Acme11 Acme11
This is likely the most comprehensive "story of film" ever produced and the content is utterly brilliant. However, Mark Cousin's rather high- pitched, totally monotonous voice which lacks any tonal or volume variation whatsoever, combined with an accent which renders EVERY sentence a question, makes this a nearly unwatchable (or rather unlistenable) program. Ultimately, I wound up watching with the sound off and the subtitles on (no doubt missing much), as his voice became an aural ice pick to my hearing. EXTREMELY unfortunate. I would do ANYTHING for him to have hired an actual voice-over narrator to carry these duties. If the content had not been so extraordinary (and amazingly produced), I'd have given this far fewer than 6 stars based on the narration alone. One of the best remakes that could ever be produced would be this series with ZERO changes other than Peter Coyote (for instance) narrating it.
mwakee
While I can abide Cousins' anti-Hollywood viewpoint and I can abide the political slant to his series, I cannot abide his trumpeting of the film Hyenes directed by Djibril Diop Mambéty, without even mentioning that it was based on a play by Swiss writer Frederich Durrenmatt. Not only that, but there was a previous film version, The Visit, directed by Bernhard Wicki in 1964, starring Ingrid Bergman and Anthony Quinn. While Mambety created a brilliant film, he did not pull this film out of a vacuum by himself. It was an adaption and Cousins should have made us aware of this fact. It calls into question the veracity of the entire series, which I had enjoyed up until now. I'll need to watch the rest of the series with a far more critical eye.
ElMaruecan82
Finally, after six weeks, my endurance finally triumphed over the 900 minutes of Mark Cousin's "Story of Film: an Odyssey", a series of 15 one-hour documentaries starting with the same close-ups that set the documentary's tone of unpredictability to those who expected Scorsese or Tarantino to lead the show: Stanley Donen, Lars Von Trier, Amitab Bachchan, Kyōko Kagawa, Jane Campion and Sharmila Tagore. Not familiar with them? Wait, you've seen nothing yet.First and immediate impression: it was an extraordinary trip, yet the ending was a bit of a letdown. I didn't expect the sight of people walking in circle, hand-in-hand, in some African town, to close such an epic tour, a tour-de-force as far as documentary is concerned but again, with this constant and sometimes infuriating tendency to surprise you. In fact, the last shot of Cousin's documentary is revealing of both his work's strength and flaw: it guides your eyes toward new horizons, where film-making was expressed to its fullest by artists who took the absence of means as a mean by itself and contributed to mark their country in International Cinema's map; on the other hand, it's a slap in the face of all the movie-buffs giving the most obscure movies the publicity that posterity didn't grant them.For instance, there had to be a reason why "The Great Train Robbery" was the first film remembered for having used editing as a significant part of the narrative, yet Cousins pays tribute to an unknown movie about firemen. Watching his doc made me feel like the most confused movie fan ever wondering why some indisputable classics got the same treatment than some obscure Russian, Brazilian or Scandinavian movies. Hitchcock borrowed his use of suspenseful sequences and some low angle shots from Danish and German cinema while "Citizen Kane"'s use of backgrounds was inspired by Ozu. No star of the reel invented the wheel, cinema was only the result of a series of innovations, and Cousins' speaks like the advocate of all the pioneers whose creations were shadowed by the cinematic light of glory they generated a posteriori.But then, as if he was exhilarated by his own subversion, Cousins goes as far as suggesting that "Casablanca" isn't a classic film, but a romantic of some sort... his statement is so bold it flirts with indecent blasphemy, the one that'd convince many viewers to stop watching (that, and from what I've read, an annoying voice-over but I saw it dubbed in French, so it wasn't an issue for me) Sure, the man is entitled to his own bias against mainstream or Hollywood cinema but I tend to agree with the angry crowd that some of his statements were particularly upsetting. Then, I looked at the documentary with more magnanimous eyes, and if in the worst case, it made me raise my eyebrows, in the best, I discovered some little gems I felt the urge to watch as soon as the documentary ended. That 'best case' is the odyssey's reason to be.And the highlight of this incredible journey was undoubtedly the part about European radical directors in the late 70's and early 80's. It was an insightful introspection into the use of the camera as a social weapon. Generally speaking, the middle section of the film, from the 50's to the early 80's is the best part before the film loses its beat. Although I agree that the digital revolution canceled all the magic and the miracle of Cinema, I expected more flamboyance, something honoring the dream-like escapism it provided. And this comes from someone who's not too much into spectacular blockbuster, but I was probably one of the few to be upset because the film was on the same wavelength than I.The 90's were the ultimate gasp of realistic cinema, with an interesting focus on Iranian Cinema, and a new Danish school of more austere and naturalistic film-making, borrowed from the heritage of Carl Theodore Dryer. As an aspiring film-maker, it comforted me (perversely, I confess) that I can make movies with basic tools and 'pretend' its Art. And in the 2000's the loop was looped, Cinema went back to its roots, understanding that its purpose is to show a form of reality that distorts the real without taking too much distance from it. It's also an extraordinary medium to extrapolate human's deepest fears and emotions, in fact, Cinema is a universe where human is in the center.With that in mind, you forgive some liberties and analytical shortcuts. Some of my favorite directors were missing, Cassavetes (a quick glimpse on "Shadows" while the father of Indie cinema deserved more), Melville the one who didn't want to part of the New Wave and modernized the film-noir genre, John Huston, and Akira Kurosawa. I understand he's a fan of Ozu, but how can you neglect "Rashomon", the first film without a linear narrative and to use the unreliable narrator device. Did that annoying Christmas baulb metaphor make him lose precious minutes? But I guess out of 900 minutes, with a ratio of 1 learning from each, there are chances some ideas won't be 100% pleasing or even accurate, but remember what they say about education, it's what remains after you forgot everything.Well, I'm not sure I'll remember everything from that 15-hour exhaustive documentary but there are many new movies I'm familiar with, new insights about the art of filmmaking, as the greatest art-form when it comes to express some emotions, on the use of the human body, a well-made close-up being worth a thousand images, it's about names that has sunk into oblivions but in their way took part the process that lead to the classics we adore now. It's a collective work where every piece of humanity, at any time, had a share of it..And if only for that, I've got to hand it to Mark Cousins for having enriched my knowledge of Cinema.
mistarkus
This documentary is a bold, encompassing lengthy journey into film history. By delving into movies he deems to be monumental and the particular scenes that make these movies monumental we are granted a very subjective interpretation of film history. It is not simply a history lesson in film. The chronological documentary is the creator's expression of how he views films and is therefore a work of art in and of itself. Wonderful to enter this man's portal into film since it exposes us to not only movies we never heard of but gives us an expert's view of what makes certain film's and scenes so important. It is innovation that is important and innovation which becomes influential. He sometimes emphasizes world cinema perhaps influencing the great American film makers. He'll choose to show a particular scene from a movie and go into the lighting, the camera strategies, the technology, the atmosphere created, the acting, the writing, the political and sociological situation of the moment when made....everything. He wonderfully makes it long so we can get deep into this. We might not agree on quite the level of importance he imparts on particular films but we can sense he is a passionate expert with a hyper-awareness. This creates a rich tapestry for us to soak in and will enrich our artistic souls and how we will forever see a movie in the future. By delving so deeply into film history it actually goes into a bit of world, cultural and politically history. It is a minor travelogue as well with some nice scenes of the foreign lands. The maker feels films reflected the time and place in which they were made. Sometimes as essences and shadows of the era and locale and other times rebelling against it. Film is both impacted by culture and politics and film can also even influence and change society. A lot of films that we love might shockingly only get mentioned for a mere minute. I felt that perhaps the Godfather and Lawrence of Arabia were more influential and deserved more time in this lengthy tapestry of film history. But every other documentary on film has berated us with how great these movies are. We already know it and can see documentaries just on the making and symbolism of these films or these great American filmmakers. The exposure to the rest of the world is one of the great achievements this documentary accomplishes. There are a billion people in India where the movie Shoaly played for 7 years. It had a profound impact on that country of a billion plus and I never heard of it until I saw this documentary. Perhaps Shoaly might be more influential to more people and the world than my favorite movies are. There are still whole episodes dedicated to films made in the United States. There is an episode that went into American movies from the 70s. There is a whole entire episode on Hollywood in the 1920s. Despite being a documentary about world cinema the US still is the largest country represented in the story of film. The most amazing part is his understanding of the artistic and political expressions emanating from particular scenes. Absorbing his critiques and commentary on film can gave not only a new way to look at film but a new way to look and think about many different art forms. Things that can do this are the greatest things ever created.
