The Top 5 List Thread

[EspaDa]

Have you seen Se7en? Might be up your alley, serial killer stuff with some heavy hitting actors.

Yeah, I've seen it once. Great one! Have to see it one more time, thanks for reminding me of it!

 

[Carpe Mortem]

I haven't seen Black Hawk Down yet and I've heard over and over that it's fantastic. Maybe I'll remedy that today.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Someone please recommend me some movies. My favs are:

- Fight Club
- American History X
- The Silence of the Lambs
- Black Hawk Down
- The Shawshank Redemption
- Leon
- Man on a Ledge
- Altered States

I'm an utter noob when it comes to movies, so please be understanding .

a bunch of classics that are easy to watch/like:
pulp fiction
the usual suspects
terminator (1&2)
alien (and aliens)
the thing
predator
die hard
raiders of the lost ark
jaws
the shining
robocop
the good the bad and the ugly
taxi driver
apocalypse now

the last two or three are probably a bit more challenging than the others.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

the last two or three are probably a bit more challenging than the others.

Great list, but there's nothing "challenging" about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly .... and its probably the most straightforward out of the Dollars trilogy.

Apocalypse Now is the best movie on that list.

 

[no country for old wainds]

eh probably. it's more sparse with more silences than you typically get in hollywood but i guess it's not really 'challenging', just super stylised. i did recommend it 'cause it's the most accessible of the trilogy - i like ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST even more myself.

i agree re: APOCALYPSE NOW also.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Yeah, Once Upon A Time in The West is the greatest western of all time imo. I dont think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly can even hold a candle to it.

 

[CiG]

And Scott is borrowing source material from P.K. Dick, who stated that Deckard isn't an android. Why isn't Dick's comment the more authoritative in this case? When you start appealing to authorial intention, you run into a lot of snags (related: the intentional fallacy).

Dick's comment is less authoritative because he sold the rights to make his book into a film and by doing so he gave creative controls to the director. Films based on books often veer from the source material in significant ways and that's why you should always judge a film based on its own merits and the intentions of the director.

At least that's how I see it.

To dissect this kind of argument a bit more--Scott's comment that Deckard is a replicant doesn't actually take place within the universe (i.e. narrative) of the film. The film itself, which is the primary source of information for Deckard's ontology, offers no definitive proof of his artificiality; the closest it comes is the clues that Scott tossed into the director's cut.

I consider the director's cut to be a valid piece of narrative which simply builds upon the clues presented in the theatrical version in the character Gaff. If you want to completely discount the director's cut fair enough.

Ultimately, Scott's comment amounts to nothing more than one more interpretation of the text itself. I realize this seems weird, but we cannot derive Deckard's replicant status from the text of the narrative universe, and so we can't call Scott's comment anything more than an interpretation, even if he was the director of the film. Obviously his opinion means something, and it's some curious biographical info; but it's no more authoritative than Dick's, or Harrison Ford's (who felt that Deckard should be human), or anyone else's.

I completely disagree. It was Scott's vision, the rest of the people you mentioned were tools to reach it.

As I already said, I admit that Rachel probably does have feelings for Deckard. I said this in my last post. But this doesn't negate Deckard's original actions--that's my point. It's a political problem, yes. Narratively speaking, there is a way to comprehend why Rachel eventually consents; but this eventual consent shouldn't sanction Deckard's original actions.

I don't think it does sanction his original actions because I do believe it was a scene which depicted something of a forceful nature, the difference for me I suppose is that the thing being forced upon her wasn't his lust, I see something deeper than that myself. I think he was forcing her humanity back inside of her and I'm not intelligent enough to express exactly what I mean on a philosophical level.

Sorry, that doesn't sit well with me at all. You think that if someone forces a woman to say "kiss me" before they take advantage of them, that isn't "what rapists do"?

No. Rapists don't ask is the point.
The fact that he does what he does is a clear indication that there is more to the scene than your interpretation.
Rapists also don't "take advantage of people" and I'm surprised you would even say something like that in relation to rape. People who manipulate other people into sex knowing that they're emotionally vulnerable are moral dirtbags but not rapists.

This is a movie not a real life situation and so everything that happens has some meaning to some degree.
I genuinely do believe that it goes beyond this and I have watched enough women's revenge exploitation films to not feel squirmish about admitting something in a film is rape, but I am also not saying the scene was some ordinary love scene either it is clearly morally ambiguous.

That's too bad, because I respect your view.

Now I feel bad.
I respect your views in general, but actually your view of this scene is a growing consensus on film blogs and reviews so I was more speaking to a narrative larger than us on UM debating it.

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 I also have a question that might help our disagreement in some way:

Do you think this rape scene was intentionally a rape scene on the part of the director or do you think he intended something else but it came out looking like a rape scene? Intentional vs. accidental?

And also, if the replicant status of Deckard isn't valid because Ford considered his character a human and Dick's book made him a human, doesn't it also follow that Deckard isn't a rapist because his sex with Rachel in the book is consensual and I doubt any of the actors viewed Deckard as a rapist?

 

[Einherjar86]

I consider the director's cut to be a valid piece of narrative which simply builds upon the clues presented in the theatrical version in the character Gaff. If you want to completely discount the director's cut fair enough.

I completely disagree. It was Scott's vision, the rest of the people you mentioned were tools to reach it.

It is Scott's vision, yes. But he didn't include definitive proof of Deckard's replicant nature, even in the director's cut (as far as I recall--I watched the "final cut" recently, and it's still ambiguous). If the director doesn't include sufficient narrative detail, then we can't accept it as a given component of the narrative. He can claim that Deckard is a narrative all he wants; but if he really thought so, then why not make it part of the film? Why give us only his comment that Deckard is a replicant? This is an important question. As a filmmaker, he can't expect viewers to accept his interpretation when he gives us nothing definitive in the film.

We have to distinguish between the narrative world of the film and the superfluous musings of the filmmaker. Unfortunately, no matter how much Scott doth protest, his interpretation isn't the definitive interpretation. You can disagree, but there's no logic that dictates his view is the view, even if he made the film. If he wanted his interpretation to be the interpretation, then he should have included enough details in the film to make Deckard's replicant status unquestionable.

I don't think it does sanction his original actions because I do believe it was a scene which depicted something of a forceful nature, the difference for me I suppose is that the thing being forced upon her wasn't his lust, I see something deeper than that myself. I think he was forcing her humanity back inside of her and I'm not intelligent enough to express exactly what I mean on a philosophical level.

That's fine. I think that can be the case, but I think that the film's representation of that circumstance can still be compromised.

No. Rapists don't ask is the point.
The fact that he does what he does is a clear indication that there is more to the scene than your interpretation.

Some rapists do. "Tell me you want it. Tell me you like it." As far as the scene goes, we can't deduce manipulation. All it looks like is blunt coercion with an assaulter demanding that Rachel express her desire. It looks like rape.

This is a movie not a real life situation and so everything that happens has some meaning to some degree.
I genuinely do believe that it goes beyond this and I have watched enough women's revenge exploitation films to not feel squirmish about admitting something in a film is rape, but I am also not saying the scene was some ordinary love scene either it is clearly morally ambiguous.

Yes, morally ambiguous to say the least.

Now I feel bad.
I respect your views in general, but actually your view of this scene is a growing consensus on film blogs and reviews so I was more speaking to a narrative larger than us on UM debating it.

Well, the details just make it difficult to deny, regardless of Rachel's eventual consent.

@Einherjar86Do you think this rape scene was intentionally a rape scene on the part of the director or do you think he intended something else but it came out looking like a rape scene? Intentional vs. accidental?

I honestly have no idea. This is why I mentioned production earlier. I can see it being orchestrated as a rape scene, but I can also see it as a byproduct of Hollywood's propensity for romance scenes that apologize for male aggression (this is a well-documented phenomenon).

And also, if the replicant status of Deckard isn't valid because Ford considered his character a human and Dick's book made him a human, doesn't it also follow that Deckard isn't a rapist because his sex with Rachel in the book is consensual and I doubt any of the actors viewed Deckard as a rapist?

Deckard's replicant status can't be verified by details in the book/film. The dynamics of the scene, however, are demonstrably different.

Tomorrow I'll quote some passages from the novel.

 

[CiG]

It is Scott's vision, yes. But he didn't include definitive proof of Deckard's replicant nature, even in the director's cut (as far as I recall--I watched the "final cut" recently, and it's still ambiguous). If the director doesn't include sufficient narrative detail, then we can't accept it as a given component of the narrative. He can claim that Deckard is a narrative all he wants; but if he really thought so, then why not make it part of the film? Why give us only his comment that Deckard is a replicant? This is an important question. As a filmmaker, he can't expect viewers to accept his interpretation when he gives us nothing definitive in the film.

We have to distinguish between the narrative world of the film and the superfluous musings of the filmmaker. Unfortunately, no matter how much Scott doth protest, his interpretation isn't the definitive interpretation. You can disagree, but there's no logic that dictates his view is the view, even if he made the film. If he wanted his interpretation to be the interpretation, then he should have included enough details in the film to make Deckard's replicant status unquestionable.

Americans and their need for conclusive endings devoid of subtlety.

I personally think allowing for inconclusiveness in that area makes the film much more interesting, but Gaff's origami and their links to what Deckard dreams about is a pretty giant clue to the replicant question over Deckard, no?

I honestly have no idea. This is why I mentioned production earlier. I can see it being orchestrated as a rape scene, but I can also see it as a byproduct of Hollywood's propensity for romance scenes that apologize for male aggression (this is a well-documented phenomenon).

It seems strange to me that either of these explanations would be about a scene that shows no sex whatsoever.
Rape scenes always depict the sexual intercourse as far as the ones I have seen, even if they don't aim the camera on it they will always present the sounds of the rape and I don't think I need to tell you that scenes in which male aggression is apologized for in Hollywood ALWAYS shows the sex itself.

This isn't anything like any of these tropes, this is subtle, emotionally complex, morally ambiguous and utterly devoid of the appeal of the flesh, it focuses on the face the whole time, especially the eyes which are the window into the soul.

Some rapists do. "Tell me you want it. Tell me you like it." As far as the scene goes, we can't deduce manipulation. All it looks like is blunt coercion with an assaulter demanding that Rachel express her desire. It looks like rape.

Yes, devoid of context it does look like rape. I'm trying to convince you of the context though because I don't understand or agree with this sort of contextless interpretation of a film wherein the context in any given scene is paramount.

 

[CiG]

(I said devoid so many times. I am devoid of originality.)

 

[Einherjar86]

Americans and their need for conclusive endings devoid of subtlety.

I personally think allowing for inconclusiveness in that area makes the film much more interesting, but Gaff's origami and their links to what Deckard dreams about is a pretty giant clue to the replicant question over Deckard, no?

Oh, don't misunderstand me! I love the inconclusiveness of the film, and I'm not saying it needs to be conclusive.

In fact, I kind of see your treatment of the film/scene as imposing a conclusiveness onto what is an open-ended narrative. When you said you feel it can't be "interpretation vs interpretation" because of Scott's comment, I see that as choosing a conclusive interpretation. You're rejecting the possibility that Deckard is human simply because Scott insists he's a replicant. Now, I've given my explanation as to why this isn't a compelling reason, but you can absolutely still hold that interpretation (and many do).

I would say is that if my "feminist" reading restricts my own view, then your "intentional" reading (i.e. toward Scott's authority) also restricts yours.

It seems strange to me that either of these explanations would be about a scene that shows no sex whatsoever.
Rape scenes always depict the sexual intercourse as far as the ones I have seen, even if they don't aim the camera on it they will always present the sounds of the rape and I don't think I need to tell you that scenes in which male aggression is apologized for in Hollywood ALWAYS shows the sex itself.

This isn't anything like any of these tropes, this is subtle, emotionally complex, morally ambiguous and utterly devoid of the appeal of the flesh, it focuses on the face the whole time, especially the eyes which are the window into the soul.

Well, I don't think the scene needs to feature the sounds/images of intercourse in order to qualify as a "rape scene," but we're getting into specifics now. As far as the dynamics of the scene in question go, it's fairly obvious what's happening. I don't think it needs to patronize us by providing the explicit details.

But if it makes the discussion any more productive, we can describe the scene as connoting rape, rather than denoting it. Aggression/coercion tends to signify rape, especially when initially unreciprocated. Again, I realize that her reactions shift, but her eventual acceptance doesn't alter the dynamic of Deckard's actions.

Also, I'd point out that the woman who initially resists and then proceeds to reciprocate/enjoy herself is a well-documented narrative trope, and has been associated with rape fantasies--not realities. Which takes us back to the troubling ideology of the film as Hollywood production. This trope goes all the way back to the eighteenth century, at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_seduction

Yes, devoid of context it does look like rape. I'm trying to convince you of the context though because I don't understand or agree with this sort of contextless interpretation of a film wherein the context in any given scene is paramount.

And all I'm saying is that we can read the scene multiple ways. On one hand, your narrative cohesion makes sense, and deserves to be acknowledged. Yes, in context we have an eventual act of sexual consent (or as close as we can get).

On the other hand, this is still a trope of rape fantasy, and in any given actual situation the real context wouldn't change the fact of coercive initiation.

Coercively initiating a sexual encounter has consequences for how the coerced person acts throughout the entire encounter. Maybe s/he pretend to enjoy themselves because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they don't. These are real issues, and we can't disregard them entirely, even if we have a nice narrative/fantasy that explains them away.

 

[MetalAges]

Yeah, Once Upon A Time in The West is the greatest western of all time imo. I dont think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly can even hold a candle to it.

This intrigues me... I was a late comer to Westerns. I love the Sergio Leone stuff - and have not seen Once Upon a Time in the West (heard of it, no idea why I haven't watched it). I shall correct this.

I'll go with the topic and my list of top 5 Westerns (I've seen):

• Open Range
• High Plains Drifter
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
• Tombstone
• Unforgiven

Honorable mentions:

• For a Few Dollars More
• Fistful of Dollars
• Jeremiah Johnson (pseudo Western?)
• Pale Rider (yes, I am an Eastwood nut...they're so good!)
• The Outlaw Josey Wales
• Broken Trail

 

[Talos of Atmora]

• Tombstone
• Unforgiven

These two would be my favorite. Great list though.

 

[CiG]

Unforgiven is my favourite western. El Topo would be up there too.

 

[Einherjar86]

@CASSETTEISGOD, have you seen The Proposition? It's set in the Outback.

 

[rms]

The Grand Silence is a cool one but only found a roughish copy. Trying to get into Peckinpah westerns but I'm weak

 

[CiG]

@CASSETTEISGOD, have you seen The Proposition? It's set in the Outback.

To my eternal shame, no not yet. But thanks for reminding me.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's one of my favorites. Bleak, but powerful.

 

[CiG]

I really like the bushranger subgenre of the western and I always hear that The Proposition is the peak of the style.

Really helps to motivate me to go out and get a movie when people who appreciate a good story and a well made film praise it like that.