chconnol
Entrou em jun. de 2003
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações46
Classificação de chconnol
See "The Last Married Couple in America" with "Serial" (released around the same time...) and you get a good idea of what ideas were floating around during the late 70s and early 80s.
Though both films are not very good and they are horribly dated (in a fun way) they reflect a post 60s hangover attitude that's interesting in light of what occurred in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.
Many thought that the 60s was going to usher in a whole new perspective and enlightenment to the masses. The use of drugs and free love was supposed to push all people's barriers down and out and a new world was to be created. Most people may not have completely shared in that feeling but there was a strong feeling of new and better things were going to happen.
But of course it didn't. People were burned out in the 70s and reality settled in: drugs, free love...it didn't change much at all. And in some cases, it made things worse by making it all so confusing. People who thought that the 60s were going to make everything better were disillusioned to find that nothing fundamental had really changed at all.
That's where "The Last Married Couple in America" and "Serial" take their cues. Both movies start off by trying to be "risky", "edgy" and "daring" by using a lot of four letter words and pseudo-risqué sex scenes (all pretty conventional, actually). The jokes are just sitcom material spiced up with "naughty" words.
In the end, both movies end with a very comfortable reaffirmation of the family/marriage unit and a rejection of the sexual revolution.
OK...so there might be some ripe material made out of this. But neither of these two is it, especially "The Last Married Couple in America". It's another one of those lame 70s comedies like "Silver Bears" with Cybil Shepherd. These are the types of films that even when they were released, I couldn't figure out who would pay money to see them.
Though both films are not very good and they are horribly dated (in a fun way) they reflect a post 60s hangover attitude that's interesting in light of what occurred in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.
Many thought that the 60s was going to usher in a whole new perspective and enlightenment to the masses. The use of drugs and free love was supposed to push all people's barriers down and out and a new world was to be created. Most people may not have completely shared in that feeling but there was a strong feeling of new and better things were going to happen.
But of course it didn't. People were burned out in the 70s and reality settled in: drugs, free love...it didn't change much at all. And in some cases, it made things worse by making it all so confusing. People who thought that the 60s were going to make everything better were disillusioned to find that nothing fundamental had really changed at all.
That's where "The Last Married Couple in America" and "Serial" take their cues. Both movies start off by trying to be "risky", "edgy" and "daring" by using a lot of four letter words and pseudo-risqué sex scenes (all pretty conventional, actually). The jokes are just sitcom material spiced up with "naughty" words.
In the end, both movies end with a very comfortable reaffirmation of the family/marriage unit and a rejection of the sexual revolution.
OK...so there might be some ripe material made out of this. But neither of these two is it, especially "The Last Married Couple in America". It's another one of those lame 70s comedies like "Silver Bears" with Cybil Shepherd. These are the types of films that even when they were released, I couldn't figure out who would pay money to see them.
"Ragtime" is a very mixed bag. On paper, virtually everything about it seems right. The production values are absolutely first rate, the cast is excellent. Can't fault the direction either.
But...something's missing.
Though it's hardly a bore, there's something about Foreman's "Ragtime" that simply doesn't ring and feel true. It all feels so staged and deliberate. It simply lacks a feeling of reality. It reminds me of one of those stodgy historical films I was made to sit through in grade school in the 1970s when the Bicentennial was the rage. Those films showing America's progress were entertaining but never believable for even an minute. That's Foreman's "Ragtime". Rather than feel anything for any of the characters, the film is made out like some kind of historical pageant. Maybe that was Foreman's point but it doesn't work as drama and it never pulls the viewer completely into it's world.
But...something's missing.
Though it's hardly a bore, there's something about Foreman's "Ragtime" that simply doesn't ring and feel true. It all feels so staged and deliberate. It simply lacks a feeling of reality. It reminds me of one of those stodgy historical films I was made to sit through in grade school in the 1970s when the Bicentennial was the rage. Those films showing America's progress were entertaining but never believable for even an minute. That's Foreman's "Ragtime". Rather than feel anything for any of the characters, the film is made out like some kind of historical pageant. Maybe that was Foreman's point but it doesn't work as drama and it never pulls the viewer completely into it's world.
"Starting Over" works very well because it's a film made for and by adults. And it's got some very funny moments.
Yes, it's got all the trappings of a typical "ROMCOM" but back in 1979, the ROMCOM formula had not developed into the hackneyed, tiresome concept that it became. By the late 90's, the style that "Starting Over" began seems to have expired (it arguably reached it's zenith circa 1994 with "Sleeping in Seattle". Whether one liked that movie or not, all the trappings of the stylized ROMCOM formula were firmly and grossly used in that one.) But I digress.
"Starting Over" works so well because of Pakula's typical very low keyed direction which allows James L. Brooks' screenplay to shine. But this film would be nothing without the cast. Clayburgh is fine but of the three leads, she's the least appealing. Don't get me wrong. She's an engaging presence in the film and it's quite understandable why Reynolds is attracted to her (except for a shower scene in which, to me, she over reacts). The hands down winners in this film are Reynolds and especially Bergen. Bergen tapped into a completely unexpected flair for comedy as a royally flaky song writing ex-wife of Reynolds. She's a gas especially in an hysterical scene when she begins singing a disco ditty ("Better Than Ever") in a hotel room while trying to reconcile with Reynolds.
Reynolds is a complete revelation. Gone is his trademark mustache and cockiness and it works to marvelous effect. He's mature, low key and completely likable. It would've been so easy for Reynolds to play down the part to the point where he appears to be sleepwalking (ala William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist"). But here, though he's depressed, he's also alive. He's just a guy going through something that he wishes he didn't have to. He loves/likes his ex-wife and can't understand why he's the odd man out.
From a plot and structural standpoint, "Starting Over" isn't much. It's setup and resolution are standard and completely unremarkable. Aside from the wonderful cast and good writing, the film is photographed beautifully by Sven Nyquist. This Swede (who was Ingmar Bergman's chief Director of Photography) knows how to film chilly northern environments and he gives Boston in winter an appealing glow.
Yes, it's got all the trappings of a typical "ROMCOM" but back in 1979, the ROMCOM formula had not developed into the hackneyed, tiresome concept that it became. By the late 90's, the style that "Starting Over" began seems to have expired (it arguably reached it's zenith circa 1994 with "Sleeping in Seattle". Whether one liked that movie or not, all the trappings of the stylized ROMCOM formula were firmly and grossly used in that one.) But I digress.
"Starting Over" works so well because of Pakula's typical very low keyed direction which allows James L. Brooks' screenplay to shine. But this film would be nothing without the cast. Clayburgh is fine but of the three leads, she's the least appealing. Don't get me wrong. She's an engaging presence in the film and it's quite understandable why Reynolds is attracted to her (except for a shower scene in which, to me, she over reacts). The hands down winners in this film are Reynolds and especially Bergen. Bergen tapped into a completely unexpected flair for comedy as a royally flaky song writing ex-wife of Reynolds. She's a gas especially in an hysterical scene when she begins singing a disco ditty ("Better Than Ever") in a hotel room while trying to reconcile with Reynolds.
Reynolds is a complete revelation. Gone is his trademark mustache and cockiness and it works to marvelous effect. He's mature, low key and completely likable. It would've been so easy for Reynolds to play down the part to the point where he appears to be sleepwalking (ala William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist"). But here, though he's depressed, he's also alive. He's just a guy going through something that he wishes he didn't have to. He loves/likes his ex-wife and can't understand why he's the odd man out.
From a plot and structural standpoint, "Starting Over" isn't much. It's setup and resolution are standard and completely unremarkable. Aside from the wonderful cast and good writing, the film is photographed beautifully by Sven Nyquist. This Swede (who was Ingmar Bergman's chief Director of Photography) knows how to film chilly northern environments and he gives Boston in winter an appealing glow.