Michael H. Standart
Member
>>They don't show newsreels.<<
Just non-stop previews longer then the feature attraction itself!
-Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!
Just non-stop previews longer then the feature attraction itself!
Accuracy
- Thread starter Jeremy Aufderheide
- Start date
Jeremy Aufderheide
Member
And CGI that looks 10x more fake than models and matte paintings.
You're not missing much, Mike.
You're not missing much, Mike.
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Ah, so you have gone to the movies at least once within the past twenty years!
It seems as if the string of previews is growing longer and longer, so you got out at a good time.
As for me, I don't go much, either, but I do go once in a blue moon. I'd rather see movies on DVDs. This way, I can see the them on my terms.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>It seems as if the string of previews is growing longer and longer, so you got out at a good time. <<
The one advantage to that is if you get to the cinima at just about show time, you can just about take it for granted that you'll have plenty of time to get the snacks.
If you can afford them that is. Popcorn isn't too outrageous yet, but for the rest, the damned price tag might as well read "Arm, leg, and firstborn."
The one advantage to that is if you get to the cinima at just about show time, you can just about take it for granted that you'll have plenty of time to get the snacks.
If you can afford them that is. Popcorn isn't too outrageous yet, but for the rest, the damned price tag might as well read "Arm, leg, and firstborn."
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Oh, I totally understand, Mike. Popcorn at Star theatres here run from $4-8.00, depending on size. Damn, I remember when an XL was around $1.59, even $1.09. It's amazing! We're losing hold on that, too.
Requiring $50.00 for a single person to see a matinee will become a reality sooner than many people think.
Requiring $50.00 for a single person to see a matinee will become a reality sooner than many people think.
Martin Williams
Member
Hi Jim
'Ahhh, but bashing ANTR is not FUN since, in the end, it accomplished what it set out to do. Titanic is fun to bash, slacker style, because it was presented with a hail of publicity heralding its accuracy AND its worth as a piece of film making, and the end result was so much less.'
Spot on. Beautifully put. But...
'...and I loathe, beyond adequate description, the line "A prayer...we ought to say a prayer."'
How funny - I love it! Coupled with the 'we'll find mummy, we'll soon find her' line which follows immediately afterward, the praying scene in ANTR never fails to generate a (quickly stifled) compulsion to tears on my part. And I like to think that I've got a more sensitive nose than many for the crass, banal and cheesily sentimental.
Why do you object to it so strongly? I don't doubt that many passengers and crew DID pray in the final minutes - a little later on, surrounded by the dead and dying on their upturned collapsible, Archibald Gracie recorded that he and his fellow survivors tried to make their peace with God in unified fashion, by reciting the Lord's Prayer.
If there is one bit I DO strenuously object to in ANTR, it is Lightoller's soliloquy about 'never feeling sure about anything again', spoken to the colonel, even whilst they are still awaiting rescue. Strikes me he would have had other things on his mind at that particular moment - like basic survival - rather than philosophical reflections of that nature.
Regards...
'Ahhh, but bashing ANTR is not FUN since, in the end, it accomplished what it set out to do. Titanic is fun to bash, slacker style, because it was presented with a hail of publicity heralding its accuracy AND its worth as a piece of film making, and the end result was so much less.'
Spot on. Beautifully put. But...
'...and I loathe, beyond adequate description, the line "A prayer...we ought to say a prayer."'
How funny - I love it! Coupled with the 'we'll find mummy, we'll soon find her' line which follows immediately afterward, the praying scene in ANTR never fails to generate a (quickly stifled) compulsion to tears on my part. And I like to think that I've got a more sensitive nose than many for the crass, banal and cheesily sentimental.
Why do you object to it so strongly? I don't doubt that many passengers and crew DID pray in the final minutes - a little later on, surrounded by the dead and dying on their upturned collapsible, Archibald Gracie recorded that he and his fellow survivors tried to make their peace with God in unified fashion, by reciting the Lord's Prayer.
If there is one bit I DO strenuously object to in ANTR, it is Lightoller's soliloquy about 'never feeling sure about anything again', spoken to the colonel, even whilst they are still awaiting rescue. Strikes me he would have had other things on his mind at that particular moment - like basic survival - rather than philosophical reflections of that nature.
Regards...
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>...even whilst they are still awaiting rescue.<<
If I recall correctly, that scene was presented as taking place on the Carpathia. I thought it was a bit lame but then moviemakers just can't completely resist the urge to try and be profound.
Objections to the prayer scene would depend on the context. In the book at least, I recall that it was said that in one of the boats, they invoked The Lord's Prayer. I don't recall where it was shown in the movie.
If I recall correctly, that scene was presented as taking place on the Carpathia. I thought it was a bit lame but then moviemakers just can't completely resist the urge to try and be profound.
Objections to the prayer scene would depend on the context. In the book at least, I recall that it was said that in one of the boats, they invoked The Lord's Prayer. I don't recall where it was shown in the movie.
Will C. White
Member
Michael H. Standart
Member
Guess I'll have to watch it again when I have the chance. I suppose having everybody make their peace on the stern as it goes down makes a bit more sense then the 1500 strong choir singing "Nearer My God To Thee" (Without flubbing a single note!) as shown in the 1953 flick. That one was pure Hollywood in my opinion.
Jim Kalafus
Member
Hi, Martin: I don't object to the scene. Just that line. Before it, you have a long succession of verite images, at least when passengers are shown. And then comes a sudden "Hollywood Moment" with Salt o The Earth Irishman delivering....urrrkkkk....THAT LINE....with a suggestion of a tremble in his voice and a demi-beatific expression. Ruins the flow. I also hate the presense of Absolutely Glowing With Beatific Look Shawl Lady who says "Power and Glory forever..." at the end of the prayer montage. I painstakingly reedited that sequence, so that only Mae Murray Look Alike Praying In German Lady was retained, and it helps immeasurably.
>Why do you object to it so strongly?
Because it could have been done, realistically, to better effect. Had it not been a prayer montage~ had the four passengers given close ups praying been allowed their Big Moments at more generously spaced intervals during that sequence, with non-prayer moments cut between, twould have been less....miasmic....
>Coupled with the 'we'll find mummy, we'll soon find her' line which follows immediately afterward,
THAT, I liked!
Lightoller's monologue. Yes, that was detestable, too.
>This film is universally heralded as the most accurate depiction of the disaster.
Having given this much thought, I think that "evocative" is a better adjective than "accurate" in this case. The film captures, perfectly, the semi-romanticised view of the disaster that made the book upon which it was based beloved. It is obvious that the film makers understood both the book and why people bonded with the book. And they produced a film that although not perfect as history was one of the greatest ever adaptations of a besteller. So one can let the few awkward moments slide.
>I think it is good to remember that these aren't the latest artistic endeavours by Bunuel and Kubrick.
No it isn't. To let your mind go dead to stupidities like "Chained to a pipe" "Molly Brown has JUST THE TUX, Jack" "The lightbulbs are burning under water" "Why is there an echo?" "Lovejoy~ just for existing" "Cal's Big Gun Stops Working Effectively When He Points It At Jack" is NOT acceptable if you are over 12 years old and can process visual information at anything beyond a "Pretty.. pretty pictures..." level. The man who MADE the film is not an idiot, but the fact that he assumed the greater part of his viewing audience IS idiotic is sad and insulting. Especially when one takes the time to re-read the pre-release PR, with its emphasis on both acccuracy and quality.
>Why do you object to it so strongly?
Because it could have been done, realistically, to better effect. Had it not been a prayer montage~ had the four passengers given close ups praying been allowed their Big Moments at more generously spaced intervals during that sequence, with non-prayer moments cut between, twould have been less....miasmic....
>Coupled with the 'we'll find mummy, we'll soon find her' line which follows immediately afterward,
THAT, I liked!
Lightoller's monologue. Yes, that was detestable, too.
>This film is universally heralded as the most accurate depiction of the disaster.
Having given this much thought, I think that "evocative" is a better adjective than "accurate" in this case. The film captures, perfectly, the semi-romanticised view of the disaster that made the book upon which it was based beloved. It is obvious that the film makers understood both the book and why people bonded with the book. And they produced a film that although not perfect as history was one of the greatest ever adaptations of a besteller. So one can let the few awkward moments slide.
>I think it is good to remember that these aren't the latest artistic endeavours by Bunuel and Kubrick.
No it isn't. To let your mind go dead to stupidities like "Chained to a pipe" "Molly Brown has JUST THE TUX, Jack" "The lightbulbs are burning under water" "Why is there an echo?" "Lovejoy~ just for existing" "Cal's Big Gun Stops Working Effectively When He Points It At Jack" is NOT acceptable if you are over 12 years old and can process visual information at anything beyond a "Pretty.. pretty pictures..." level. The man who MADE the film is not an idiot, but the fact that he assumed the greater part of his viewing audience IS idiotic is sad and insulting. Especially when one takes the time to re-read the pre-release PR, with its emphasis on both acccuracy and quality.
Martin Williams
Member
Hi Jim
Thanks for the above. I absolutely agree that 'evocative' is a MUCH better term to employ than 'accurate' when attempting to quantify the success or otherwise of 'A Night to Remember'.
I'm also glad to know that you don't detest the WHOLE prayer sequence. And yet...
'I also hate the presence of Absolutely Glowing With Beatific Look Shawl Lady who says "Power and Glory forever..." at the end of the montage.'
Owwwwww - but I love THAT bit too! Whenever I'm in church, that lady always pops into my head when we get to the 'power and glory' bit. Then again, it is surprising how adaptable certain lines from 'A Night to Remember' are for all kinds of everyday situations. My current favourite, for use whilst glowering at somebody sparking up in an ill-ventilated place, is:
'That man over there! He's smoking a cigarette! I think its disgraceful that anybody would smoke at a time like this!'
Thanks for the above. I absolutely agree that 'evocative' is a MUCH better term to employ than 'accurate' when attempting to quantify the success or otherwise of 'A Night to Remember'.
I'm also glad to know that you don't detest the WHOLE prayer sequence. And yet...
'I also hate the presence of Absolutely Glowing With Beatific Look Shawl Lady who says "Power and Glory forever..." at the end of the montage.'
Owwwwww - but I love THAT bit too! Whenever I'm in church, that lady always pops into my head when we get to the 'power and glory' bit. Then again, it is surprising how adaptable certain lines from 'A Night to Remember' are for all kinds of everyday situations. My current favourite, for use whilst glowering at somebody sparking up in an ill-ventilated place, is:
'That man over there! He's smoking a cigarette! I think its disgraceful that anybody would smoke at a time like this!'
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
I think a point that has been lost in the “Lord’s Prayer” debate is that the prayer sequence seems to have been introduced as an artistic contrivance whereby the survivors aboard the lifeboats are momentarily united with those who are about to die.
It seems to me that A Night to Remember is, in effect, a “feel-good British war movie”, albeit one set in 1912 — by which I mean it shows a lot of plucky chaps and “chapesses” facing unimaginable adversity but nevertheless “pulling through” at the end. To fit into this genre, it concentrates primarily on the rescue — the nocturnal dash of the Carpathia through the ice field having something of the flavour of an adventure story with a happy ending. However, the film-makers faced a problem in contrasting all of this with the fate of the 1,500 who did not survive. At the same time, with memories of the Battle of the Atlantic still fresh in many minds, they did not want to glamorise the loss of a fine ship — unlike Cameron’s effort which seems almost to revel in scenes of large-scale death and destruction (would Cameron's Titanic have been toned down if it had been released post-9/11?)
Anyway, reverting to A Night to Remember, the recital of the Lord’s Prayer seems to work on two levels: 1) It adds a note of reverence to the loss of the ship and those aboard her and 2) It unites the living and the soon-to-be-dead of all Christian faiths and creeds. To that end, Protestants, Catholics and those belonging to the Eastern Churches are seen praying in unison, their usual enmity towards each other being forgotten. I find it quite moving, and so did most film-goers and critics. As I say, compare the Lords’s Prayer scene to Cameron’s unsubtle “shoot ‘em blow ‘em up” treatment of the last moments of the Titanic.
It seems to me that A Night to Remember is, in effect, a “feel-good British war movie”, albeit one set in 1912 — by which I mean it shows a lot of plucky chaps and “chapesses” facing unimaginable adversity but nevertheless “pulling through” at the end. To fit into this genre, it concentrates primarily on the rescue — the nocturnal dash of the Carpathia through the ice field having something of the flavour of an adventure story with a happy ending. However, the film-makers faced a problem in contrasting all of this with the fate of the 1,500 who did not survive. At the same time, with memories of the Battle of the Atlantic still fresh in many minds, they did not want to glamorise the loss of a fine ship — unlike Cameron’s effort which seems almost to revel in scenes of large-scale death and destruction (would Cameron's Titanic have been toned down if it had been released post-9/11?)
Anyway, reverting to A Night to Remember, the recital of the Lord’s Prayer seems to work on two levels: 1) It adds a note of reverence to the loss of the ship and those aboard her and 2) It unites the living and the soon-to-be-dead of all Christian faiths and creeds. To that end, Protestants, Catholics and those belonging to the Eastern Churches are seen praying in unison, their usual enmity towards each other being forgotten. I find it quite moving, and so did most film-goers and critics. As I say, compare the Lords’s Prayer scene to Cameron’s unsubtle “shoot ‘em blow ‘em up” treatment of the last moments of the Titanic.
Martin Williams
Member
To the best of my recollection, the only time we see the survivors praying is during the service of remembrance and thanksgiving conducted aboard the 'Carpathia' at the very end of the film - not in the lifeboats.
I really like your point, Stanley, about the variety of faiths and nationalities represented in the prayer montage in 'A Night To Remember' - you've actually picked up on something that has been floating around at the back of my own mind for ages. It is surprising and pleasing to see such an emphasis on diversity in a film made fifty years ago. Granted, we are presented with a variety of CHRISTIANS praying, and a number of Jews were lost too, some of them very prominent - but the number of languages and accents we hear in this short sequence is very effective in bringing home the way in which the tragedy cut across all boundaries of class, creed and country. The same cannot be said for 'Titanic' where it seems that, apart from Jack 'n' Rose, the only people gathered on the poop deck at 2.15AM were Irish Catholics of the rosy-cheeked and beshawled kind.
Jim might contest this but the elderly steward's simple 'Oh, God!' delivered straight after (or just before?) the love it-loathe it 'power and the glory' line in 'A Night to Remember' speaks to me less of the romantic and beatific and more of the abject terror that most, if not all, of those who died must have felt in the moments before the final plunge.
I really like your point, Stanley, about the variety of faiths and nationalities represented in the prayer montage in 'A Night To Remember' - you've actually picked up on something that has been floating around at the back of my own mind for ages. It is surprising and pleasing to see such an emphasis on diversity in a film made fifty years ago. Granted, we are presented with a variety of CHRISTIANS praying, and a number of Jews were lost too, some of them very prominent - but the number of languages and accents we hear in this short sequence is very effective in bringing home the way in which the tragedy cut across all boundaries of class, creed and country. The same cannot be said for 'Titanic' where it seems that, apart from Jack 'n' Rose, the only people gathered on the poop deck at 2.15AM were Irish Catholics of the rosy-cheeked and beshawled kind.
Jim might contest this but the elderly steward's simple 'Oh, God!' delivered straight after (or just before?) the love it-loathe it 'power and the glory' line in 'A Night to Remember' speaks to me less of the romantic and beatific and more of the abject terror that most, if not all, of those who died must have felt in the moments before the final plunge.
Jim Kalafus
Member
Hi Stanley. I did not miss the purpose of the scene. I object to it on strictly an artistic level.
The film maker, for the most part, avoided cloying Hollywood moments and turned a series of situations that fairly shrieked "Over emote, we have to leave 'em crying!" into something quite moving. In the final sequences, we are show scenes shot in a very tight, claustophobic, impersonal way, of people struggling to stand up, falling over, stamping on one another's hands....then, suddenly, the POV opens up; everyone is standing UPRIGHT and calm, and Salt o The Earth Irishman utters that B Movie Big Moment line. Then the camera sweeps across a bunch of photogenically poingant Christians preparing to meet God and positively glowing- when seconds before the film maker had them stamping on one another's hands. Then a cut, a cut back, and everyone is screaming and falling over again.
Had the film maker gone "all out Hollywood," as in the 1953 Titanic, the sequence would not only have been in context, it would have been expected. But, presented as it is, in the context in which it has been placed, the scene is merely stupid. Up until then, in nearly two hours of running time, the film maker has not ONCE inserted something requiring willing-suspension-of-disbelief. Then there is this MASSIVE violation-in-tone. It is as if the Diva performing la Habanera suddenly introduced a 1940s-flavored scat sequence to her interpretation~ any number of adjectives could be applied to her choice, but "effective" and "intelligent" would not be among them.
I object because it could, just as easily, been handled efectively.
>As I say, compare the Lords’s Prayer scene to Cameron’s unsubtle “shoot ‘em blow ‘em up” treatment of the last moments of the Titanic.
Equally distancing, but for widely differing reasons. In either case, disliking one does not in some way validate the other. Both are equally unsubtle, but the prayer moment is just a small glitch in an otherwise well presented sequence.
ANTR is a mostly intelligent film with a few glaringly stupid moments. Titanic is a LONG string of stupidities with a few- VERY few- intelligent and effective moments worked in.
The film maker, for the most part, avoided cloying Hollywood moments and turned a series of situations that fairly shrieked "Over emote, we have to leave 'em crying!" into something quite moving. In the final sequences, we are show scenes shot in a very tight, claustophobic, impersonal way, of people struggling to stand up, falling over, stamping on one another's hands....then, suddenly, the POV opens up; everyone is standing UPRIGHT and calm, and Salt o The Earth Irishman utters that B Movie Big Moment line. Then the camera sweeps across a bunch of photogenically poingant Christians preparing to meet God and positively glowing- when seconds before the film maker had them stamping on one another's hands. Then a cut, a cut back, and everyone is screaming and falling over again.
Had the film maker gone "all out Hollywood," as in the 1953 Titanic, the sequence would not only have been in context, it would have been expected. But, presented as it is, in the context in which it has been placed, the scene is merely stupid. Up until then, in nearly two hours of running time, the film maker has not ONCE inserted something requiring willing-suspension-of-disbelief. Then there is this MASSIVE violation-in-tone. It is as if the Diva performing la Habanera suddenly introduced a 1940s-flavored scat sequence to her interpretation~ any number of adjectives could be applied to her choice, but "effective" and "intelligent" would not be among them.
I object because it could, just as easily, been handled efectively.
>As I say, compare the Lords’s Prayer scene to Cameron’s unsubtle “shoot ‘em blow ‘em up” treatment of the last moments of the Titanic.
Equally distancing, but for widely differing reasons. In either case, disliking one does not in some way validate the other. Both are equally unsubtle, but the prayer moment is just a small glitch in an otherwise well presented sequence.
ANTR is a mostly intelligent film with a few glaringly stupid moments. Titanic is a LONG string of stupidities with a few- VERY few- intelligent and effective moments worked in.
Jim Kalafus
Member
Jim might contest this but the elderly steward's simple 'Oh, God!'
No, I edited the scene so that only Praying German Woman and he are retained.
I often re-edit films in my collection. My personal copy of ANTR is missing any reference to Mollie Brown; Lightoller's speech at the end; the party in steerage; the annoying comic drunk, and the prayer sequence.
Just as an aside...a while back we redubbed a few sequences in The Sound of Music to, what we felt, was the benefit of the composition. Remember the "Baroness Confront Maria" Sequence? We felt it needed something....and so, after The Baroness says "Maria....we have to talk" while shutting the bedroom door, we cut the rest of the scene and jumped back to the ballroom. We took a line of dialogue from Eleanor "The Baroness' Parker's last film, Dead On the Money (1992) in which she ejactulted "Conniving b!~~~!" and dubbed it, with echo and reverb, into the background "beneath" the dialogue in the ballroom. At intervals during the rest of that scene we dubbed the faint sound of punches being thrown, glass shattering and furniture being overturned,a whip snapping..etc. So, when the Baroness returns with an "All Taken Care Of" facial expression at the end, there is a wonderful new subtext added. Also, from Dead on the Money, we lifted a line of dialogue of Miss Parker saying "She's a little wh~~~!" and dubbed it over Christopher Plummer's glowing closeup as the Baroness gives him his fredom and says "..and somewhere out there is a girl who I think will never be a nun." Making the line in OUR cut "...and somewhere out there is a girl who, I think, will never be a nun...SHE'S A LITTLE wh~~~!" as Christopher Plummer's face warms to beatific bliss. With those two changes, the film sprang to life...
....but, I digress. Editing those few moments out of ANTR makes it, IMHO, 100% watchable. I cannot imagine what a re-cut Cameron's Titanic would look like, but I suspect that it would be a 20 minute "short" by the title of Old Rose, by the time I finished with it.
No, I edited the scene so that only Praying German Woman and he are retained.
I often re-edit films in my collection. My personal copy of ANTR is missing any reference to Mollie Brown; Lightoller's speech at the end; the party in steerage; the annoying comic drunk, and the prayer sequence.
Just as an aside...a while back we redubbed a few sequences in The Sound of Music to, what we felt, was the benefit of the composition. Remember the "Baroness Confront Maria" Sequence? We felt it needed something....and so, after The Baroness says "Maria....we have to talk" while shutting the bedroom door, we cut the rest of the scene and jumped back to the ballroom. We took a line of dialogue from Eleanor "The Baroness' Parker's last film, Dead On the Money (1992) in which she ejactulted "Conniving b!~~~!" and dubbed it, with echo and reverb, into the background "beneath" the dialogue in the ballroom. At intervals during the rest of that scene we dubbed the faint sound of punches being thrown, glass shattering and furniture being overturned,a whip snapping..etc. So, when the Baroness returns with an "All Taken Care Of" facial expression at the end, there is a wonderful new subtext added. Also, from Dead on the Money, we lifted a line of dialogue of Miss Parker saying "She's a little wh~~~!" and dubbed it over Christopher Plummer's glowing closeup as the Baroness gives him his fredom and says "..and somewhere out there is a girl who I think will never be a nun." Making the line in OUR cut "...and somewhere out there is a girl who, I think, will never be a nun...SHE'S A LITTLE wh~~~!" as Christopher Plummer's face warms to beatific bliss. With those two changes, the film sprang to life...
....but, I digress. Editing those few moments out of ANTR makes it, IMHO, 100% watchable. I cannot imagine what a re-cut Cameron's Titanic would look like, but I suspect that it would be a 20 minute "short" by the title of Old Rose, by the time I finished with it.
Similar threads
