The reel thing

[j4]

I do not know enough about films.

I noticed this particularly while on holiday, as my travelling companion frequently tried to refer to films that she assumed I would have seen, and more and more I found myself apologising for being whatever the filmic equivalent of "poorly-read" is. ("Poorly-viewed" makes me think of frosted glass, and anyway, you know what I mean.) But it's something that happens quite often: people allude to films in the confident belief that they are accessing shared cultural reference points, and my only response is an unbecomingly blank look.

I'm also aware that often when I do watch films which everybody else has raved about, I feel as though I'm missing something. Obviously there are differences of taste, but with literature (and, in some genres, music) I feel as though I can make a critical judgement which satisfies me (I'm not particularly concerned whether other people's opinions differ) -- that is, I can say "I feel that I have read/heard and understood this and I am confident that my indifference to it or dislike of it is a matter of personal taste, rather than a sign that I am missing something which is central to appreciating it." (Goodness, that sounds arrogant. I don't mean it as such.)

Now I'm not really asking for recommendations of Wicked Cool Films You Like, because I've probably got enough of those to keep me going for the next 200 years, and unfortunately I'm only likely to live for another 60-odd of those. What I'm asking for is something slightly different: what films do you, O film-viewing people of my readership, regard as central to understanding film as a medium? Or, perhaps, which films are most central to the cultural consciousness of people in the English-speaking Western world^[1]? What films would you be horrified to discover that somebody in my cultural context hadn't seen?

^[1] I'm specifying this because one of my reasons for asking is that film is an area where, at the risk of sounding melodramatic, I feel like an outsider in my own culture. I feel as though there are swathes of cultural referents which I am entirely missing because I'm so lacking in filmic knowledge. For other cultures I'm happier to accept that I will lack a lot of shared reference points.

Yes, everybody's answers are going to differ. I'm not really interested in producing a definitive list; rather just seeing what people suggest. I'm also interested to know reasons for your choices -- a list of films without any explanation will tell me nothing if I haven't seen them, and won't motivate me to see them.

Does this rambly and multifaceted question make any sense?

Comments

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

I often find that 'classic' films leave me disappointed. Nonetheless I'm going to nominate the most classic classic of all time: Casablanca, because it's perfect. It's the right length, the sets and costumes are great, the dialogue just sizzles, and it's the best plot ever. After many viewings, I've conditioned myself to start crying as soon as the opening titles come up, to save time later.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the random post. I would highly recommend 'The End of the Affair'. I don't know if you are discounting books-made-into-films, but... the lighting is incredible, the direction perceptive, the acting sympathetic to the script, the momentum is exquisite, and the dialogue is a breath-taking. There are a hundred an one reasons to see this film, and, from my limited experience, I think you'd appreciate it.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

Presumably the list needs one Western, one Romance, one 'Action' movie and one prewar Hollywood 'Classic'.

Have you been told you ought to see 'The Princess Bride', or is it just me?

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

I'll mention directors rather than films, as one might mention authors rather than individual works, incomplete and in no particular order:
Fritz Lang
Jean Luc Goddard
Akira Kurosawa
Sergei Eisenstein
Alfred Hitchcock
Ingmar Bergman
Federico Fellini
Roman Polanski
Sergio Leone

flimsies

[vinaigrettegirl.livejournal.com]

As a nonfilm person myself, I would recommend The Heart in Winter [Le Coeur en Hiver], because it is stunningly well-composed and its use of colour, tempo, and visual effect in support of the plot and characterisation is masterly and unobtrusive.

I am immensely fond of Mikrocosmos for its filming and humour (3 years in a French meadow, filmed mostly as close-up work), The Lavender Hill Mob, anything by Buster Keaton, and the older version of Arsenic and Old Lace, which uses (IIRC) a very young Gregory Peck, and Peter Lorre as a wicked sub-figure, whose utterance - a lie, obviously - of the words "Heidelberg, 1919" as an answer to "where'd you get your medical degree?" was so masterly that I can hear it in my mind's ear even now.

I gather that the car chase scene in a famous film (name escapes me) starring Gene Hackman is worth viewing: I have no stomach for violence in film and walked out of Braveheart in a state of wretched sickness after ten minutes.

It may be that this is why I also feel an outsider in my own culture: I lack the referents because so many of them are essentially violent.

Films you haven't seen which you "ought" to see? Well, The African Queen (Hepburn, Bogart); at least one Clint Eastwood Western and one John Huston Western; one with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers for perfect, perfect footwork and sheer professionalism; Singin' in the Rain, a Perfect Film for its costumes, actors, settings, camera angles, composition, and pace.

Enjoy!

I like the films I do like because they are not archly manipulative and self-conscious; I loathe being manipulated and bullied, visually or through action and dialogue.

Let's play Humiliation

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Bambi and Citizen Kane, apparently; but you don't need to watch them, you just need to know that Rosebud's mother dies, or something.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Presumably the list needs one Western, one Romance, one 'Action' movie and one prewar Hollywood 'Classic'.

Does it? See, this is the other thing, I don't really know what genres apply to films. Also, when I read literature, I know enough about the conventions of various genres to see when/how certain books are playing with the 'rules' of that genre; with films I don't think I really have that knowledge.

'The Princess Bride'

I've seen it. I thought it was good -- clever & funny, definitely worth seeing once -- but not as life-changing as some people seem to think.

[j4.livejournal.com]

If I was mentioning authors I'd probably give a couple of examples -- an idea of which works are 'classic', which are particularly good, which are a bad place to start if you haven't read anything else by that author, etc... Also I'd try to say what makes those particular authors so central, so influential -- did they inspire a lot of imitators? Or do things so differently that they changed the whole face of the genre/medium? Did they capture the zeitgeist? (Moo!) Or what?

Which is, of course, just a roundabout way of saying that I would not be able to name a single film by any of those directors except Hitchcock (I've seen 'The Birds' and 'Marnie') and possibly Bergman (didn't he do 'The Seventh Seal'? I haven't seen it, though). I've heard of most of them, but most of the time I have literally no idea who directed anything.

(And yes, I'm ashamed of this; I feel as though I'm doing the moral equivalent of not being able to name a play by Shakespeare or a novel by Dickens, or of only being able to refer to pieces of music as 'the one on the jeans advert' or 'the one that goes da-da-da-dummm'.)

I suppose one answer is that I should Just Fucking Google It, but I'm also interested in hearing ideas/opinions from people I actually know, partly because that way I'll learn something about them as well, and partly because I have more of a jumping-off-point for understanding the film if I know why somebody-whose-context-I-already-know-a-little-about rates it.

Of course, I realise that this is basically asking people to write essays on film which they don't have time for... so will understand if they don't want to.

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

I should add that everyone knows the famous lines from Casablanca, but it's really worth putting them in context. And having seen a million spoofs won't spoil the original at all.

Re: flimsies

[j4.livejournal.com]

Despite being a non-film person I have actually seen Le Coeur en Hiver in French. I'd like to see it in English, because even in French I enjoyed it (though I know I missed a lot of nuances and details).

Gene Hackman, car chases - Google suggests you're thinking of The French Connection, is that what you had in mind? I confess I wouldn't know Gene Hackman from a hole in the wall.

no stomach for violence in film

OOI, graphic violence, or implied violence as well? (FWIW I don't particularly care for it but it's not something that would put me off seeing a film if I believed it had other things that made it worth seeing -- I can't think of any violence I've seen in films where I haven't read worse in books, and books tend to affect me more.)

Singing in the Rain

Hurrah - I've seen that several times, it's one of my favourite films! So obviously I'm doing something right. :)

Interesting point about manipulativeness in films. I do sometimes enjoy self-consciousness and arch manipulativeness in the arts, and in other contexts ... I guess for me it's partly about consciously choosing to be manipulated in an interesting way by people I trust or otherwise in a 'safe' context (if a book is manipulating me I can put it down, if a film is manipulating me I can hit 'stop'). But that's another issue, or rather another can-of-worms-shaped bag of issues; food for thought (cans of worms are sometimes a healthy mental snack) nonetheless.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, Casablanca. That's one of the films that nobody can ever quite believe I haven't seen. In fact, even I can't believe I haven't seen it, but I'm quite sure I haven't. I don't even know what happens, so no spoilers! :)

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

Does this rambly and multifaceted question make any sense?

Yes, a lot.

I felt a lot like this - I had literally only seen about 5 films in my entire life - when I started at University. DH (who was then only DBF of course) was horrified to discover this and began a single handed effort to educate me on the world of films, using the rather limited resources of the college TV room and the best that Blockbusters had to offer.

Telling you the list of films he showed me is probably NOT the most useful thing, since that list is biassed towards his / my tastes and generally probably isn't terribly helpful.

I would say that the best way for you to get an idea of the cultural context would be to visit the Internet Movie Database, and specifically The Top Lists (http://www.imdb.com/Top/). Linked from that page you will find
a) The Top-Grossing Movies of all Time (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=non-us) and
b) The Top 250 Movies of All Time (http://www.imdb.com/top_250_films) (as rated by IMDB users) as well as a handy list of genres.
Anything that ends up on both lists is probably worth seeing.

Over time, as you experience more different films, you start to get an idea of the things that make a film good (to you).

I also recommend watching as many of the films as possible on DVD and watching the Director's Commentary (preferably after watching the film "au naturel" first). I have learnt a HECK of a lot about films and film making that way, and as a result started to notice more about the techniques and so on. It might be stuff like "This scene is obviously an homage to Foo Bar" so then you can go and check out who/what Foo Bar is/was, or it might be stuff like "This is another example of the recurring motif of people looking out through windows in this film, which was meant to signify [blah blah blah]". I found Directors' Commentaries very eye-opening and there were some films where I watched them once, watched the Director's Commentary, and then watched the film again in its entirety now that I had an additional layer of knowledge/understanding about it.

Of course after spending ~10 years of kid-free life going to the cinema pretty much every weekend, and also watching films on video/DVD during the week, and then spending large parts of my year of maternity leave sitting watching videos/DVDs while Matthew fed or snoozed in my lap, since going back to work I now have basically zero time to keep up with films, which is a bit of a shame but just one of those things up with which we have to put :-)

I'm also aware that often when I do watch films which everybody else has raved about, I feel as though I'm missing something.

Oh yes, I also wanted to add that in general, I often find I don't like or don't feel I "get" films that everyone says are brilliant. The Shawshank Redemption had me bored to tears, for example. I don't think it's necessarily a sign that I'm missing something - just a difference in tastes.

Anyway. Sorry this answer turned out so long. I hope it helped somewhat!

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

OK, fair point. They're all "influential", they're the directors of the films that big Hollywood directors rehash. Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress was the inspiration for Star Wars, Fritz Lang's Metropolis is reflected in Sky Captain. Quentin Tarantino is difficult enough to follow without having seen Leone's westerns, Fist full of dollars &c. (and also the vast quantities of Hong Kong action flicks I haven't seen, John Woo's Hard Boiled is a great of that genre, but later than the stuff Tarantino refers to).

They're directors whose style, framing of shots, pacing, cutting, all decisions on how to use the medium, were either actually original or brought together a set of ideas in a superbly executed manner.

Yes, Bergman did The Seventh Seal, which would be what I'd recommend from him. Eisenstien managed the epic scope in an unprecedented way, and his use of metaphor and building a massive picture using individual vignettes symbolising the larger dimensions has changed the way directors try to portray scale. Battleship Potemkin is one classic.

Goddard, I'm shamefully unfamiliar with, but intend to go to see Breathless at the Arts on Tuesday (5pm) (assuming I can skive off work a little early).

...and now, as you say, I'm out of time and have to go to a meeting.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I saw it for the first time Valentine's Day this year. It is most definitely worth it.

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

I didn't see it until a couple of Christmasses ago when the collected masses of DH's family press ganged me into seeing it (because they couldn't believe I hadn't). Guess what... I didn't think it was All That.

[imc.livejournal.com]

Hello, fellow non-film person…

Which is, of course, just a roundabout way of saying that I would not be able to name a single film by any of those directors except Hitchcock

Me neither; moreover, I haven't seen a single one of Hitchcock's films.

I'm sure there are quite a few films which have been absorbed into modern British (or possibly American) culture, but I can't think of many just at the moment. Of the ones that have been mentioned, Casablanca certainly fits the bill as most people can quote lines from it even if they aren't aware that's where the lines came from in the first place. The Princess Bride probably does too, and I think those are the only two of the said films that I've seen. I'd probably agree with Bambi, though I haven't seen it.

The Italian Job (original version) comes to mind: "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"; red, white and blue Mini chasing, and literal cliff-hangers being the main cultural memories which resulted from it.

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

That's exactly the reason I'm cautious about seeing films that other people rave about. I hate being told "oh, you must see this, you'll love it" and then, er, hating it. Possibly if I'd discovered it on my own and nobody had told me I was going to love it, I would have loved it. (Rocky Horror Picture Show.)

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

I think it's hard to separate "you should see this [because it's technically/artistically fantastic]" and "you should see this [because everyone else has so it's part of some wider body of knowledge now (FVSO everyone else)]" and "you should see this [because it will speak to you specifically, Janet, at this point in time and space]" and "you should see this [because I think it's a good way to spend two hours]".

That said, I think I'd suggest: Casablanca, if only because it filters into so many other things, it's almost the equivalent of Shakespeare in intertextual terms now; Cinema Paradiso because it explains why (some) film lovers love film in the way they do [warning: subtitles]; Memento because it subverts narrative lines beautifully, it's very clever and quite gripping; Some Like It Hot for similar reasons to Casablanca and also because it's just genuinely funny; Amadeus because it's beautifully shot and orchestrated and an interesting story (Schaffer text gives it a headstart too); Monsters Inc. because it will make you laugh and it's "cuddly"; 10 Things I Hate About You because Shakespeare adaptations work well with cute teens; Kiss Me Kate, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, West Side Story, Singing In The Rain, Meet Me In St Louis, My Fair Lady because musicals are great fun for rainy Sunday afternoons - no one can be miserable with a musical (even one that ends in Bleak Despairing Death). Add some classic Ealing comedy, Clerks or Mallrats, some John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, perhaps)... I could go on for too long so I'll stop there.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Central to understanding film as a medium ? Nice question.

Casablanca definitely. I'm vacillating on Citizen Kane, because although an inordinate number of things were invented in it, their significance would to my mind be diminished by an avowed intent not to go out and watch the couple of hundred things that lean on it. Part of me wants to send you back to all the sources, Metropolis and the original Nosferatu and a whole bunch of cool German Expressionist stuff, but again, finitude gets in the way.

Something by Kubrick, definitely; if only one, 2001 but only if you can get it on a big screen, it is very much not worth seeing on TV. Dr. Strangelove doesn't have so much of this problem.

Modern Times.

Some Like It Hot.

Something by Woody Allen, I think, most likely Bullets over Broadway.

The Usual Suspects.

And, for a couple of recent recommendations, Amelie, Fight Club modulo whether you're OK with some fairly harsh bare-knuckle boxing, and Being John Malkovich. I could go on and on about various excellent films that do great things at lots of other levels, but these three, to me, are really pushing at the limits of the medium and redefining what can be done with film qua film, rather than telling stories that would work just as well in other media.

[liv]

I really wish I'd written this post, because it perfectly explains something that I've been trying to say about myself for ages. Unfortunately, being in the same situation as you I'm the last person to be able to help you with this question. But I'll be bookmarking it to check what answers you get.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I just said qua in a sentence. Damn, I'm undercaffeinated. Hope that post doesn't come out as way the hell pretentious.

There's also piles of Significant Stuff I've not seen. Still not managed to get a crack at Sergio Leone, frex, or any Kurosawa except Ran. I'm basically waiting for the local arthouse cinemas to do seasons of them at some point when I am actually in town, which I've managed to miss twice in the past three years, but which will come round again.

Oh, and if only one film could be saved to represent the whole medium, my choice would be Jesus de Montreal. I'm not sure you could call it central to the understanding of the medium, but it epitomises several of the best things the medium can do.

[sbp.livejournal.com]

Woody Allen: "Sleeper" (for "early funny" Allen) or "Annie Hall"

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

Nyers.

I think I mentioned the RHPS in another thread of j4's a few days/weeks ago. I was very nearly put off it for life by having my first introduction to it be DH playing me an audio tape of the soundtrack in which the audience participation (most of which is, in any case, in response to visual stuff on the screen) almost drowned out the real soundtrack.

Actually, no, come to think of it, my VERY first introduction to it was when I was about 13 and went on a school trip. We had a video player on the coach and someone had brought it along (oh, what a suitable choice for a coachful of impressionable pre-teens and early-teens). I was completely bemused by it and ended up falling asleep shortly after Brad and Janet had arrived at Frankenfurter's castle. I think my recounting of this experience was what caused DH to try playing the audio tape at me in the first place.

Anyway, I did finally see it again much later under more auspicious circumstances and actually ended up enjoying it a lot (have even subsequently attended a stage showing, dressed as Magenta ;-))

OOI the same reasoning applies with me to books - being told I MUST read something because I'll love it is pretty much the best way to prevent me ever reading it. I have never read Black Beauty (fx: collective gasps of shock from the assembled congrgation) for this precise reason.

[dorianegray.livejournal.com]

I am not really much of a film person either, and I have a penchant for the German silents which makes people look at me funny, but here goes anyway...

"Some Like it Hot" - Marilyn Monroe movie, very funny (I thought) with cross-dressing.
"The Last Action Hero" - again appealed to my sense of humour; Arnold Schwarzenegger taking the piss out of his own movies.
Lots of people have said "Casablanca"; I add my vote.
"Star Wars" - the original trlogy. Don't bother with the new ones.
"Clueless" - based on Jane Austen's "Emma", but in a Valley Girl setting.

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

Ditto me and any Dickens other than A Christmas Carol, also Jane Eyre. Thanks for that, Mum!