is this suggested. If anyone wants to promote homosexuality, I wish they wouldn't sully great writing in the attempt.

[Gregory Samsa]

The Seventh Seal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT2qRdffNik

[BAD_PEGASUS]

Even though I don't like them, Terence Malick's films usually have beautiful scripts, especially some of the monologues.

[MarkBastable]

It makes no difference, there is a juvenile obsession with trying to prove that various people whether real or fictitious are homosexual. I have just re-read the passage concerned for the seventh or eighth time and there is nothing, repeat nothing, to suggest any sexual connotation in it : unless, that is, you want to read into it something that isn't there. This fixation is even extended to the spark notes cartoon video in which both Mr. McKee and Nick Carraway are shown in their underwear in McKee's bedroom, when the book mentions only that McKee is in this state of undress as he drunkenly refers to his book of photos before presumably going to sleep, which is what men often do when they have had too much alcohol. Moreover, the aforementioned video says that Nick is in love with Gatsby whereas at no point in the story is this suggested. If anyone wants to promote homosexuality, I wish they wouldn't sully great writing in the attempt.

'Promote'? 'Sully'?

[Emil Miller]

'Promote'? 'Sully'?

I've nothing to add.

[MarkBastable]

I've nothing to add.

I think that was my point.

[KCurtis]

It makes no difference, there is a juvenile obsession with trying to prove that various people whether real or fictitious are homosexual. I have just re-read the passage concerned for the seventh or eighth time and there is nothing, repeat nothing, to suggest any sexual connotation in it : unless, that is, you want to read into it something that isn't there. This fixation is even extended to the spark notes cartoon video in which both Mr. McKee and Nick Carraway are shown in their underwear in McKee's bedroom, when the book mentions only that McKee is in this state of undress as he drunkenly refers to his book of photos before presumably going to sleep, which is what men often do when they have had too much alcohol. Moreover, the aforementioned video says that Nick is in love with Gatsby whereas at no point in the story is this suggested. If anyone wants to promote homosexuality, I wish they wouldn't sully great writing in the attempt.

You are exactly right. If people are silly enough to become fixated on these things they most likely have not understood what they read.

[Emil Miller]

You are exactly right. If people are silly enough to become fixated on these things they most likely have not understood what they read.

Exactly.

[Emil Miller]

I think that was my point.

Your 'point' has been noted and discarded as pointless.

[Desolation]

Yes...Who knows what sort of dreadful consequences may arise if people started to interpret literature in ways that go beyond the narrow confines of what the author consciously intended? People might, dare I say, begin to develop an imagination! Or start to perceive things in ways that are personally relevant and add exponentially to their enjoyment of the work! It could be horrific! Ghastly!

Great literature, after all, only has one meaning that cannot and should not EVER be expanded upon in any way or left open to unorthodox interpretation.

[kelby_lake]

I didn't say that the elevator/bedroom scene was homosexual, but everybody knows the existence of that interpretation.

[Emil Miller]

Yes...Who knows what sort of dreadful consequences may arise if people started to interpret literature in ways that go beyond the narrow confines of what the author consciously intended? People might, dare I say, begin to develop an imagination! Or start to perceive things in ways that are personally relevant and add exponentially to their enjoyment of the work! It could be horrific! Ghastly!

Great literature, after all, only has one meaning that cannot and should not EVER be expanded upon in any way or left open to unorthodox interpretation.

You can put any erroneous interpretation on a book that you want to but when you then say that it is equal to the author's original intention, you are quite simply wrong.

[Desolation]

Who cares about the author's intentions? Fitzgerald's dead, but The Great Gatsby is still here. And it's still here because it's the kind of great novel that can be read in a variety of ways. Great writers don't bog down their work with their intentions, they leave breathing room for the audience to take it as they will.

Also, I think that people take common-speech hyperbole too literally at times. When someone says "The elevator scene in Gatsby had homosexual undertones," I find it unlikely that they meant "Fitzgerald objectively and factually wrote that scene as an endorsement of homosexuality." Rather, it means, "To me, this scene brought to mind homosexuality." Homosexuality is a big issue today, why not read it into books written before it was such an issue? Books become irrelevant if they are forever nailed only to their historical context.

[kelby_lake]

Who cares about the author's intentions? Fitzgerald's dead, but The Great Gatsby is still here.

Also, how can we definitively say that Fitzgerald intended one interpretation? Writers are never 100% in control of what they're writing- there's always the subconscious.

[JuniperWoolf]

It is clear to me that the bast script ever written is that for the film Donnie Darko.

:yesnod: True true, Donnie's rant about The Smurfs just killed me. "Sh*t Donnie, why you gotta get all smart on us?"


I also have to mention the film Brick, written and directed by Rian Johnson.

Also one of my absolute favorites.


If anyone wants to promote homosexuality, I wish they wouldn't sully great writing in the attempt.

'Promote'? 'Sully'?

I've nothing to add.

Alrighty, a simple question then: how is interpreting a character as possibly gay "promoting" homosexuality, and how does the suggestion "sully" the work? It sounds like someone's entire point may arise from his position as a grouchy old homophobe, in which case, why should anyone take it seriously?

[Emil Miller]

Who cares about the author's intentions? Fitzgerald's dead, but The Great Gatsby is still here. And it's still here because it's the kind of great novel that can be read in a variety of ways. Great writers don't bog down their work with their intentions, they leave breathing room for the audience to take it as they will.

Also, I think that people take common-speech hyperbole too literally at times. When someone says "The elevator scene in Gatsby had homosexual undertones," I find it unlikely that they meant "Fitzgerald objectively and factually wrote that scene as an endorsement of homosexuality." Rather, it means, "To me, this scene brought to mind homosexuality." Homosexuality is a big issue today, why not read it into books written before it was such an issue? Books become irrelevant if they are forever nailed only to their historical context.

You are completely missing the point. If a writer describes someone as having dark hair and clean shaven, you may wish to imagine the character as having fair hair and a beard but if you subsequently go around saying that the writer really meant to write your version, rather than what is in the book, then you are not only being presumptuous, but also patently wrong.
Now it just so happens that I have published a novel in which one of the characters is homosexual. You may care to think of him as being heterosexual but if you come to me and tell me that is what he is, I will tell you to go and re-read the novel because you obviously haven't understood what was written. A misinterpretation remains a misinterpretation.

[JuniperWoolf]

Sexual preference isn't the same thing as hair color. Besides, in a book if either hair color or sexual preference isn't openly stated you can only guess (and it wasn't openly stated in The Great Gatsby). You can only interpret a character's inclination through subtle hints, which are especially subtle if the work in question is from a time when such thing weren't openly discussed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You didn't answer Juniper's question, which I was also going to ask, Emil. Even if these interpretations hold water (I'm not at all convinced that they do), how is that "promoting" homosexuality?

[Emil Miller]

Writers are never 100% in control of what they're writing- there's always the subconscious.


Really? I have written three novels and was always in control of what I was writing. To presume something, isn't the same as telling the truth. My dictionary gives 'presume' as 'to venture on without leave'; another definition is 'to form over-confident or arrogant opinions'. I am not saying that the second definition is the case with yourself but there is very obviously one individual on LitNet to whom it does apply.
If somebody wants to fantasize over someone else's work, they can go right ahead but they shouldn't expect others to acknowledge what they say as being anything other than just that.

[Desolation]

Also, how can we definitively say that Fitzgerald intended one interpretation? Writers are never 100% in control of what they're writing- there's always the subconscious.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was trying to say that Fitzgerald was a great writer, and Gatsby is a great book, exactly because it's open for multiple interpretations.


You are completely missing the point. If a writer describes someone as having dark hair and clean shaven, you may wish to imagine the character as having fair hair and a beard but if you subsequently go around saying that the writer really meant to write your version, rather than what is in the book, then you are not only being presumptuous, but also patently wrong.
Now it just so happens that I have published a novel in which one of the characters is homosexual. You may care to think of him as being heterosexual but if you come to me and tell me that is what he is, I will tell you to go and re-read the novel because you obviously haven't understood what was written. A misinterpretation remains a misinterpretation.

There's always a line. If I were to say, for instance, that Ayn Rand's novels were written as satires of capitalism instead of advocating for capitalism, I would be pretty squarely wrong. But literary analysis loses all of its fun and wonder if we only looked at books from the perspective of exactly what the author intended. In some cases, I'd even say that the author's intentions can be disregarded. Should we throw away the anti-censorship interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 just because Ray Bradbury said that he didn't mean to write it as an anti-censorship novel? It does no harm to Fahrenheit 451 when people read it as being against censorship...But it does harm the novel when the writer steps in and says that everyone else is wrong. While I agree that there's a point when interpretations are very explicitly wrong, there's also a point when putting too much weight in exactly what the writer intended is equally ridiculous.

Literature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way?

(For the record...I also didn't really see any homoerotic undertones in Gatsby. But I don't see the point in castigating anyone who did come to that conclusion.)

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Desolation;1111699]ILiterature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way? [QUOTE]

Well, as a writer, I would rather be read than misread.

[KCurtis]

Geesh!! I came back to this thread after a couple of days and people are still arguing about a scene in my favorite book! The elevator scene, with Nick helping the drunk guy, shows that Nick can be caring and goodhearted. It just gives another hint of Nick's character. I suppose one could see homosexuality in every piece of literature, but some people want to see if every where. I wonder why this is.

[Alexander III]

[QUOTE=Desolation;1111699]ILiterature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way? [QUOTE]

Well, as a writer, I would rather be read than misread.

Well as a writer you are no Fitzgerald. So I am unsure as to your previous statements credibility.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1111753][QUOTE=Desolation;1111699]ILiterature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way?

Well as a writer you are no Fitzgerald. So I am unsure as to your previous statements credibility.

I'm sorry but I thought I was replying to a question by Desolation.

[kelby_lake]

Geesh!! I came back to this thread after a couple of days and people are still arguing about a scene in my favorite book! The elevator scene, with Nick helping the drunk guy, shows that Nick can be caring and goodhearted.

I don't think it shows that. It's more to establish the hedonistic party, and Nick being a bit drunk and having a crazy old time that he can't remember much of (hence the ellipses).

[Emil Miller]

I don't think it shows that. It's more to establish the hedonistic party, and Nick being a bit drunk and having a crazy old time that he can't remember much of (hence the ellipses).

People don't seem to read very well. The McKee's lived in the flat below and the party was likely to break up after Tom Buchanan's physical assault of Myrtle Wilson. Now is it likely that Nick Carraway would indulge in homosexuality with a comparative stranger when the man's wife was likely to come down at any moment?

[KCurtis]

I don't think it shows that. It's more to establish the hedonistic party, and Nick being a bit drunk and having a crazy old time that he can't remember much of (hence the ellipses).

It shows that too!! :banana: Fitzgerald shows more than one facet of Nick in this book, that is why Nick is the protagonist, and why the book is so interesting and is being argued about and discussed!!

[KCurtis]

People don't seem to read very well. The McKee's lived in the flat below and the party was likely to break up after Tom Buchanan's physical assault of Myrtle Wilson. Now is it likely that Nick Carraway would indulge in homosexuality with a comparative stranger when the man's wife was likely to come down at any moment?
Very unlikely- and unlike Nick's character. I think some people may assume the homosexuality part because it is also assumed that Nick did not have sex with Jordan. He didn't have to- it would not make sense in the story, and would be unimportant.

[Emil Miller]

Very unlikely- and unlike Nick's character. I think some people may assume the homosexuality part because it is also assumed that Nick did not have sex with Jordan. He didn't have to- it would not make sense in the story, and would be unimportant.

Although somewhat peripheral, Jordan Baker belonged to the East Egg set and that was the reason that Nick Carraway's relationship with her never really took off. Although distantly related to Daisy, Nick knew that he didn't belong to those
whom she had married into. This was why he instinctively sided with Gatsby and eventually returned to the mid-west after Gatsby's death. The more I read this book, the more I am bowled over by Fitzgerald's writing.

[smerdyakov]

Naked by Mike Leigh. The back and forth dialogue is so real it's uncanny. One of the best films I ever seen.

[KCurtis]

Although somewhat peripheral, Jordan Baker belonged to the East Egg set and that was the reason that Nick Carraway's relationship with her never really took off. Although distantly related to Daisy, Nick knew that he didn't belong to those
whom she had married into. This was why he instinctively sided with Gatsby and eventually returned to the mid-west after Gatsby's death. The more I read this book, the more I am bowled over by Fitzgerald's writing.

You're right I didn't think of that when I posted, that also has to do with Nick thinking she was shallow. I really wish Fitzgerald could have written more books.

[irinmisfit92]

I think a lot of the Coen Brother's films qualify, and I'd agree with Woody Allen.

If Life is Beautiful can be up there, then another foreign marvel is The Lives of Others - a German friend of mine said it was beautifully written.

I completely agree with The Livers of Others! (Das Leben den Anderen) It is extremely beautiful and moved me to tears.

Another movie worth mentioning will be Let The Right One In (Swedish). It's not only the dialogue, but the setting. Perfect, sublime, and amazing.

[kelby_lake]

People don't seem to read very well. The McKee's lived in the flat below and the party was likely to break up after Tom Buchanan's physical assault of Myrtle Wilson. Now is it likely that Nick Carraway would indulge in homosexuality with a comparative stranger when the man's wife was likely to come down at any moment?

They were drunk, weren't they, so "indulging" doesn't really come into it. Whether there was any "indulging in homosexuality" or not, I doubt there was any concern about who would walk in.

[KCurtis]

They were drunk, weren't they, so "indulging" doesn't really come into it. Whether there was any "indulging in homosexuality" or not, I doubt there was any concern about who would walk in.

Walk in on WHAT??? Two drunk guys in an elevator. This elevator talk is so way off the mark. It is really not a significant part of the book. They were at a drunken party- the party was significant. I would like to think that in the movie coming out a year from now, that the director knows this. If he doesn't we are in for a disaster of a flick.

[Emil Miller]

They were drunk, weren't they, so "indulging" doesn't really come into it. Whether there was any "indulging in homosexuality" or not, I doubt there was any concern about who would walk in.

I think Mr. McKee's wife would have been concerned.

[kelby_lake]

Walk in on WHAT??? Two drunk guys in an elevator. This elevator talk is so way off the mark. It is really not a significant part of the book. They were at a drunken party- the party was significant. I would like to think that in the movie coming out a year from now, that the director knows this. If he doesn't we are in for a disaster of a flick.

I was referring to the old elipses that links the elevator scene with the bedroom bit. Some think it's simply fast-forwarding the action, whereas some think it's the curtains closing on a private moment...

Personally, I think it just adds to the effect of drunkeness. As for how Luhrman will interpret it...it'll probably be a swingers' party or something :lol:

[Emil Miller]

I was referring to the old elipses that links the elevator scene with the bedroom bit. Some think it's simply fast-forwarding the action, whereas some think it's the curtains closing on a private moment...

Personally, I think it just adds to the effect of drunkeness. As for how Luhrman will interpret it...it'll probably be a swingers' party or something :lol:

I just checked out Luhrmann and he actually looks quite sensible and not some publicity created charlatan. There are a couple of shots from the forthcoming Gatsby. Here's one, it certainly looks more authentic than what I expected.


http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/7542/85155galgatzby.jpg

[KCurtis]

I just checked out Luhrmann and he actually looks quite sensible and not some publicity created charlatan. There are a couple of shots from the forthcoming Gatsby. Here's one, it certainly looks more authentic than what I expected.


http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/7542/85155galgatzby.jpg
It's easy to make this look authentic, it's the story telling I'm worried about.

[Emil Miller]

It's easy to make this look authentic, it's the story telling I'm worried about.
Well, according to this, he might simply back out of the project altogether.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/01/great_gatsby_baz_luhrmann.html?_r=true

Here's another shot that looks pretty good. I think they look more like the protagonists than those in other versions. However, it remains to be seen whether Luhrmann finishes the film or not.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4205/85156galgatsbysecondpic.jpg

[kelby_lake]

It looks nice but Luhrman is known for glitzy extravagance (borderline camp in some cases).

[Emil Miller]

It looks nice but Luhrman is known for glitzy extravagance (borderline camp in some cases).

That's a pity because if he managed to curb it he could have the makings of a good film here. Of course, glitzy extravagance are at the heart of the story anyway but there's so much more behind the meretricious surface.

[kelby_lake]

That's a pity because if he managed to curb it he could have the makings of a good film here. Of course, glitzy extravagance are at the heart of the story anyway but there's so much more behind the meretricious surface.

He did a modern interpretation of Romeo and Juliet (with DiCaprio as Romeo) so whatever your view on that is will probably decide your view on what this film will be.

[Emil Miller]

He did a modern interpretation of Romeo and Juliet (with DiCaprio as Romeo) so whatever your view on that is will probably decide your view on what this film will be.

Well, I didn't see it but I do remember someone asking on LitNet what was the difference between Luhrmann's version and Shakespeare's and Stlukes replied; "One sucks and the other doesn't." I'm not sure which one he was referring to.

[KCurtis]

Originally posted by Emil Miller
Here's another shot that looks pretty good. I think they look more like the protagonists than those in other versions. However, it remains to be seen whether Luhrmann finishes the film or not.


But Gatsby is not the protagonist

[Desolation]

Well, according to this, he might simply back out of the project altogether.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/01/great_gatsby_baz_luhrmann.html?_r=true

Here's another shot that looks pretty good. I think they look more like the protagonists than those in other versions. However, it remains to be seen whether Luhrmann finishes the film or not.

That article is over a year old...Before casting (aside from the two leads) and principal photography even started. By now, it's pretty clear that he settled his mind on the matter and won't be backing out, seeing as how the movie's almost complete and all.

[stlukesguild]

MortalTerror- When I think of a literate script I mostly think of the dialogue, the best examples of which are usually screen adaptations of plays such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Julius Caesar, or Glengarry Glen Ross.

From the number of posts it may seem to late to pipe in in agreement, but yes... I immediately thought of both Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Glengarry Glen Ross.

[stlukesguild]

KCurtis- Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies.

How is that a problem? A film and a novel are two distinct art forms. We don't look at Michelangelo's Sistine frescoes and compare them to the Biblical Book of Genesis (upon which it was based) or listen to Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra and compare it to Nietzsche's text.

[Varenne Rodin]

I completely agree with The Livers of Others! (Das Leben den Anderen) It is extremely beautiful and moved me to tears.

Another movie worth mentioning will be Let The Right One In (Swedish). It's not only the dialogue, but the setting. Perfect, sublime, and amazing.

I loved Let the Right One in too! Best vampire movie I have seen in a very long time.

I also can't wait for this Gatsby thing. Quite exciting.

[Calidore]

Well, I didn't see it but I do remember someone asking on LitNet what was the difference between Luhrmann's version and Shakespeare's and Stlukes replied; "One sucks and the other doesn't." I'm not sure which one he was referring to.

Luhrmann's commentary tracks will tell you how much thought he puts into the look and feel of his films. His storytelling just takes some acclimating to. He even mentions (accurately) on the Romeo DVD commentary that if you can make it through the gas station scene, you're fine for the rest. Moulon Rouge was the same for me--ten or fifteen minutes in and I was ready to quit on it, but I knew by that time how Luhrmann's movies work, so I stuck with it. Then about twenty minutes in, I clicked into his rhythm, and the rest of the film flowed just fine.

I put up with it mostly because he's never seemed pretentious or deliberately difficult to me; he just marches to his own drummer.

[Calidore]

I loved Let the Right One in too! Best vampire movie I have seen in a very long time.

Haven't seen that one yet (or the American remake, which I've also heard good things about), but I've recently picked the novel up used. Maybe I'll give that a go when I'm done with my current read.

[Varenne Rodin]

I highly recommend it, Calidore. I haven't seen the American version either. The child actors are so outstanding in the original. I have to think it would be tough to match in quality. Let me know how the book turns out, pretty please. :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

KCurtis- Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies.

How is that a problem? A film and a novel are two distinct art forms. We don't look at Michelangelo's Sistine frescoes and compare them to the Biblical Book of Genesis (upon which it was based) or listen to Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra and compare it to Nietzsche's text.

:iagree:

I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.

Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.

[Calidore]

I highly recommend it, Calidore. I haven't seen the American version either. The child actors are so outstanding in the original. I have to think it would be tough to match in quality. Let me know how the book turns out, pretty please. :)

Sure thing, but you're probably going to have to wait a while. Still got just over 1000 pages to go in this one (The Naked God by Peter F. Hamilton).

[Calidore]

:iagree:

I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.

Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.

Agreed. Another example would be Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying the movie's better than the book (though it didn't take me 25 years and a half-dozen tries to get through the first movie), but if the films had slavishly followed the books as some vocal uberfans wanted, they would have been boring as bleep to everyone else.

[Emil Miller]

That article is over a year old...Before casting (aside from the two leads) and principal photography even started. By now, it's pretty clear that he settled his mind on the matter and won't be backing out, seeing as how the movie's almost complete and all.

Yes, I should have checked the date but I was going by the projected date of showing, according to some being December 2012, which still seems a long way off. I'm still not sure whether it's going to be shown in 3D, as has been mentioned.

[KCurtis]

KCurtis- Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies.

How is that a problem? A film and a novel are two distinct art forms. We don't look at Michelangelo's Sistine frescoes and compare them to the Biblical Book of Genesis (upon which it was based) or listen to Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra and compare it to Nietzsche's text.

Your argument is different than what I was talking about. If a movie is based on a book, it is telling the story of the book-hence the name of the book "The Great Gatsby", and the name of the movie "The Great Gatsby". The characters in the movie are supposed to be the characters in the book, so, one would assume the movie keeps to the story. The Great Gatsby movies of the past were not that good because they did not or could not tell the story effectively, and due to the unique narrative style of the book, I am skeptical of the upcoming movie. If it is not a problem for you, fine. It is a problem for me and many others who love the book. It is only a problem if one anticipates seeing a good movie though. If one is realistic and skeptical, as I am, I won't be real upset over it. This is really just a discussion.

[KCurtis]

:iagree:

I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.

Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.

A crime?? That's harsh. The problem is that if the movie doesn't portray the story in the right way, it could be a very boring and trivial event. I will check the reviews (as I always do) of the movie before I go.

[MarkBastable]

Agreed. Another example would be Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying the movie's better than the book....

In that case, I will.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Agreed. Another example would be Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying the movie's better than the book (though it didn't take me 25 years and a half-dozen tries to get through the first movie), but if the films had slavishly followed the books as some vocal uberfans wanted, they would have been boring as bleep to everyone else.
That is a perfect example. LOTR really shows how a movie should sometimes deviate from the book.

A crime?? That's harsh.
I'm guessing you haven't been to the IMDb boards much, nor have too much experience with "fanboys." Some would gladly make any deviations from source material punishable by death. Just look at the complaints about the re-release of the Star Wars trilogy (episodes 4-6). While I agree mist changes were stupid, it just infuriates (irrationally) a lot of people.

[stlukesguild]

Your argument is different than what I was talking about. If a movie is based on a book, it is telling the story of the book-hence the name of the book "The Great Gatsby", and the name of the movie "The Great Gatsby". The characters in the movie are supposed to be the characters in the book

According to whom? A film is a work of art created by a group of artists... the most important being the director. The original book is but a starting point... just as the "original" narratives employed by Shakespeare were but starting points. A film and novel cannot help but differ. They employ different media. They must respond to different limitations. A film-maker beginning with an original text will make any number of deviations from the original text. Some of these may be deviations necessitated by the art form. Others are artistic decisions.

one would assume the movie keeps to the story...

Some would make this assumption... but this assumes that the film is subservient to the book and that the goal of the film-maker is nothing more than to re-tell the original narrative adhering as closely as possible to the original.

The Great Gatsby movies of the past were not that good because they did not or could not tell the story effectively...

If the film versions of the Great Gatsby of the past failed, they failed on their own terms... as films. Martin Scorsese's Last temptation of Christ differs a great bit from Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name... and both are quite divergent from the original Biblical Gospel narratives. All three succeed as works of art on their own terms.

Due to the unique narrative style of the book, I am skeptical of the upcoming movie.

My only reason for questioning the film would be based upon my doubts as to "Baz" Luhrmann's abilities as a film-maker. His over-the-top manner of directing is hit-or-miss. In the case of Romeo + Juliette he missed by a mile... and I say this without the least expectation that he should have been more respectful of Shakespeare's text... which itself was stolen from Italian models. It was simply one endless MTV video marketting Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes to giddy adolescents.

It is a problem for me and many others who love the book.

Again, the question is "WHY?" You still have the book. Even if the film were brilliant and adhered as closely to the novel as possible, the film would not replace the book. A film is an independent art work that may be inspired by a great novel, my a short story, by personal experiences, by a visual idea, by a work of music, by a painting, or by nearly anything. Now I fully understand as a book-lover a feeling of disappointment with almost any adaption of a favorite book... for the simple reason that nothing can possibly match the image or film we have in our heads while reading. Of course a great film-maker brings something of his or her own to the table... and after I get over the initial dislike, I will probably find myself coming around to admiring the unique interpretation of a great film.

It is only a problem if one anticipates seeing a good movie though.

The path to making a "good movie" is not limited to those who adhere most closely to the original text.

[PoeticPassions]

Those are all really great points stlukes, which I agree with. I don't think the two forms should be compared in the manner in which we often compare them... they're different art forms and as such produce quite different impressions and products.

This is another reason I love the movie Adaptation. Brilliant and it touches on all of these issues and more.

[Jack of Hearts]

This is another reason I love the movie Adaptation. Brilliant and it touches on all of these issues and more.

That's such an amazing movie. Charlie Kaufman is fantastic. We like a lot of the same stuff, PP.







J

[PoeticPassions]

That's such an amazing movie. Charlie Kaufman is fantastic. We like a lot of the same stuff, PP.


J

Yes, I love Kaufman. And it would appear that we do... we should randomly list things we like and see how many overlap between us :) ;)

[Jack of Hearts]

Yes, I love Kaufman. And it would appear that we do... we should randomly list things we like and see how many overlap between us :) ;)

Probably a lot would. We're classy. Cheers.





J

[MarkBastable]

I'm with stluke.

Thirty-odd years ago, Jonathan Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Miller) gave a lecture called Putting Shakespeare On, in which he said that it really doesn't really matter if someone offers a production of King Lear set in a space station on one of the moons of Jupiter, with all the daughters' lines spoken by robots and the King himself played as a transvestite second-hand warp-engine salesman - because the original text is still there on the page the following morning, and someone'll be along in a minute to give a production of Lear in full Elizabethan garb, with the smells and sounds of fifteenth century Southwark piped in through the vents and flagons of mead and gnawable hambones provided for the constantly chattering audience. As a theatre-goer, you might like one, you might like both, you might like neither. But that's all there is to it.

(It does raise, actually, the theoretical possibility of a person who loves King Lear but has never seen a theatre production of it that he thought was any good.)

The same principle applies to movies based on books. The movie is an interpretation or an adaptation or a loose exploration of the text, in a completely different medium. All that matters is whether it works in its own terms. To say that it's "not as good as the book" is like saying that Rhapsody in Blue isn't as good as the New York skyline.

[PoeticPassions]

I'm with stluke.

Thirty-odd years ago, Jonathan Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Miller) gave a lecture called Putting Shakespeare On, in which he said that it really doesn't really matter if someone offers a production of King Lear set in a space station on one of the moons of Jupiter, with all the daughters' lines spoken by robots and the King himself played as a transvestite second-hand warp-engine salesman - because the original text is still there on the page the following morning, and someone'll be along in a minute to give a production of Lear in full Elizabethan garb, with the smells and sounds of fifteenth century Southwark piped in through the vents and flagons of mead and gnawable hambones provided for the constantly chattering audience. As a theatre-goer, you might like one, you might like both, you might like neither. But that's all there is to it.

(It does raise, actually, the theoretical possibility of a person who loves King Lear but has never seen a theatre production of it that he thought was any good.)



Right this is true... but also I would like to add that most books are not written with the intent to have them made into film or produced, whereas Shakespeare wrote his plays to have them be on stage... I think that they were not so much meant to be read as to be seen.. so in this sense you could critique a production of Shakespeare's... But the text is still there of course, and I think it is great that there are so many versions of his plays...

Speaking of King Lear, however, I still haven't seen a production I like. Last winter I went and saw it in DC as part of the syntetic theater (no words were used) and I was so appalled by the production that I walked out half way through (which I had never done.. ever... not even in a movie theater). But maybe because King Lear is my favorite play and I felt like they had really done a disservice to it...

[Emil Miller]

Speaking of King Lear, however, I still haven't seen a production I like. Last winter I went and saw it in DC as part of the syntetic theater (no words were used) and I was so appalled by the production that I walked out half way through (which I had never done.. ever... not even in a movie theater). But maybe because King Lear is my favorite play and I felt like they had really done a disservice to it...

King Lear gives the 'experimentalists' plenty of scope but audiences should be warned of their extent. A colleague once told me that he went to see a production in which Lear stripped naked and then did hand stands on the stage. At which point a row of uniformed schoolgirls departed with the teacher who was accompanying them.

[KCurtis]

According to whom? A film is a work of art created by a group of artists... the most important being the director. The original book is but a starting point... just as the "original" narratives employed by Shakespeare were but starting points. A film and novel cannot help but differ. They employ different media. They must respond to different limitations. A film-maker beginning with an original text will make any number of deviations from the original text. Some of these may be deviations necessitated by the art form.

Um, how do I say this politely? Duhhh! I know this already.

[/QUOTE]
Some would make this assumption... but this assumes that the film is subservient to the book and that the goal of the film-maker is nothing more than to re-tell the original narrative adhering as closely as possible to the original.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The film would not be subservient to the book. It is a really exciting challenge to be able to re-create this book on film, adhering to the story. That in itself would be a wonderful accomplishment.

[/QUOTE]
If the film versions of the Great Gatsby of the past failed, they failed on their own terms... as films. Martin Scorsese's Last temptation of Christ differs a great bit from Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name... and both are quite divergent from the original Biblical Gospel narratives. All three succeed as works of art on their own terms.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly that is true.

[/QUOTE]
My only reason for questioning the film would be based upon my doubts as to "Baz" Luhrmann's abilities as a film-maker. His over-the-top manner of directing is hit-or-miss. In the case of Romeo + Juliette he missed by a mile... and I say this without the least expectation that he should have been more respectful of Shakespeare's text... which itself was stolen from Italian models. It was simply one endless MTV video marketting Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes to giddy adolescents.
[/QUOTE]
Your claim that it was stolen is still debatable. But as you state above, the adaptation of a great writers text should be held with much respect. I don't know if I have faith in the director either.

[/QUOTE]
Again, the question is "WHY?" You still have the book. Even if the film were brilliant and adhered as closely to the novel as possible, the film would not replace the book. A film is an independent art work that may be inspired by a great novel, my a short story, by personal experiences, by a visual idea, by a work of music, by a painting, or by nearly anything.
[/QUOTE]
Again, duhh. I know this already

[/QUOTE]
The path to making a "good movie" is not limited to those who adhere most closely to the original text.
[/QUOTE]

But as I said before, it this movie is not adhered closely to the original text, it will be either a different story of the same name, or a boring failure, in my opinion.

[KCurtis]

I'm guessing you haven't been to the IMDb boards much, nor have too much experience with "fanboys." Some would gladly make any deviations from source material punishable by death. Just look at the complaints about the re-release of the Star Wars trilogy (episodes 4-6). While I agree mist changes were stupid, it just infuriates (irrationally) a lot of people.

Oh I am kidding, I know you didn't mean it in the literal sense. I have no idea what a "fanboy" is, I don't really think I want to know.

[KCurtis]

:iagree:

I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.

Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.

I'm only talking about ONE PARTICULAR book here. I don't go to a movie and think "oh, I hope this is just like the book". I am 54, and I do know better.

[Emil Miller]

I'm only talking about ONE PARTICULAR book here. I don't go to a movie and think "oh, I hope this is just like the book". I am 54, and I do know better.

It's amusing that he quotes Jurrasic Park because, although I gave it a wide birth, as I do to all catch the impressionable kids efforts, two different people in their early twenties and not in the least connected, told me that they fell asleep while watching the film. Perhaps the explantions for the over the top computer generated graphics were too long for their attention span. At 54 you are bound to know better but try telling that to a 20+ who has still to learn that he/she doesn't know it all.

[Drkshadow03]

at 54 you are bound to know better but try telling that to a 20+ who has still to learn that he/she doesn't know it all.

I don't?!?!?!?!?

[mortalterror]

I don't?!?!?!?!?

Actually, that was the last thing that you didn't know. Now, you know everything.

For those of you who don't know everything, here's a link to my blog with a recommendation of the best films for each year. http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?b=12188

[Drkshadow03]

Actually, that was the last thing that you didn't know. Now, you know everything.

:cheers2: Thanks Socrates!

[PoeticPassions]

King Lear gives the 'experimentalists' plenty of scope but audiences should be warned of their extent. A colleague once told me that he went to see a production in which Lear stripped naked and then did hand stands on the stage. At which point a row of uniformed schoolgirls departed with the teacher who was accompanying them.

hahaha... I probably would have departed with them. But I am sure those schoolgirls were never the same...

[KCurtis]

It's amusing that he quotes Jurrasic Park because, although I gave it a wide birth, as I do to all catch the impressionable kids efforts, two different people in their early twenties and not in the least connected, told me that they fell asleep while watching the film. Perhaps the explantions for the over the top computer generated graphics were too long for their attention span. At 54 you are bound to know better but try telling that to a 20+ who has still to learn that he/she doesn't know it all.

I try to put myself back in time when I was 20, that helps. I like young people though- however I find that many may think people my age talk down to them, which I don't ever want to do. Many 20 year olds are smarter than I was at that age. You have to have 20 year old thoughts to get to age 54. We have more in common than many young people think. That's one reason I am here, I like the energy. I still like punk rock-try to keep up with new bands I think are good. I try not to be "stuck" like so many my age.
Okay enough of that. Back to Jurrasic Park. That was not even a well written book, so ofcourse the movie was better! JMO!

[kelby_lake]

As for whether books are written to be films or not, nowadays, they sort of are. If your book is good enough/lucky enough to become a bestseller, chances are you're going to have people interested in making a movie of it.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]I still like punk rock-try to keep up with new bands I think are good. I try not to be "stuck" like so many my age.
JMO!

So at that rate, by the time you get to 80 you'll be the oldest punk rocker on the block and will probably sound like Minnie Bannister on this recording.

http://youtu.be/cZIQZZpprHw

[KCurtis]

[QUOTE=KCurtis;1114333]



So at that rate, by the time you get to 80 you'll be the oldest punk rocker on the block and will probably sound like Minnie Bannister on this recording.

http://youtu.be/cZIQZZpprHw

LOL!!!! In the Nursing Home, listening to the Pixies, everyone else yelling at me to turn it down!!!!

[FranzS]

Literature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way?


[Butting in] I'm not a "proper" writer, but I've had poems published, and I certainly wouldn't be happy if people thought my poems meant something other than what I intended. It would suggest either than I hadn't made myself clear enough, or that the reader hadn't read them properly, or that the reader is so arrogant he doesn't regard my intentions as important. None of these possibilities is flattering to a writer.

The purpose of art is to communicate. There's a word for art that doesn't intend to communicate, and that word is pretentious.

Just as it is frustrating and alienating not to get one's point across in conversation, so it is in writing.

[Veho]

American Beauty has probably already been mentioned. So I'll mention it again. After watching it I always think how it would make a beautiful book if written by the right author. I wonder who would be the best person - alive or dead - for it.

[FranzS]

American Beauty has probably already been mentioned. So I'll mention it again. After watching it I always think how it would make a beautiful book if written by the right author. I wonder who would be the best person - alive or dead - for it.

I was surprised not to see "American Beauty" mentioned in this thread - a genuinely "poetic" film from what I recall.

[Prince Smiles]

I guess it’s strictly not a film script per se, but my vote goes to Oscar Wilde’s, “The Importance of Being Earnest.”

The 1952 production directed by Anthony Asquith, starring Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell, Michael Redgrave as Jack Worthing; and the lady with the most beautiful voice in the all Christendom, the gorgeous Joan Greenwood, as Gwendolen Faifax.

I would have given anything to have just touched the hem of Joan Greenwood’s garment.

She was adorable in the Ealing comedies: Whiskey Galore, Kind Hearts and Coronets, and The Man in the White Suit.

Check out the clip from The Importance. Just listen to Joan’s voice! It is a tragedy in itself when she is sent to wait in the carriage outside by Lady Bracknell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxJvENNp4E

[Desolation]

[Butting in] I'm not a "proper" writer, but I've had poems published, and I certainly wouldn't be happy if people thought my poems meant something other than what I intended. It would suggest either than I hadn't made myself clear enough, or that the reader hadn't read them properly, or that the reader is so arrogant he doesn't regard my intentions as important. None of these possibilities is flattering to a writer.

The purpose of art is to communicate. There's a word for art that doesn't intend to communicate, and that word is pretentious.

Just as it is frustrating and alienating not to get one's point across in conversation, so it is in writing.

Thanks for the view point.

Do you like metaphors? Spinning words around? If you write poetry, I'm guessing that you do (and how could you not?). Let's say you write a great metaphor about war. Your intentions are purely centered on war and your only intention was to comment on war. A woman reads your poem, and she has recently suffered abuse. Your excellently crafted metaphor on war speaks to her and she feels that she can apply it directly to her situation. This gives her comfort. Is that frustrating?

[Adolescent09]

I was surprised not to see "American Beauty" mentioned in this thread - a genuinely "poetic" film from what I recall.

This..^^ And Citizen Kane, the quintessential American saga of success and failure, triumph and adversity, youth and elderly decrepitness... Some parts of the script seemed to be pieced together by a bard who is just gauging each character's significance and writing a beautiful story through each of their perspectives.

[FranzS]

Thanks for the view point.

Do you like metaphors? Spinning words around? If you write poetry, I'm guessing that you do (and how could you not?). Let's say you write a great metaphor about war. Your intentions are purely centered on war and your only intention was to comment on war. A woman reads your poem, and she has recently suffered abuse. Your excellently crafted metaphor on war speaks to her and she feels that she can apply it directly to her situation. This gives her comfort. Is that frustrating?

Difficult question without being able to conjure up a concrete example... Because poetry is (or should be IMO) suggestive rather than simply declarative, there are always emotional overtones. Any decent poem about war is, by definition, going to be about violence in general. I'd never set out to write a poem whose "only intention is to comment on war".

The question is whether the reader is making a valid association with her own situation, or whether she is completely misreading the poem and does not realise it is about war at all.

[Prince Smiles]

The film The Lion in Winter has outstanding dialogue, the best I've ever seen in a movie. It was based on a Broadway play and starred Peter O'toole and Katherine Hepburn. The acting is also top notch.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.
There isn't a bad line in this movie.

Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'toole are just brilliant.

Acting debuts for Anthony Hopkins and the unrecognizable Timothy Dalton


My favorite lines:

Prince Geoffrey: I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.

[mortalterror]

2010 I Saw The Devil, Inception
2009 The Secret in Their Eyes
2008 The Good, The Bad, The Weird, In Bruges
2007 No Country For Old Men, The Man From Earth
2006 Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, The Fountain, Curse of the Golden Flower
2005 Serenity
2004 Downfall, The Aviator, Tai Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War,
2003 Master and Commander, LOTR Return of the King, Oldboy, The Best of Youth, The Fog of War
2002 Infernal Affairs, City of God, Bowling For Columbine, 28 Days Later, LOTR: The Two Towers, Hero, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance,
2001 Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Band of Brothers, The Devil's Backbone, Black Hawk Down, Spirited Away, Amelie, A Beautiful Mind, Training Day
2000 Battle Royale, Memento, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Requiem For a Dream, Traffic
1999 The Matrix, American Beauty, One Day in September, The Boondock Saints, Dogma
1998 The Big Lebowski, Saving Private Ryan, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Thin Red Line
1997 L.A. Confidential, Character, Boogie Nights, Life is Beautiful, Gattaca, Taste of Cherry,
1996 Hamlet, Trainspotting, Pretty Village Pretty Flame, Fargo
1995 The Usual Suspects, Shanghai Triad, Mallrats, Se7en, Ghost in the Shell, Day of the Beast
1994 Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, To Live, Forest Gump, The Professional, Natural Born Killers, Three Colors Red,
1993 Schindler's List, Farewell My Concubine, The Fugitive, Sonatine, Stalingrad, Tombstone,
1992 Reservoir Dogs, Glengarry Glen Ross, A Few Good Men
1991 The Silence of the Lambs, Raise the Red Lantern, Terminator 2, JFK
1990 Goodfellas, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Miller's Crossing, Dances With Wolves, Cyrano de Bergerac, Europa Europa, Dreams,
1989 Do the Right Thing, Lonesome Dove, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Henry V, When Harry Met Sally, Field of Dreams, Driving Miss Daisy
1988 Die Hard, Heathers, Akira, Cinema Paradiso, A Short Film About Killing, Dangerous Liasons, Rain Man
1987 Full Metal Jacket, The Untouchables, Lethal Weapon, Robocop, The Princess Bride, Predator, The Last Emperor, Wings of Desire, Au Revoir Les Enfants
1986 Aliens, Platoon, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Big Trouble in Little China, Jean de Florette, Ginger and Fred
1985 Brazil, Ran, Back to the Future, Come and See
1984 The Terminator, Amadeus, Once Upon a Time in America, The Killing Fields
1983 Scarface, The Right Stuff, And the Ship Sailed On
1982 Fanny and Alexander, Blade Runner, The Thing, Ghandi, The Wrath of Khan, First Blood, Conan the Barbarian
1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Road Warrior, Das Boot, Chariots of Fire
1980 Raging Bull, Kagemusha, The Shining, The Empire Strikes Back, Ordinary People, Breaker Morant
1979 Apocalypse Now, Alien, Stalker,
1978 The Deer Hunter, Autumn Sonata, Dawn of the Dead
1977 Star Wars, Saturday Night Fever
1976 Rocky, Network, Taxi Driver, All the President's Men
1975 Jaws, Barry Lyndon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dersu Uzala
1974 Hearts and Minds, Blazing Saddles, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Chinatown, The Godfather Part II
1973 Amarcord, Mean Streets
1972 The Godfather, Solaris
1971 A Clockwork Orange, The French Connection, Dirty Harry
1970 Patton, The Conformist, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis
1969 The Wild Bunch, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Z
1968 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Lion in Winter, Hour of the Wolf
1967 In the Heat of the Night, Samurai Rebellion, Cool Hand Luke, The Graduate, Marat/Sade
1966 The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Andrei Rublev, Sword of Doom, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Battle of Algiers, Closely Watched Trains, Persona
1965 Doctor Zhivago, The Sound of Music, The Shop on Main Street, For A Few Dollars More, The Flight of the Phoenix, Juliet of the Spirits
1964 Dr. Strangelove, A Fistful of Dollars, Zulu, Zorba the Greek
1963 8 1/2, High and Low, The Leopard, Winter Light, The Great Escape
1962 Lawrence of Arabia, Harakiri, The Longest Day, The Miracle Worker, Sanjuro
1961 Yojimbo, Through a Glass Darkly
1960 La Dolce Vita, Spartacus, The Virgin Spring, Inherit the Wind
1959 Anatomy of a Murder, 400 Blows, Fires on the Plain, Some Like it Hot
1958 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Hidden Fortress
1957 Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Paths of Glory, Nights of Cabiria, Throne of Blood, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 12 Angry Men, Witness For the Prosecution
1956 The Searchers, A Man Escaped
1955 Smiles of a Summer Night, Night of the Hunter
1954 Seven Samurai, La Strada, On the Waterfront
1953 Julius Caesar, The Wages of Fear, From Here to Eternity, I Vitelloni,
1952 High Noon, Ikiru, Umberto D., Singin' in the Rain, Forbidden Games, The White Sheik
1951 A Streetcar Named Desire, An American in Paris, The African Queen
1950 Rashomon, Sunset Boulevard, All About Eve, Asphalt Jungle, Harvey
1949 All the King's Men, Stray Dog, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
1948 The Bicycle Thief, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Drunken Angel, Red River, Rope, The Red Shoes
1947 Out of the Past, The Lady From Shanghai
1946 The Big Sleep, It's a Wonderful Life
1945 Rome, Open City, Children of Paradise, Scarlet Street
1944 Double Indemnity, Arsenic and Old Lace
1943 Ossessione
1942 Casablanca
1941 Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, How Green Was My Valley
1940 The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday
1939 Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz
1938 Pygmalion
1937 The Grand Illusion
1936 My Man Godfry
1935 Mutiny on the Bounty
1934 The Scarlet Empress
1933 Gold Diggers of 1933
1932 Trouble in Paradise
1931 M, City Lights
1930 All Quiet on the Western Front
1929 Living Russia, or The Man With A Camera
1928 The Passion of Joan of Arc
1927 Metropolis
1926 The General
1925 The Gold Rush
1924 Sherlock Jr.
1923 Safety Last!
1922 Nosferatu
1921 The Kid
1920 The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
1919 Sunnyside
1918 A Dog's Life
1917 The Immigrant
1916 Intolerance
1915 The Birth of a Nation
1903 The Great Train Robbery
1902 A Trip to the Moon

[majinrevan666]

The Libertine (2004) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375920/) with Johnny Depp

[Rores28]

Mortal Terror...

No "Moon" for 2009

No "There Will Be Blood" for 2007

Shame on you.

[mortalterror]

Mortal Terror...

No "Moon" for 2009

No "There Will Be Blood" for 2007

Shame on you.

Looked up my reviews of both:

There Will Be Blood(2007)- Honestly, I expected more from Anderson. I loved Boogie Nights, but that was his imitation of Scorsese, and I'm not sure, but I'm guessing this was his imitation of Robert Altman, a director I've never been able to stand. This film is very long, and very short on dialogue. There aren't really any characters in it to speak of beyond Plainview and the preacher, and the preacher's part is miniscule at best. It's not really a biopic, not really a comprehensive depiction of capitalism or religion of the time. I can't really tell what it's supposed to be or why so many people seem to like it. I don't see a steadily maintained conflict throughout the film, and so most of the scenes remain undynamic and uninteresting to me for that reason. I guess you could say it's a movie about competition, a character study, or a film about obsession, but it's not a great example of any of those. Boogie Nights had a great soundtrack, but this film really surprised me by how quiet it was. People keep talking about how great Daniel Day Lewis' acting was in this. He won the Oscar for it, but I don't see what they are all raving about. His performance is decent but not great or even as memorable as his role in Gangs of New York.

Moon(2009)- I was entertained throughout, but there were no surprises in this film. Seriously, I could tell what was going to happen just by watching the trailer. It was good for what it was though.

[Drkshadow03]

Inception is okay and moderately entertaining, but is extremely overrated.