|
|
Post by rick on Dec 19, 2012 11:56:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 21, 2012 1:44:38 GMT -5
Surprised to see Laurel & Hardy's comedy classic "Sons of the Desert" added - surprised because I thought it had been added years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2012 8:33:27 GMT -5
I like Slacker, Dirty Harry, the Matrix, and especially a League of their Own, but those choices are all reaches, IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 21, 2012 10:05:07 GMT -5
Quote by robertaxel:
Even BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S? I would think that film was a very appropriate choice.
I remember back in 2009 that some complained about the addition of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST to the registry because it was a Sergio Leone film, hence a "spaghetti western." Personally, however, I don't think I could call it by that term (which Leone despised, by the way). It's an epic Western, with many important sequences shot by Leone in John Ford's beloved Monument Valley; it's an homage to all the Westerns he loved; and it is also based on the historical reality of the Westward expansion of the late 1800s. It is also much less violent than Leone's other so-called "spaghetti westerns" (the PG-13 rating it has will testify to that).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2012 12:29:17 GMT -5
I consider Breakfast at Tiffany's as well as Once Upon a Time in the West registry worthy..
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 21, 2012 15:02:04 GMT -5
I like Slacker, Dirty Harry, the Matrix, and especially a League of their Own, but those choices are all reaches, IMO I like "A Christmas Story" as well as "A League of Their Home" and "Dirty Harry," but as far as being reaches, sometimes I wonder must every film that goes onto the National Film Registry be considered a work of art for it to be worthy? If limited to being a true work of art, the NFR probably wouldn't have but a handful of movies on their registry, and even on what they would have, there would probaly still be some disagreement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2012 15:21:22 GMT -5
As with the baseball (and any sport's) Hall of Fame, it is a hall of Fame, not a hall of very good.. If a film which is entertaining merits entry into the Registry, there would be scores of film entered every year which would render it meaningless, IMO.. (The Rock Hall of Shame has already reached that status, that subject being discussed ad nauseum here)....
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 21, 2012 15:58:26 GMT -5
I believe when the National Film Registry was established, one of the goals was to select films that were worthy of preservation. Now, that gets dicey, too. But I guess this is the way to decide that while a film, such as "Breakfast at Tiffany's" has its fans and detractors, it is worthy of being preserved over, say, oh, uh, "Spaceballs."
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 21, 2012 18:14:10 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
Hopefully, the "work of art" definition finds its way in there, but I think the criteria is that the film be of some social significance as well. A CHRISTMAS STORY can be considered one such film (it gets played on TV at this time of year nearly as much as IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE); and DIRTY HARRY gets in there because of Eastwood's defining portrait of a rogue cop.
I'm not much of a judge about what should be in the National Film Registry, but I think they do a very good job in terms of their choices. Three past entries--the aforementioned ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST; THE WILD BUNCH (deemed socially significant because of its no-holes barred approach to violence); and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (for its impressive and cautiously optimistic vision of space and the future of Mankind)--are among my all-time favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 22, 2012 16:51:18 GMT -5
Hopefully, the "work of art" definition finds its way in there, but I think the criteria is that the film be of some social significance as well. A CHRISTMAS STORY can be considered one such film (it gets played on TV at this time of year nearly as much as IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE); and DIRTY HARRY gets in there because of Eastwood's defining portrait of a rogue cop.
I think when the term work of art is bandied about when it comes to movies, it's a subjective term, because not everyone agrees on what is or isn't a work of art. The film being of some social significance is another qualifier which can be very subjective to the viewer.
I like science fiction movies and all too often, films of that genre gets the short end of the stick from the public and critics. Everyone overpraises "Star Wars" in the science ficton genre, but overlook movies like "Forbidden Planet" or "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (the original with the late and great Michael Rennie, and not that horrid garbage remake with Keanu Reeves), movies which still hold up as examples of why we should be traveling into space (even with dangers) or being open to the possibility that someday we may be meeting people from other worlds, if they are not here already. There's also a certain irony in that although many regard "Star Wars" as science fiction, not everyone in the science fiction community shares that assessment. Some lump SW in with the lower basement quality of certain sci-fi movies or tv series. Others appreciate the boost Spielberg gave the sci-fi genre even though they still don't regard the movie as serious sciemce fiction.
(Must admit when it comes to sci-fi movies, I scratch my head in wonderment about the criteria of sci-fi enthusiasts. Some think the story is more important than having the various trappings of sci-fi, the special effects. But, I don't think you can have a sci fi story without any of the trappings or special effect which would tell you you're watching a science fiction movie or tv series. Absent anything which suggests what you're watching is a sci-fi show, you could be watching a soap for all you know.)
I'm not much of a judge about what should be in the National Film Registry, but I think they do a very good job in terms of their choices. Three past entries--the aforementioned ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST; THE WILD BUNCH (deemed socially significant because of its no-holes barred approach to violence); and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (for its impressive and cautiously optimistic vision of space and the future of Mankind)--are among my all-time favorites.
Three very good examples of what should be in the NFR and likewise, I'm not much of a judge of what should be in there, except for maybe that whatever the movie critics like, maybe those movies should be given serious consideration for not being included. More often than not, what I've found is that what critics like, I don't like, and what they don't like, i like. Not every time mind you, I've agreed with them on occasions but I also noticed certain critics liked certain actors and tended to praise their efforts even when the film was a pretensive turkey. I liken that to the critics who constantly gush about everything Springsteen does. Not everything is a work of art, sometimes it's a piece of sh*t, and critics seem to like a piece of sh*t more when it comes from their favored artist, even though it's still a piece of sh*t!
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 22, 2012 19:35:56 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker re. sci-fi movies:
One can't ignore that STAR WARS was a cultural phenomenon (and incidentally, though it's easy to get the two mixed up because they're friends, STAR WARS is George Lucas' baby, not Spielberg's), but I wouldn't call it science fiction either. It is essentially what is known as a "space opera", more of a fantasy film with elements of Western and war movies set out in space. Spielberg, though, I think did contribute to legitimate science fiction with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and E.T., whose themes of alien visitations to Earth pay service to reality, touched with a certain amount of speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 23, 2012 17:44:21 GMT -5
One can't ignore that STAR WARS was a cultural phenomenon (and incidentally, though it's easy to get the two mixed up because they're friends, STAR WARS is George Lucas' baby, not Spielberg's), but I wouldn't call it science fiction either. It is essentially what is known as a "space opera", more of a fantasy film with elements of Western and war movies set out in space. Spielberg, though, I think did contribute to legitimate science fiction with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and E.T., whose themes of alien visitations to Earth pay service to reality, touched with a certain amount of speculation. Oops! I'm so embarrassed! Should've caught that on who produced Star Wars.   That was my brain on no sleep or not enough sleep! But, you're right in your description of Star Wars as being more of a fantasy movie with western and war themes thrown in but Lucas did give the science fiction genre a boost with his movie and Spielberg gave it a big boost with E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I rather like seeing movies about alien visitations in which the aliens come in peace and friendship rather than as invaders and conquerors, though I liked the aliens invading genre of sci-fi, especially if it's done well and keeps you on the edge of your seat. I've watched more aliens invading movies though where everything is so predictable that you could skip seeing the movie altogether and still know enough about it that you could talk about it with friends. That's too predictable. Of course, the friendly alien genre can wear out its welcome - I watched "Paul" on tv last year, which I meant to go see at the theater. Glad I missed it at the theater as it wasn't that good. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 23, 2012 20:04:03 GMT -5
It really all depends, in my opinion, on how you do an alien visitation movie. The reason Spielberg succeeded so well in doing it with both CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and E.T. is that he did a great deal of reading and research about people who had claimed to have encountered extra-terrestrials, all of whom were quite common people and not "kooks", and integrated a lot of what these people claimed to have seen and heard during those encounters. He was also heavily influenced by the approach that Kubrick had taken in 2001, in creating a sense of mystery behind it all.
|
|
That was my brain on no sleep or not enough sleep! But, you're right in your description of Star Wars as being more of a fantasy movie with western and war themes thrown in but Lucas did give the science fiction genre a boost with his movie and Spielberg gave it a big boost with E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I rather like seeing movies about alien visitations in which the aliens come in peace and friendship rather than as invaders and conquerors, though I liked the aliens invading genre of sci-fi, especially if it's done well and keeps you on the edge of your seat. I've watched more aliens invading movies though where everything is so predictable that you could skip seeing the movie altogether and still know enough about it that you could talk about it with friends. That's too predictable. Of course, the friendly alien genre can wear out its welcome - I watched "Paul" on tv last year, which I meant to go see at the theater. Glad I missed it at the theater as it wasn't that good.