Posted on 08/26/2011 11:11:00 AM PDT by Borges
Edited on 08/26/2011 11:32:12 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
In the 1970s people were talking about him like his generation’s Hitchcock. I’ve never bought it obviously. The Fury is just embarrassing. In any case, Scarface is clearly not meant to be realism. Everything from the glaring color scheme to Pacino’s performance is highly stylized. The question is what effect the stylization has when combined with the subject matter. Anyway, I’m glad that the film went a long way to getting F. Murray Abraham that part in Amadeus (one of my favorite films of all time).
I’ve recently been on a mini DePalma film festival and find Scarface the least interesting of the films he made just before it (Dressed to Kill, Blow Out) and the one he made right after it (Body Double - very underrated!). Ever see Sisters? It’s also very good work and more interesting than Scarface.
“Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction aren’t all that violent. At least not onscreen.”
I thought they were two of the most violent films I’d ever seen. Although, if you watched Pulp Fiction more than once it’s actually very funny. In a sick way. But Reservoir Dogs? Just bloody.
Did you ever see..I think it was Natural Born Killers with Woody Harrelson and some crazy chick, I forget her name. Now that was some kind of violent movie.
The violence was off screen (the famous ear slicing scene for instance).
The Dead conjures up all sorts of patterns and sensations. If you want plot driven fiction read John Grisham. And Faulkner’s greatness is creating an elaborate world where all strata of characters interact...all rendered with allusive and dense prose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.