Talking Images

We have gotten an experienced Quiz Master to test just how knowledgeable we actually are. Who will come out on top, who will be left embarrassed, and would you have done better?!

Is Beau is Afraid a daring surreal masterpiece or a complete mess? Will it usher in a series of auteur-driven art films, or be this generation's Heaven's Gate? Yes, could A24 actually end up reigning in the freedom of Ari Aster and up-and-coming directors because of just how badly Beau is Afraid bombed?!

We have never disagreed more about what the best films of the year were! Listen in to see which (if any) of us you agree with, as we unleash off-the-hip choices mixing literal toilet humour, big Hollywood prestige project and "challenging" arthouse picks.

How can it be that we "all" seem to hate beloved Turkish, Russian and Indian comedy classics and mega hits, despite their incredibly IMDb averages and striking vanguard?!

Is it because comedies just don't translate that well? Is it because we just don't have a sense of humour? Or: Is it because we have been brainwashed by the cultural dominance of the US, the UK and to a lesser extent France and Italy?

Yes, how do we actually feel about US and UK comedies? Do they translate everywhere? 

And how come the ratings for many of these Turkish, Russian and Indian films are so insane, towering over almost all beloved classics from other countries? Is something deceptive going on, or do they just strike a powerful nerve with the local population?

We will also dive into the controversial decision by IMDb to actively remove the Turkish classic Hababam sinifi (1975) from their top 250, despite having an average rating of 9.2 and more than 40k voters, a decision that stands until this day. Is it pure Anglo-Saxon chauvinism or could there be something else to their decision?

Timestamps:

Intro: 00:00:00

Do Any of Us Believe Comedy is Universal: 00:04:20

Do we laugh easily? 00:07:44

Are US and UK Comedies Universal Due to Cultural Dominance?: 00:18:16

Will Anyone Defend Turkish Comedies: 00:27:48

How Bad Are the Soviet Comedies?: 00:44.24

Indian Comedies: 00:50:35

Was IMDb Right to Remove Hababam Sinifi from Their Top 250?: 01:03:19

Do Comedies Need to be Funny?: 01:10:25

Is it easy to rank your favourite directors? It can be a daunting task! How can we for instance even begin to compare directors who made 50+ films with directors who made 5? How do we compare studio directors to arthouse auteurs? Oh, and is it just a matter of how great the films are, or do we look for something else, such as personal style and artistic impact?

In this episode, we will look at the 4 most common ways of ranking directors:

Lean back as we try to poke holes in each other's systems, or perhaps even attempt to dismiss helpful systems altogether, and ponder the big questions related to what truly makes one director better than another.

Are any films more visually impressive and pioneering than Kalatozov's golden trio of late-life films, The Cranes Are Flying (1957), Letter Never Sent (1960) and Soy Cuba (1964). Thanks to the innovations of his brilliant cinematographer, Sergey Urusevskiy, the camera is simply ALIVE! 

The unbelievable long takes, trailing through all-consuming fires, moving through buildings and generally just feeling truly free, would likely need to be done

with CGI today, but here, they are done as is, on the ground, years before Godard or Truffaut debuted, and with far more prowess.

How was it possible?

Oh, and did Kalotozov invent the disaster movie genre in the process?

Listen in and feel free to leave your comments on ICMForum.com.

Timestamps:

Intro: 00:00

What Makes These 3 Films So Impressive: 00:01:51

The Cranes Are Flying: 00:06:15

Letter Never Sent: 00:35:10

Soy Cuba: 00:52:01

Quick notes on Kalatozov's Other Films: 1:12:34

Can watching too many films cause you to lose your love of cinema? Our surprise guest, who watches well over 100 films every month, says no.

The 80s was the decade Jean-Luc Godard was suddenly back on everybody's lips. He did talk shows in the US, huge stars were lining up to work with him, he pissed off the Catholic church, and perhaps more importantly for the fans, he made what he deemed his "2nd first film". Yes, critics called it a comeback with good reason.

It is insane to think that as the 80s rolled in, JLG had alienated both old friends and ardent fans. For more than a decade he had dedicated himself to political activism and essay films, and the people who cared about his new films, or were even aware he was making them, were dwindling. And then: It all changed.

In this episode, we look at 5 of his biggest and most acclaimed films of the 1980s, which you can jump to via the timestamps below, and try to explore what we love, like, and dislike with these films, not to mention who they are for.

Every Man For Himself: 00:09:32

Passion: 00:24:24

First Name: Carmen: 00: 34:44

Hail Mary: 00:52:24

A Surprise Bresson Takeover: 1:05:45

Detective: 1:09:14

JLGs Other 80s Films: 1:18:24

Yes, there is no denying that JLG's 80s work has a bit more of a niche following than his 60s films, but should you check them out, and if so, where should you start? Listen in and find out.

P.S. If you are interested in JLGs 70s work, we have an episode on these films already in our archive.

Are you prejudiced against shorts? You are not alone! From actively avoiding them to finding them unratable, to championing "separate but equal" rhetoric, the panelists of this episode are fired up with outrageous short film bigotry.

BUT: Can that change over the course of this episode?

Join us as we explore where we think shorts may fall ... short, whether they are even truly films, and if there are any shorts we love at all.

What, if anything makes them different from features, can they hold the same power and impact and are there some stories and concepts that are simply far more suited for a shorter running time?

The ending may surprise you, as we set aside our differences and explore what can actually be done to make shorts appeal to audiences again.

In this episode, we get personal as we discuss if any of us would be able to stand up to 11 angry jurors and hold our ground. Would we have the courage to stand alone, and would we be able to argue our case? 

Who would we have been in the juror room? Would we have changed our minds? Do we believe the accused is innocent? The answers may surprise you. 

We will also dive head first into how a film set almost exclusively in one room, with our protagonists sitting around a table, manages to be as powerful as it is, step out of its teleplay origins and become truly cinematic. 

Two of us are also fresh from viewing the 1954 original 1-hour teleplay and will dive into how they compare, how good this earlier version is, and even drag in the 1997 remake. 

Oh, and is the title at all honest? How many of these men are actually angry?