one from the heart

Started by cowboykurtis, February 04, 2004, 06:48:20 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

cowboykurtis

February 04, 2004, 06:48:20 PM
Does any one recommend this? thinking about blind buying it? thoughts?...
...your excuses are your own...

Pubrick

#1
February 04, 2004, 06:51:44 PM
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#2
February 04, 2004, 09:06:35 PM
When I find it, I'm gonna pick it up based soley on Storaro's involvement. Oh, and I heard there's some amazing early steadicam work in it.

So, uh, if someone has seen it and it really sucks, please let us know before money is wasted...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

phil marlowe

#3
February 05, 2004, 07:31:46 AM
well it wasn't really any good with the critics or anything but i'd by if for nothing else then just for the brilliant score by tom waits.

godardian

#4
February 05, 2004, 10:45:36 AM
I saw it here at The Varsity a few weeks ago. It is beautiful. It has almost no story. And the more attention you pay to what "story" there is, the worse it will seem. In most other movies, the acting would be bad, but this is '50s-musical acting transplanted to the '80s; it merely seems incongruous and anachronistic, not necessarily bad. The stunning artificiality of the entire thing (all built on the Zoetrope studios with no expense spared, hence its reputation as the Movie That Broke Copolla), the lighting, and the camerawork alone are enough to make it of real interest for film buffs (and film buffs alone, probably).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pubrick

#5
February 05, 2004, 10:46:53 AM
kubrick didn't like it. michael herr did.

that's all i know.
under the paving stones.

godardian

#6
February 05, 2004, 02:15:59 PM
Quote from: Pkubrick didn't like it. michael herr did.

that's all i know.

Kael hated it too, for the only things about it Kubrick might have appreciated: "This movie isn't from the heart, or from the head, either; it's from the lab," "This movie feels like something directed from a trailer," etc. She criticizes it for the same things she criticized Kubrick's movies for: Its (too?) precise beauty and proficiency, though it is quite a bit "warmer" than Kubrick's (that's not a complaint, just an observation; I see no warm/cold hierarchy in cinematic emotion, as long as you pull off whatever it is you're doing).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#7
February 05, 2004, 02:53:21 PM
Did Murch have any involvement with this movie?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#8
February 05, 2004, 03:52:53 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenDid Murch have any involvement with this movie?

IMDB lists 4 editors, but no Murch.

Apparently, Copolla used then cutting-edge video editing techniques, the specifics  of which I have no idea...
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#9
February 05, 2004, 03:59:31 PM
As a tangent, I see that Allen Garfield is in this, credited as Allen Goorwitz (like he was in The Stuntman). Any explanation for this weirdo name change???
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

ono

#10
February 05, 2004, 04:11:02 PM
Awhile back, October/November-ish of last year, I read David Breskin's Inner Views (thanks to a recommendation from someone here, I think ©brad).  The Coppola section was so incredibly insightful, especially when it came to this movie, which I've wanted to see since I read about it.  It seems like such an incredibly personal movie that, along with Tucker, was the misstep that really screwed him over.  Just thought I'd say that, because if you're looking for more on Coppola or this film, you could do worse than that book.  Besides, it has stuff on a lot of other great filmmakers as well.

ono

#11
February 27, 2004, 07:29:40 PM
I got this in the mail today from Netflix, popped it in, just got done watching it.  The film plays like some sort of opera or musical, and yeah, it has little story.  The cinematography, editing, and mise-en-scene are all simply breathtaking, and that alone makes it worth seeing.  Some of the things done with transitions are just perfectly executed.  But Coppola ruins it all with a questionable script with questionable decisions made towards the end.  I don't know if I'm alone here, but when Frannie got on the plane, that felt right, and having her show up back at the house just didn't sit well at all.  The guy (forget his name) was a prick, and Raymond was a much better person.  I did get a laugh out of the whole motel scene, though the electrocution bit with the guy's hair standing on end was a bit over-the-top.  Teri Garr and Lisa Kudrow look so much alike, it's no wonder Teri played Phoebe's mom on Friends.  *** (7/10) 'cause of the crap ending, but still worth a look.

BTW, my version was full screen, and I don't see any option to change it to wide.  Was it full screen to start with, or was I given a "wrong version?"

mutinyco

#12
February 29, 2004, 01:32:09 PM
It's an interesting film. Definitely more of an experiment than a finished work -- as evidenced by the admission that until the DVD there never really was a definitive cut. But One From the Heart's influences can be seen in films like Punch Drunk Love (stylized musical tone over a dark reality, minor use of plot) and even Eyes Wide Shut (roaming Stedicam following the mundane nature of sexual relations, symbolic use of color).

What the film does represent, above all, whether successful as a whole or not, is that Francis Ford Coppola's command of the medium is so far superior to just about everybody else out there. Each of his films looks, feels, moves differently than the others. You wouldn't watch one of his films blindly and know it was by him. Unlike say, Martin Scorsese (he could never have come up with such a creative film).

The thing that's most haunting about the film, and what gives it a certain importance, is what it was about and when it was made. It was the early '80s and Coppola was depicting what our society was becoming: a sealed-off fantasy world populated by normal flawed people. A world where dreams are everywhere, but the courage to follow through is scarse. It's a pretty dead-on commentary of the times.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#13
February 29, 2004, 04:20:25 PM
I liked this flick. Mostly the color and embraced fakeness of it all.


Oh, and, Scorsese did come up with this movie already, it's called New York, New York. It just had a down ending.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

#14
February 29, 2004, 04:35:55 PM
New York, New York was hardly on this level. It was pretty unwatchable.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions