The DVXUser 100 Films Discussion - June 2007

[Erik Olson]

THE FORMAL MONTHLY DISCUSSION OF BENCHMARK FILMS AT DVXUser!

DVXUser has become known and regarded as an online "virtual film school". As with any good film school program, DVXUser should feature our own technical and critical studies courses on filmmaking. Part of that curriculum would include a regular, formal discussion of benchmark films.

The DVXUser 100 Movie Club will assign one film each month from the AFI's renowned 100 Years, 100 Movies list. In ten months, we will cover ten films selected by our members from the field of 100.


How will the films be selected?

On the first of the month, I'll post another batch of ten films from the AFI 100 Years, 100 Movies list. Through midnight on the 5th of each month, DVXUsers can vote on which film we should watch and then discuss at the end of the month or once members have rented and viewed it.

You decide which film you want to nominate. It can be a personal favorite or simply a film you've always wanted to watch, but never got around to. After you vote, maybe post a short plug on why you chose one film over the other nine.

Whatever film ranks highest will be the one we all watch after voting closes!


What will be discussed?

Within the confines of the DVXUser rules of engagement (no religion and politics and so forth) we will discuss the film in the context of the world when it was released, writing, performances and techniques.

Subject to regular moderation, it should be an open discussion of what goes into filmmaking now and within the historical context of the film we're examining.

Here is the list for June, 2007. Each film can now be clicked into its IMDB profile. Thanks for voting, and please drop into the thread once you've watched this month's picture for the discussion!

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)
RAGING BULL (1980)
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915)
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977)
THE GOLD RUSH (1925)
FARGO (1996)
GOODFELLAS (1990)

Thanks for dropping in,

e

 

[krestofre]

Some Like it Hot. Going for the "never seen it" vote.

 

[Erik Olson]

I voted for Lawrence of Arabia. It's cliche, I know.

e

 

[krestofre]

Another bleepin' tie!?!? How is it statistically possible to have a tie four months in a row?

 

[Erik Olson]

I meant to go in and tie-break it, but was a little distracted...

e

 

[FutureDVXUser]

I woulda voted for Goodfellas, but I missed the thread...

 

[krestofre]

I hope to have something up about Lawrence on Friday (yeah, I know, the last day of the month). I won't make it to Goodfellas this month so the three people who voted for it should say something.

 

[Erik Olson]

Goodfellas Links:

Netflix / Blockbuster / Amazon

Lawrence of Arabia Links:

Netflix / Blockbuster / Amazon

e

 

[krestofre]

I've always loved wide shots. Everything that I do I try to get at least one really great wide shot in there. And I don't mean three or four cast members on screen. I mean WIDE. Like "What's that little dot there?" wide. Lawrence of Arabia always knocks me off my feet with its landscapes, cinematography, and subject.

I love how the film begins with the death of T.E. Lawrence. Right up front you know that this is a movie not about the ending, but about the journey. David Lean shows us our desitnation immediatly and challenges us to enjoy getting there.

I also love that Lawrence of Arabia heralds from a time when you could cast an unknown actor in the lead role of a huge production. Peter O'Toole performs magnificently in the lead roll and it's kind of backwardly refreashing to see him as such. If Lawrence of Arabia were made today it would have to star Tom Cruise or Russle Crowe as Lawrence.

But all of that is preamble, because what I want to talk about initially is the cinematography. Much has been written about Freddie Young's accomplishments of this film, and it's generally universal accolades. I could not hope to expound beyond what has already been said, so this is undoubtably review for people who know anything about the film. Still, it's a good excuse to include some screenshots.

The film begins, brilliantly, and somewhat naturally if you think about it, with virtually no shot wider than medium. There are a few medium full shots, and even fewer full shots. The film mostly looks like this:

And then we move into the desert with a brilliant transition from a burning match being extinguished to a burning sun rising.

Enter some of the widest shots ever used in the history of film. As I said earlier, the brilliant, but natural cinematography really brings to scope and size of the desert to the viewer. If there was ever a film made for a widescreen presentation, then Lawrence of Arabia is it. I call this "natural" because on some level there's really no other way to shoot a desert. If you go in close then you have a background of complete sand or complete sky, depending on where you're pointing the camera. However I don't want that to even attempt to take away from the vision of Lean or Young. These are undisputed masters at work and the gorgeous shots continue.

I'm in heaven even just looking at the stills and all of these are coming just from the first hour into the film. But the framing of the film doesn't just stay wide. As we continue through Lawrence's journey even the desert begins to choke him in some ways and the film produces tighter, less grandious (while still being grand) photography.

These are, perhaps, simple observations, but I think a prime example of how shot composition can really develop the narrative and develop with the narrative. And if Lawrence of Arabia can inspire Spielberg, then certainly we can learn from it too.

The second thing that I wish to discuss about this film is more of a question and less of my meandoring thoughts. I don't know a huge amount of the history of T.E. Lawrence, but from what I have read it the film takes certain dramatic liberties. I am curious what other DVXUsers think of this. Do we, as artists, have the license to change fact for the sake of drama?

My contention, after thinking of this for a while, is that yes we do. This is perhaps a conclusion that I have arrived at for convinence rather than justice. I say that because hypothetically if someone made a movie of my life and took "artistic license" with it, I'm not sure how I would feel. I think I would have an overwhelming sense of "OK, that was fine, but what really happened is...."

So what are your thoughts on that? Should history stay religated to the History Channel and books, or is there a sense of responsibility towards being historically accurate in film too? Having Lawrence of Arabia as the June film presents a perfect example to discuss this. Would Lawrence of Arabia have become the classic that is it if they hadn't taken dramatic liberties? Perhaps it doesn't really matter because historians can't seem to agree on what T.E. Lawrence was really like. A curious topic on many levels.

Discuss ....

 

[Erik Olson]

Just cleared out my queue with Bobby last night - another film that takes wide and far-ranging artistic liberties with an historical subject.

As in Lawrence, the resulting history beneath the story is little affected. T.E. Lawrence had some aspects of his life he didn't want revealed, and Lean honored these wishes to some extent. He also declined contributions from more than one person who actually served in Lawrence's company during the revolt.

In documenting history, there is one truth behind everything that happens, regardless of how it is recorded. It is up to those who write history to interpret this truth for the rest of us. Sometimes, this interpretation actually reflects the truth, sometimes not.

As it is with most figures who enjoy celebrity or notoriety, truth and folklore smear the black and white of history into what can best be described as a middling gray. An examination of George Washington, Vlad the Impaler, Lindsay Lohan or T.E. Lawrence will all yield a questionable resulting truth depending on your sources.

If left unedited, re-interpreted and condensed for time, a study of even the most remarkable life would be unwatchable.

Visually, I think a great many people associate Lawrence with tiny figures juxtaposed against vast areas of negative space. These sweeping vistas could certainly be viewed as Mr. Lean's (as facilitated by the incomparable Freddie Young, A.S.C.) calling card within the picture, however, such a generalization belittles the flawless supporting images that, though less sensational, occupy literally every second of the film.

Signature images like this are what most people associate with David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia.


Here are some other images from the film that tell the story simply through their expert and effortless compositions. In a word, they are flawless...

Our protagonist contemplates his future from the relative comfort of Cairo. One of the very few shots where shallow depth-of-field is employed in two hours and forty minutes of screen time.

e

 

[Erik Olson]

Physical production on Lawrence of Arabia lasted for more than fifteen months at a reported cost of $15M to Columbia Pictures.

Lean and Young made good use of the Super Panavision 65mm frame, even in intimate scenes with two or less subjects.

Summer fun in the Nefud desert.

Freddie Young, B.S.C., A.S.C. wasn't afraid to use color when appropriate. While the desert scenes are stark, he painted whenever he could in a rich palette of tones. Note the sense of depth added to this scene through the use of dozens of extras.

The invasion of Aqaba scene was accomplished through a series of sweeping tracking shots, all moving from left to right. The final piece concludes as horsemen ride past this gun emplacement.

e