Your Top 10 Most Influential Feature Films (fun/non-gear-related)

[Lucian]

1. Blue velvet

2. Dead man

3. Rushmore

4. Chunking Express

5. Happy Together

6. Midnight Cowboy

7. Lost in Translation

8. Spirited Away

9. Taxi Driver

10. The Thin Red Line

[cantsin]

I really wonder, especially for those of you who expressed a common interest in more experimental forms of filmmaking: Wouldn't it be useful to create a new forum, on its own website, whose focus is not on technology but on artistic discussion and how-to's for no budget DIY filmmaking?

 

EDIT: Something like the Vimeo Video School could be a point of departure, but it could be done on a higher level.)

[Guest]

I really wonder, especially for those of you who expressed a common interest in more experimental forms of filmmaking: Wouldn't it be useful to create a new forum, on its own website, whose focus is not on technology but on artistic discussion and how-to's for no budget DIY filmmaking?

 

EDIT: Something like the Vimeo Video School could be a point of departure, but it could be done on a higher level.)

A number of other people have muttered similar things here before. I have wondered about it myself a few times too.

 

Personally I think it might be more effective to keep the two things you're talking about separate - or at least to forefront one of them. There are quite a lot of DIY filmmaking sites out there already, but AFAIK not much in the way of exploring the less gear-orientated, creative side of making mega-low budget films. There's certainly not anything as good as EOSHD anyway.

 

I guess we could ask Andrew to think about starting a sub-forum here? He started a thread a while back along these lines because he was sick of people pulling the "content is king" card, but it sank without a trace.

[Sean Cunningham]

If you're not talking gear and technique, the technical stuff, then the "content" is something you have to write or otherwise go do.  Creation of content is pretty mutually exclusive from spending time places like this.  Discussion boards are for the spaces in between creating content or executing other people's content.

 

There's commentary and theory, dissecting "content" to understand what works and what you or an audience responds to.  Maybe something like that is what you're talking about?  Or, say you want to do a scene that will have a certain mood or you're wanting to convey a specific subtext and you're not quite sure how, is that what you mean?

[bluefonia]

Many great films mentioned in this thread.

What surprises me though is that nobody yet has mentioned Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon".

A masterpiece in many ways, but may be most of all because it is shot exclusively by natural light. It¨s a long time since I saw that film, but I still clearly remember the scenes shot indoors at the castle, which is lit by only candlelights, - amazing.

[Julian]

I saw it in at least one persons list already ;) I haven't completely watched it yet, but saw some of the low light scenes.

 

There's always this talk about the famous f/0.7 lens used for Barry Lyndon. Yeah, of course that's special, but come on, it was shot at asa 100 pushed to 200! (at least, that's what I can find about it) So that would be the same as shooting nowadays digital at iso 800 f/1.4... whoohoo!

 

That's peanuts for a $500 dslr and a cheap manual focus lens. Of course, this doesn't make the film bad and it is more of a testimony to what possibilities we have within reach now. But I kinda fail to be impressed with the technical side of it. Also they really used a shitload of candles and special ones that burn a lot faster and brighter than the usual ones.

 

/rant ;)

[Julian]

I guess we could ask Andrew to think about starting a sub-forum here? He started a thread a while back along these lines because he was sick of people pulling the "content is king" card, but it sank without a trace.

 

Ever noticed this subforum: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/forum/6-screening-room/ ? ;)

 

That's what makes me laugh every time the discussion about content vs gear turns up... Content is king. Yes, I agree. But hey, we are on the internet here. And this forum - like most others - is mostly a bunch of guys who like to talk about technical nerdy stuff, rant about the next CaNikon and hack their camera. The Screending Room (in other words: the content room) hardly gets any discussion or comments at all.

[Damphousse]

Star Wars

Pulp Fiction

Scarface

Platoon

The Matrix

 

Really tough to say.  There are so many influential movies out there.  Star Wars was a special effects and sci fi landmark.  Can't believe it is missing from so many lists.  Pulp Fiction was great for dialogue.  The Matrix came out of nowhere and took special effects to another level.  It also made the colorist the star of the movie... for better or worse.

 

I guess something like Batman (1989) should be on the list.  It really kicked off the modern superhero movie era.  Seems like there have to be a couple of those movies every year now.

[Aussie Ash]

bluefonia -"Many great films mentioned in this thread.

What surprises me though is that nobody yet has mentioned Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon".

A masterpiece in many ways, but may be most of all because it is shot exclusively by natural light. It¨s a long time since I saw that film, but I still clearly remember the scenes shot indoors at the castle, which is lit by only candlelights, - amazing."

 

 

Barry Lyndon is my favourite Kubrick film, I found myself thinking a lot about the film the day after I saw it

as it explores deeper themes.Most of the film is quite "painterly" even the out door scenes seem to have been

meticulously planned.Here is a link to some of the films images   -

 

 

 

 

www.google.com.au/search?q=barry+lyndon+images&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nkMRU6juGI6LlAXWzoHwCw&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=2395&bih=1531

[Damphousse]

 

 

What surprises me though is that nobody yet has mentioned Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon".

A masterpiece in many ways, but may be most of all because it is shot exclusively by natural light.

 

Well I think most people were posting "most influential" not their favorite.  I mean did that film kick off a revolution of people shooting exclusively with natural light?

 

I posted some films that I thought were influential or the first of a subsequent major trend.  They were not necessarily my favorite movies.

[Sean Cunningham]

I would think there's a lot of crossover between favorite films and influential films but I can say in my case there would be specific shots or sequences from each that I would say are my touchstones for specific types of photography or shots, color and composition.  These would represent personal taste so folks should refrain from projecting their's onto others or questioning why their own personal taste isn't represented by other's choices.  It's not a contest.  You don't win anything coming up with the most predictable AFI selection.  Deviations from the norm are a lot more interesting and revealing than some list that could be created with a statistical algorithm.

[Guest]

I would think there's a lot of crossover between favorite films and influential films but I can say in my case there would be specific shots or sequences from each that I would say are my touchstones for specific types of photography or shots, color and composition.  These would represent personal taste so folks should refrain from projecting their's onto others or questioning why their own personal taste isn't represented by other's choices.  It's not a contest.  You don't win anything coming up with the most predictable AFI selection.  Deviations from the norm are a lot more interesting and revealing than some list that could be created with a statistical algorithm.

What he said^

 

That was the whole point of starting this thread.

[TrueIndigo]

I've been greatly inspired by some of the fine recent films mentioned here, such as The Matrix (1999), Apocalypse Now (1979), Fight Club (1999), Bladerunner (1982), Pulp Fiction (1992), etc. So, to avoid duplication here are a few older ones:

The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Land of the Pharaohs (1955)
The Searchers (1956)
To Have and Have Not (1944)
The Fugitive Kind (1959)
Cathy Come Home (1966)
The Wages of Fear (1952)
I Married a Witch (1942)
The World According to Garp (1982)
They Shoot Horses Don't They? (1969)

Just in case it's of interest, here's my non-mainstream list:

Seconds (1966)
Zardoz (1973)
The Devil Commands (1941)
Fellini Satyricon (1969)
The Singing Ringing Tree (1958)
Orphee (1950)
One Way Pendulum (1964)
The Saddest Music in the World (2004)
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
The Exterminating Angel (1962)

[skiphunt]

Well, I checked out "Only God Forgives" based not the fact I too like Ryan Gosling. It was certainly an interesting film and I can definitely see how the craft could definitely inspire. It was beautifully shot, and the acting was an interesting exercise in restraint. The whole film felt like that. It seemed to linger forever... to the point I almost thought it'd got stuck on freeze frame ;). Not sure how I felt about it overall though. Great poetic violence that's expertly executed. But also had to wake up and back up a few times to get through it. ;)

 

That reminds me, I would add most of Wong Kar Wai's work to my list. 

[Henry Gentles]

In no particular order. These were stories that interested me throughout the movie, seamless cinematography ie. visually told the story without any crunches thru the gears and were highly ambitious visually and emotionally. They all surprised me at how good they were and resonated with me somehow. Some were visually stunning, some not so much, but all of them were subordinate to telling the story I think.

 

1.Saving Pvt Ryan

2.Blade Runner

3.Alien

4.Barry Lyndon

5.Magnolia

6.There Will be Blood

7.The Departed

8.No Country for Old Men

9.I am Legend

10.The Road

 

(Perfume would have made the list except the scenes with Dustin Hoffman who was miscast and sounded like a stupid american tourist and spoiled an otherwise great movie!!)

[maxotics]

It was probably about 10 years ago now when I met Brick Mason at a party (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0556624/)  I asked him what his  most influential films were (at the time).  One of them was "Fast Runner"  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285441/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

It was just leaving the 10 theaters it had been playing in, so I got it on VHS?/DVD.  Started watching it.  Everyone speaks Inuit so was sub-titled.  Was shot on the ice with video camera (not HD).  Fifteen minutes in I figured he was having a joke on me.  All the names seemed the same.  I couldn't tell the characters apart.  It looked like an NYU student film.  Around minute 16, I entered the filmmaker's world and was speechless when it ended.

 

For all those people here who think content is kind, and technology is unimportant, THIS IS YOUR FILM.  I rank this film (video) as one of the best I've ever seen.  It was made on a shoe-string (gov't grant budget). 

 

I now realize that what Brick loved about this film (as a story-boardist and artist) is that it is PURE story and film-composition.  This is not a film that is great because of what it did with video tech, it is great period.  If it was shot on Arri today it would not be better by an inch or an ounce.

[Sean Cunningham]

I saw Fast Runner here in Austin.  It was very good.  Like with Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later you become less conscious of seeing a film shot on low resolution, digital video because the story and performance and pacing and all other aspects of the craft of storytelling are so strong.  In the end, even with the humble specs of the camera, you still have an interesting looking film.  The visuals are definitely not throw-away, like so many Dogme-esque, DV revolution, mumblecore, should-have-been-community-theater productions.

 

There were, however, technical considerations in the choice of shooting video for Fast Runner having to do with the setting.  It was the feeling of the DP that the snow and ice would have looked too uniform with film, that somehow the way he was able to tune a large chip (for the day) video camera gave detail and gradation to the setting that would have been harder to achieve with film.  I don't necessarily agree with that but  this was a factor.  

 

If anyone has back issues of RES Magazine from 2001/2002, that's where you'd find the story about this film and how it was shot.

[skiphunt]

I remember one of the most disturbing movies for me about a serial killer was "Henry: A Portrait of a Serial Killer". It still ranks as the most disturbing I've seen to date, and even made me feel guilty that I'd watched it. That movie had a very low production value and even some shots were from the POV of one of the killers while he shot with the victim's home video camera, then tossed it on the floor to join in the killing. The viewer continues to witness the killing from the sideways home video camera laying on the floor. GENIUS. 

 

I think if that movie in particular had been made with high production value it would not have had the power that it did.

[Guest]

I remember one of the most disturbing movies for me about a serial killer was "Henry: A Portrait of a Serial Killer". It still ranks as the most disturbing I've seen to date, and even made me feel guilty that I'd watched it. That movie had a very low production value and even some shots were from the POV of one of the killers while he shot with the victim's home video camera, then tossed it on the floor to join in the killing. The viewer continues to witness the killing from the sideways home video camera laying on the floor. GENIUS. 

 

I think if that movie in particular had been made with high production value it would not have had the power that it did.

This is an obvious point perhaps but stories like this definitely benefit from the video aesthetic - some, like Blair Witch and Coverfield practically rely on it. 

[Julian]

You can download The Fast Runner here for a 'pay what you want' donation: http://www.isuma.tv/fastrunnertrilogy

I'm gonna check it out :)