• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About magadizer

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Twitter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Favorite movies
  • Favorite music
    Schumann, Ives, Berlioz, Bach, Bartok
  • Favorite creative writing
    Richard Powers, Gene Wolfe, Tolkien
  • Favorite visual art
    Paul Klee
  1. I think Orson Welles's THE TRIAL should be on this list. After the narrated prologue, it begins with the shot of Anthony Perkins waking up in his bed, to find the police in his room, . The film is of course not a realistic story, and the irony is that though K has woken up, it is clearly a nightmare unfolding over the course of the film. The surreal narrative dream-logic pursues a vision of the absurdity inherent in bureaucracies, and ultimately the cruel and pitiless violence of the police state. These are themes very much needing to be awoken to, but in this poetic, labyrinthine exploration, are somehow made more present than a more straightforward story might do.
  2. Title: The TrialDirector: Orson WellesYear: 1962Language: EnglishIMDB Link: Link (a clip of/trailer for the film): to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one):
  3. Title: The TravelerDirector: Abbas KiarostamiYear: 1974Language: FarsiIMDB Link: Link (a clip of/trailer for the film): (Complete film)Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one):Could not find one
  4. I finally finished writing a few thoughts on the film. It's both easy to keep talking about it and hard to say what I am thinking. It's a challenging film and one that now already means a great deal to me.
  5. Thanks for thinking enough of me to include one of my thoughts in your Review, Evan. In the screening I was at, I noticed no sound issues. I'm pretty sensitive to sound issues. I think it was your theater, Joel.
  6. I just a few weeks ago got this film on disc, and watched it with my kids. I remember thinking when i first saw it some years ago that if was too intense for my young children. And I similarly have mellowed on that judgement with my younger children. I was going to ask you if you still felt that caveat about showing it to younger kids should apply, so I'm glad you addressed that here.
  7. I watched this film in August, and just rewatched it in an attempt to be able to put some words together about it. I decided to compare it to Bresson's Au hasard Balthasar. I found some striking thematic similarities between the two films, not least of which because both have an oblique focus on abused young women. It took me a long time to write this, partly because of the devastating emotional impact from both of these films. Anyways, my thoughts are here at my blog. (spoilers, as always)
  8. Do you know where (or if) it's available to see in the US?
  9. I do. They look terrific to me. Only controversy I'm aware of is the framing on BLUE. There is a shot in which you can see the boom mic, which presumably should have been crowded out by the framing, but want for this Blu-ray presentation.
  10. Excellent. I managed to get that one on an earlier coupon. Making my way through it slowly rather than in one binge session. I did pick up DREAMS and Welles's THE IMMORTAL STORY. I wrote about it earlier this year after my first viewing. It's an incredible film.
  11. What did you get? I wanted to pick up THE MUSIC ROOM, but no local store has the Blu Ray, so I think I'll wait until AKIRA KUROSAWA'S DREAMS comes out next week and that will be my pick for this round.
  12. I will be discussing the details of the plot in this post. I saw this film last night for the first time, and I am sure that I would not have seen it in the same way if I had first watched it years ago. The title refers to a murder trial, but really there are two crimes that are at issue: the murder of bar owner Barney Quill by an army officer, Lt. Manion, and the rape of Manion's wife Laura by Quill. There is never any question of whether Manion killed Quill--there is no twist whodunnit resolution, only the question of whether his plea of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity will prevail. In the case of the rape, however, there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the story. Ultimately, I think that the film most strongly implies that there was no rape, but rather Manion killed Quill out of jealousy due to his wife's flirtation. There's plenty of evidence in the film to support that interpretation, despite the fact that of course we never hear the alleged rapist's side of the story, but that's not really my concern. It was alarming and very uncomfortable for me to see the way in which the issue of the rape was handled in the course of the trial. In real life, there have been some recent high-profile rape trials that resulted in the court effectively showing much more concern for the rapist than for the victim. In this film, even if we proceed with the ultimate interpretation that the rape did not take place (which I feel is the most reasonable interpretation of what we as a viewer are privileged to see) there is no justification for the way that the court handled the allegations and the presentation of the evidence, nor especially how it treated the alleged victim. Real rape victims today talk about being victimized a second time by the process of prosecuting a rapist. That couldn't have been more clearly dramatized than in this film. One of the primary lines of argument for the prosecution is to discredit Mrs. Manion by portraying her as a provocative temptress who flirted and possibly more with men in the town. Even Manion's lawyer, Biegler, (Jimmy Stewart), who objects throughout to the word choices of the prosecutor, never objects in principle to the idea that how a woman dressed or looked is not a relevant to the question of whether she was raped. The idea that a woman might "bring it on herself" by being too good looking and dressing too sexily is an undercurrent of the argumentation. Biegler implicitly acknowledges this by dressing her in an ill-fitting suit and floppy hat at the start of the trial. It can be said that he is cannily defending against a potential prejudice in the minds of the jurors, but my point is that even he will not directly argue that her looks or dress are irrelevant to the veracity of her rape claim. A particularly telling moment occurs when the question of how to refer to Mrs. Manion's undergarments is brought to the bench. When it is agreed to use the word "panties," a general snickering envelopes the courtroom. The judge reprimands all present, instructing them that he will not tolerate any more laughter due to the gravity of the situation. He invokes the interest of the deceased man and the killer, but no mention of the woman who is in the dock, having an interest in not being laughed at as she recounts what are the embarrassing details of her attack. Following this, the prosecution attorney proceeds to grill her in an unmerciful manner. This can all be chalked up to the idea that this is representative of how things were in 1959. I would find that more easy to deal with if we weren't still seeing this in real life. Much like the type of trial depicted in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD highlights racial problems in the court system that have become less overtly condoned, but are still present, this film highlights an inherent injustice to women. The problem becomes that, unlike Tom Robinson, Mrs. Manion is not nearly as sympathetic to the viewer, since it's very possible based on the evidence we see as viewers of the film that she was fabricating the story of the rape. So despite the lauded ambiguity of the trial results and the groundbreaking "frankness" of the dialogue, I feel after a single viewing that this film may do more to reinforce problematic views of rape victims that still persist, than to challenge our thinking. This is despite the fact that the prosecutor comes across as fairly villainous for his line of attack, and that our natural sympathies are with Jimmy Stewart's character to win the case.