The Insatiables

  • Archive
  • RSS
  • Let's talk film...
Purple Noon-  René Clément
*Editor’s note: GPOY in 12 days…
Pop-upView Separately

Purple Noon-  René Clément

*Editor’s note: GPOY in 12 days…

    • #René Clément
    • #Film
    • #Alain Delon
    • #Favorites
    • #Purple Noon
    • #GPOY
  • 4 days ago
  • 3
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Today, in beautiful movie posters…
Follow Me Design’s Stanley Kubrick Tribute
Pop-upView Separately

Today, in beautiful movie posters…

Follow Me Design’s Stanley Kubrick Tribute

    • #Favorites
    • #Film
    • #Posters
    • #Stanley Kubrick
    • #Why so beautiful?
    • #Full Metal Jacket
    • #Eyes Wide Shut
    • #Barry Lyndon
    • #Lolita
    • #A Clockwork Orange
    • #The Shining
    • #2001 A Space Odyssey
  • 4 days ago
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet

Trailer time…

The Master- P.T. Anderson

via: youmightfindyourself

*Editor’s note: How is it possible that this trailer is better than just about everything I’ve seen this year?

Source: youmightfindyourself

    • #Film
    • #The Master
    • #P.T. Anderson
    • #Favorites
    • #Trailer time
    • #Truth
  • 1 week ago > youmightfindyourself
  • 36
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Mon Dieu…
Charlotte Gainsbourg
Pop-upView Separately

Mon Dieu…

Charlotte Gainsbourg

(via nickelcobalt)

Source: wordsforyoungmen

    • #Film
    • #Mon Dieu
    • #Charlotte Gainsbourg
    • #Favorites
  • 1 week ago > wordsforyoungmen
  • 90
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Yes, Amour is as unrelenting and unflinching as you might expect from the provocateur, but there is tenderness within that marks a bit of a new direction for the helmer. Our introduction to Georges and Anne, finds them during happier times. The couple attend a concert performance by one of Anne’s former students Alexandre, with Haneke having a bit of fun early on with a great lingering shot that sees the viewer watching the audience, watching the pianist as he starts into his first number of the evening. We watch the pair at home and it becomes clear how deeply connected and familiar the duo are with each other. This has been a long, loving relationship.  But of course, that happiness doesn’t last…
Yes, there is an ending here that will once again have people talking, but it’s not a stunt so much as a logical extension of the extreme emotional turmoil both Georges and Anne have been through… Amour is nevertheless the work of a filmmaker who isn’t afraid to ask the big questions about human nature, and coming out of Amour it seems the director has hope for us yet.
via: The Playlist
Pop-upView Separately

Yes, Amour is as unrelenting and unflinching as you might expect from the provocateur, but there is tenderness within that marks a bit of a new direction for the helmer. Our introduction to Georges and Anne, finds them during happier times. The couple attend a concert performance by one of Anne’s former students Alexandre, with Haneke having a bit of fun early on with a great lingering shot that sees the viewer watching the audience, watching the pianist as he starts into his first number of the evening. We watch the pair at home and it becomes clear how deeply connected and familiar the duo are with each other. This has been a long, loving relationship.  But of course, that happiness doesn’t last…

Yes, there is an ending here that will once again have people talking, but it’s not a stunt so much as a logical extension of the extreme emotional turmoil both Georges and Anne have been through… Amour is nevertheless the work of a filmmaker who isn’t afraid to ask the big questions about human nature, and coming out of Amour it seems the director has hope for us yet.

via: The Playlist

    • #Film
    • #Amour
    • #Michael Haneke
    • #Directors
    • #Favorites
    • #Cannot wait
  • 1 week ago
  • 7
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet

Golden Palm Winners (2003-2011) :

Elephant (Gus Van Sant, 2003)

Farenheit/911 (Michael Moore, 2004)

The Child (Luc & Jean-Pierre Dardenne, 2005)

The Wind That Shakes The Barley (Ken Loach, 2006)

4 months, 3 Weeks And 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, 2007)

The Class (Laurent Cantet, 2008)

White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

Uncle Boonmee (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2010)

The Tree Of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

via: lepoinconneurdeslilas

Source: lepoinconneurdeslilas

    • #Film
    • #The White Ribbon
    • #Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
    • #The Tree of Life
    • #The Class
    • #The Wind that Shakes the Barley
    • #The Child
    • #Farenheit/911
    • #Elephant
    • #Gus Van Sant
    • #Michael Moore
    • #The Dardenne Brothers
    • #Ken Loach
    • #Cristian Mungiu
    • #Laurent Cantet
    • #Michael Haneke
    • #Favorites
    • #Cannes Film Festival
    • #Apichatpong Weerasethakul
    • #Terrence Malick
  • 1 week ago > lepoinconneurdeslilas
  • 20
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Mon dieu…
Marion Cotillard being stunning at Cannes
Pop-upView Separately

Mon dieu…

Marion Cotillard being stunning at Cannes

    • #Favorites
    • #Film
    • #Marion Cotillard
    • #Why so beautiful?
    • #Mon dieu
  • 1 week ago
  • 8
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet

Six Days


Director: Kar-Wai Wong

Director of Photography: Christopher Doyle

via: visionsoflight

*Editor’s note: Oh, wow…What is this beautiful fever dream??

(via auteurasaurus)

Source: visionsoflight

    • #Film
    • #6 Days
    • #Wong Kar-wai
    • #Favorites
    • #Christopher Doyle
  • 1 week ago > visionsoflight
  • 10
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet

Serious questions:

Has Bill Murray just stopped giving a fuck? If so, he’s now my hero.

    • #Film
    • #Bill Murray
    • #Cannes Film Festival
    • #Favorites
    • #Truth?
  • 2 weeks ago
  • 2
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
The Double Life of Veronique- Krzysztof Kieslowski
via: lepoinconneurdeslilas
Pop-upView Separately

The Double Life of Veronique- Krzysztof Kieslowski

via: lepoinconneurdeslilas

Source: lepoinconneurdeslilas

    • #The Double Life of Veronique
    • #Krzysztof Kieslowski
    • #Film
    • #Favorites
    • #Why so beautiful?
    • #Irène Jacob
  • 2 weeks ago > lepoinconneurdeslilas
  • 29
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet



More Than Just a Pretty Picture: Revisiting Terrence Malick’s The New World
In The Thin Red Line, first blood is drawn on a cloudy afternoon when, without warning, a Japanese sniper picks off two American soldiers as they ascend a ridge. Before the shock can pass, sunlight emerges, illuminating the hillside grass into which the fallen bodies have vanished. Right here is the essence of Malick’s existential outlook: the utter inconsequence of our short lives compared to the ancient landscape we inhabit and aim to conquer. We all know that a holocaust follows the events of The New World, and Malick doesn’t spell it out for us. His vision does not distinguish between the wars humans wage against each other and the barbarism our technologies inflict on our ecosystem. The achievement of The New World is not to evoke a paradise lost, but to conjure the terrible beauty of the one we remain intent on destroying.
Pop-upView Separately

More Than Just a Pretty Picture: Revisiting Terrence Malick’s The New World

In The Thin Red Line, first blood is drawn on a cloudy afternoon when, without warning, a Japanese sniper picks off two American soldiers as they ascend a ridge. Before the shock can pass, sunlight emerges, illuminating the hillside grass into which the fallen bodies have vanished. Right here is the essence of Malick’s existential outlook: the utter inconsequence of our short lives compared to the ancient landscape we inhabit and aim to conquer. We all know that a holocaust follows the events of The New World, and Malick doesn’t spell it out for us. His vision does not distinguish between the wars humans wage against each other and the barbarism our technologies inflict on our ecosystem. The achievement of The New World is not to evoke a paradise lost, but to conjure the terrible beauty of the one we remain intent on destroying.

    • #Terrence Malick
    • #Film
    • #The New World
    • #Favorites
    • #Why so beautiful?
    • #Truth
    • #Colin Farell
  • 2 weeks ago
  • 5
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Well, here’s an excellent chance to talk about a movie that gets better every time I see it: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. The film was originally written off somewhat upon its release, for a number of boring reasons—the miscasting of Jack Nicholson as an everyday guy being driven insane, its apparent unfaithfulness to Stephen King’s source novel, and so on. But I’ll gladly give up a subplot about a faulty boiler—really? Who cares?—for what Kubrick offers. The Shining is one of the most wildly amorphous American films I can think of, one which draws much of its terror from the nagging questions and bogus “continuity errors” that Kubrick nestles into his mise-en-scene. Why do doorknobs appear to switch sides? Why do stickers disappear from Danny’s door? What’s with the ghosts? Or the guy in the dog costume giving a man in a tuxedo a blowjob? And the photo of Nicholson’s character at the end of the film, which suggests that he’s “always” been at the Overlook Hotel?
Fans have pored over these questions, and many others, since the film’s release. And all the heady theorizing has itself been profiled in the recent doc Room 237, in which obsessives suggest that the film is Kubrick’s roundabout Holocaust allegory, or that he’s using it to confess that he faked the Apollo 11 moon landing. While I find this stuff interesting, I’m more interested in how this sort of Shining fandom speaks to the film itself. All these unanswered questions only illustrate how wonderfully spongy and open-ended The Shining is, mysteries creeping around the film’s edges like ghosts. He leaves a lot of threads dangling, but in doing so, Kubrick created what may be the greatest testament to his gargantuan talent—he transmuted the work of a pulpy American author into something evoking the enigmatic splendor of Alain Resnais.
via: John Semley
Pop-upView Separately

Well, here’s an excellent chance to talk about a movie that gets better every time I see it: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. The film was originally written off somewhat upon its release, for a number of boring reasons—the miscasting of Jack Nicholson as an everyday guy being driven insane, its apparent unfaithfulness to Stephen King’s source novel, and so on. But I’ll gladly give up a subplot about a faulty boiler—really? Who cares?—for what Kubrick offers. The Shining is one of the most wildly amorphous American films I can think of, one which draws much of its terror from the nagging questions and bogus “continuity errors” that Kubrick nestles into his mise-en-scene. Why do doorknobs appear to switch sides? Why do stickers disappear from Danny’s door? What’s with the ghosts? Or the guy in the dog costume giving a man in a tuxedo a blowjob? And the photo of Nicholson’s character at the end of the film, which suggests that he’s “always” been at the Overlook Hotel?

Fans have pored over these questions, and many others, since the film’s release. And all the heady theorizing has itself been profiled in the recent doc Room 237, in which obsessives suggest that the film is Kubrick’s roundabout Holocaust allegory, or that he’s using it to confess that he faked the Apollo 11 moon landing. While I find this stuff interesting, I’m more interested in how this sort of Shining fandom speaks to the film itself. All these unanswered questions only illustrate how wonderfully spongy and open-ended The Shining is, mysteries creeping around the film’s edges like ghosts. He leaves a lot of threads dangling, but in doing so, Kubrick created what may be the greatest testament to his gargantuan talent—he transmuted the work of a pulpy American author into something evoking the enigmatic splendor of Alain Resnais.

via: John Semley

    • #Film
    • #Stanley Kubrick
    • #The Shining
    • #Truth
    • #Favorites
    • #Jack Nicholson
  • 2 weeks ago
  • 11
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
The one thing that’s helped me to survive is that I’m not bitter.
Orson Welles
    • #Film
    • #Directors
    • #Orson Welles
    • #Favorites
    • #Truth
    • #Quotes
  • 2 weeks ago
  • 1
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Au Revoir, Les Enfants- Louis Malle
caramelsandkerosene
Pop-upView Separately

Au Revoir, Les Enfants- Louis Malle

caramelsandkerosene

Source: caramelsandkerosene

    • #Louis Malle
    • #Film
    • #Au Revoir Les Enfants
    • #Favorites
  • 3 weeks ago > caramelsandkerosene
  • 3
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet

Desperately seeking Sendak

Dave Eggers: So here we are. It’s always awkward doing this kind of thing together. If we wrote this the way we wrote the script, fighting over every word, it would probably take a year.

Spike Jonze: We should just have a conversation. Then we can fight over every word when we edit it.

DE: But let’s be really eloquent. We can talk, and then after we transcribe the talk, we can make ourselves seem articulate.

SJ: Yes, we shall do that. It brings to mind something the bard once said: “Tis excellent to be spontaneous, tho better to be brilliant.”

DE: He didn’t say that.

SJ: He did. In one of his lesser-known plays, The Sisters of Hannah.

DE: So let’s talk about Maurice Sendak, about the first time we saw him together. It was in the winter of 2003, I think. You and Maurice had known each other for a long time.

SJ: I had known him for about 10 years before we started making the Where the Wild Things Are movie. I had gone to his house in Connecticut many times, because initially we were talking about doing a movie based on Harold and the Purple Crayon, which was another book I loved as a kid. He was the trustee to the estate of its author, and so I needed his approval to do that movie. That movie never happened, but Maurice and I became friends. And, somewhere along the line, he and I started talking about a Wild Things movie.

DE: When you and I finally went up to Connecticut to see him, we were bringing in our general idea of how to do the movie. You and I had only been working on it for a few months, but I hadn’t met him, and we wanted to give him a general idea. It was a very cold day in December, and we drove up from New York. I remember being really nervous. I had idolised the man since I was about four or five. He was one of the first authors whose name I knew.

SJ: That was a good sign for the whole process, the fact that you knew his work so well. So I wanted you two to meet, and I wanted you to get a feel for him, and feel the support from him that I felt. I knew you guys would hit it off.

DE: I guess he already had a sense that you were not going to do a typical adaptation.

SJ: I’d spent the previous six months forming the ideas I wanted the movie to be about, taking notes and thinking about who I wanted to write it with, finding you and getting you on board with it. So I had all the basic elements together. But before we actually wrote it, I wanted to present our ideas to Maurice. Do you remember your first impressions of meeting him?

DE: I was struck by how strong he was. He must have been 76 when we met him, but he was razor-sharp and very funny. He’s a hilarious guy, incredibly vibrant. We walked in, and he showed us some of his Disney collection.

SJ: He has these insanely rare Mickey Mouse figurines from the 30s – before they corrupted him, as Maurice says.

DE: The rest of the house was very much like a regular person’s house, wouldn’t you say? I guess I’m always surprised when artists like Maurice have normal houses.

SJ: Yeah, I would say that. It’s a very … what’s that style of architecture? It’s like a New England style. Very conservative. Is it a farmhouse?

DE: It looks a little bit like a farmhouse, in a sort of woodsy area. I think it was during that first meeting that he told us about that shed in the backyard. It’s sort of like a stable, and kind of falling apart. I guess one of his neighbours complained about it being an eyesore. Maurice lives in one of those neighbourhoods that used to be all country houses, where people kept horses and were actual farmers. And now it’s all yuppies who are making this suburb tidy and just so.

SJ: Yeah, they’ve built all these giant, 10,000 sq ft mansions that Maurice is violently opposed to.

DE: One of the neighbours complained about this “eyesore” farmhouse … And said he’d personally help remove it, if Maurice so desired, thinking he was being a big guy to help the old man get rid of the eyesore. And Maurice told him if he ever mentioned it again, he’d turn that stable into a whorehouse.

SJ: That was the last time that neighbour talked to him.

DE: That was when I was sure we would be kindred spirits. It was pretty obvious that we all had kind of the same impatience for that kind of just-so mentality, the sort of person who scrubs clean anything distinct in art or nature or a neighbourhood. So it was pretty obvious that he’d be OK with us making something distinct from the book.

SJ: He had just seen a pretty unfortunate adaptation of a friend’s book.

DE: Yeah, it was similar to Where the Wild Things Are, in that it was another classic book that was very original when it came out, and it had been adapted in a very large, Hollywood way. Maurice was very candid about it. He said it was grotesque.

SJ: ”Soulless.”

DE: Right, “soulless”. I think that was the operative word he kept using. What was interesting to me was how candid he was. Sitting around his dining room table, it was immediately clear that here is a very opinionated guy that would support us if we stayed true to the ideas we were talking about, and would only be a thorn in our side if we went a safe route. Did you already know he was like that?

SJ: I’d known it, because he’d been as blunt as possible on the phone. But to actually go to him with ideas that deviated from the book, and then have him say he respected that, is another thing.

DE: So there we were, sitting at that dining room table, giving him the basic gist of what we had in mind. Did we already know that we weren’t going to have Max’s room actually change, like it does in the book, and instead have Max run away from home, and get on an actual boat to sail to the island?

SJ: Yeah. That was actually the only thing that Maurice and I ever disagreed about in the process of making the movie.

DE: It’s funny that he was the first of many people who objected to the room not changing into the jungle.

SJ: But even in that first meeting – when we were a little heated about it – he’d always go back to, “Well, it’s your movie, you have to make what you believe in.”

DE: He definitely wasn’t shy about letting us know the things he really didn’t like. He can be an intimidating guy. He’s incredibly smart and astoundingly eloquent, but he really understood this being your movie. But he fought us on that bedroom part. I think at some point, it might have been then or later, he even proposed a compromise on that bedroom scene, where the room would still change, but that Max would climb out the window on a vine.

SJ: Yeah! He did suggest that.

DE: But it seemed like the idea of the movie being real and really dangerous would require Max to actually be in a forest and on a real boat. Because if he just goes to his room, we know everything that follows just takes place in his imagination. And then there’s not as much at stake for the next hour of the movie. We really wanted it to seem like a small boy actually sailed across the ocean and, when he was on the island, that he was truly in danger of being devoured. That there was real fire, and real dirt, and real snow.

SJ: Maurice was struggling because – as much as he said, “I want you to make it yours” – he had lived with the book as his creation for 40 years.

DE: But I think that at that meeting it was really clear that we were going to take Maurice at his word. He realised the movie was going to be a combination of his childhood and your childhood, and maybe a bit of mine, too. So a lot of the themes were going to be brand new.

SJ: He based the book on themes and feelings from his life. I was picking up the baton. He and I would talk about what the book had meant to me as a kid, or had made me feel like. I would say, “You and I had very different childhoods. There were times when I might have been more sensitive to something than he would have been as a kid.” But we didn’t want to make Max a … a …

DE: A wuss like you were, yeah. (Laughter.) Most kids in modern movies are de-fanged. They have no wildness. What you and I and Maurice all figured out pretty quickly was that we all remembered what it was like to be an actual boy. We didn’t pretend that boys wore three-piece suits to school, sat with perfect posture, said please and thank you all the time. We wanted to make sure that Max acts like a real boy – breaking things and throwing tantrums, the kind of kid who would play with swords and slingshots. When I was a kid, I was pretty wild and got in trouble like Max. And you had, and Maurice had been that way, too. We also established the movies we thought had represented childhood accurately in the past. We talked about The Black Stallion, My Life As a Dog, a couple of other movies …

SJ: The 400 Blows.

DE: Movies that didn’t look down at a kid, but got inside him. And actually there are so few. It was kind of exhilarating, in a way, knowing how wide-open that playing field was.

SJ: Were you worried going into it?

DE: Meeting Maurice was an earthquake in my life. Meeting a guy around 80 who’s still so full of fire – and if anything, had grown more authentic as he got older. We had yet to write anything for him to critique, so that gives you this great fear, like, “Holy crap, what’s he going to think when we write this?” Because here’s a guy who won’t sugarcoat what he says.

SJ: He never did, for the next four years.

DE: When we left that day, there were big hugs and even kisses on the way out. He’s very affectionate. I remember being struck by how full of love he was.

SJ: I think he was also really excited that you were coming on. He’d read your first book and loved it. It was another sign that the movie wasn’t going in the typical direction of Hollywood development, where you’re bringing on the “ace” screenwriter of the last big children’s movie.

DE: He’s had a lot of those people thrown at him throughout the years. He would always tell these stories where he would do imitations of the people who came to see him and what they said. “Mr Sendak, let me tell you how movies are made …”

SJ: ”Mr Sendak, this is how you make a film for children … ” or “This is what children like, Mr Sendak.” When he does one of his imitations, look out.

DE: Oh man. Driving back to New York, it was snowing. It was like some kind of blizzard, windy and snowy. There were people pulled over everywhere, and we were just driving, recounting every minute of the day.

SJ: I remember being excited. It was like a relief, a weight off our shoulders. Driving home, I just felt like we had a wind at our backs. We went into the unknown, and it was Maurice behind us, pushing us with force in that direction. We had no idea where it was going to take us.

via: The Guardian

    • #Film
    • #Favorites
    • #Maurice Sendak
    • #Spike Jonze
    • #Dave Eggers
    • #Where the Wild Things Are
  • 3 weeks ago
  • 1
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
← Newer • Older →
Page 1 of 29

About

"I was one of the insatiables. The ones you'd always find sitting closest to the screen. Why do we sit so close? Maybe it was because we wanted to receive the images first. When they were still new, still fresh."
  • RSS
  • Random
  • Archive
  • Let's talk film...
  • Mobile

Effector Theme by Carlo Franco.

Powered by Tumblr