Roman Polanski

[RNL]

Roman Polanski (1933- )

[Capo]

1. Chinatown 1974
2. The Pianist 2001
3. Rosemary's Baby 1968
4. Frantic 1988
5. Macbeth 1972

[Marty]

I find Polanski in the main to be rather an enigma, at times he can take a project which at first sight seems suited to his particular style and make rather a plodding albeit watchable in parts movie (see Frantic and the missed opportunity that was The Ninth Gate) yet at other times he moves outside his own box as it were and produces career making performances from all involved thereby putting together pieces of truly brilliant cinema (Chinatown...of course and what I feel is his best work to date The Pianist)

Rosemary's Baby
Dance Of The Vampires (Fearless Vampire Killers)
Macbeth (boring as hell, shockingly amateurish camerawork, I haven't seen a good print of this so can't tell whether the production values really are as bad as they seem on the cheap German DVD I have of this)
Chinatown
Le Locataire
Frantic (In parts this Hitchcock homage hits the right notes but mostly it runs along at a snails pace but worth a watch nonetheless)
The Ninth Gate (A real shame the script veered so far from the Novel)
The Pianist

[Capo]

Omar will certainly disagree with you on Macbeth, Marty. I haven't seen it in a long time, and only once altogether. I certainly agree with you on Frantic, which, I believe, could have been far better than it was. The opening moments of Ford's panic when his wife goes missing are brilliantly done. Thereafter, it is a disappointment.

[Omar]

I think "The Tragedy of Macbeth" is Shakespeare's best work, which is why I was so impressed with Polanski's raw interpretation.
Keeping in mind that it was Polanski's first work after his wife's murder, Polanski's insecurity and grief is revealed within every frame of the film. It's violence is gritty and excessive, but never over the top.

Polanski changed the first murder, which originally took place off stage, and showed it to help reveal the insecurity of Macbeth, who was supposed to represent Polanski.
And the ghost sequence is very haunting, with the ghost looking very similar to Charles Manson.

I imagine it was the DVD quality that ruined the production values for you. The cinematography is some of the best I've ever seen.

[Marty]

Thank you Omar, I will give "Macbeth" another chance, and who knows, it may be difficult to find a cinematic presentation so any suggestions as to a good DVD would be appreciated.

[jrod]

Unless Im mistaken, the only one Ive seen is....

Chinatown

Polanski has my best "stars per movie" average ;D

[Omar]

marty said:

Thank you Omar, I will give "Macbeth" another chance, and who knows, it may be difficult to find a cinematic presentation so any suggestions as to a good DVD would be appreciated.

I can understand why someone wouldn't like "Macbeth". Some films are universally loved, while others are liked for purely personal reasons.
"Macbeth" is one of the more personal favorites in my top 10.

Glad to have you on the boards by the way. I can already tell you'll contribute a lot of discussion.

[Mike Sullivan]

I haven't seen much for Polanski and yet I can't rave enough for the two films of his I've seen.

Chinatown (1974)
The Pianist (2002)

Both films are great. Polanski seems to know how to get the best out of his actors. He knows how to pace a film, when to bring in the action and when to stand back and take a breather.

Chinatown is no doubt my favorite of the two bringing new life into film-noir. It's easily the greatest film of its time.

[Omar]

Wow, I never even properly responded to this thread.

1. The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)
2. Knife in the Water (1962)
3. Chinatown (1974)
4. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
5. The Pianist (2002)
6. The Tenant (1976)
7. Repulsion (1965)

I desperately want to see "Cul-de-Sac".

[ronnierocketago]

Who's actually seen Polanski's infamous bomb PIRATES?

[RNL]

I haven't. I hear What? is every bit as bad, though.

Imagine naming your film What?. It's basically doomed from the start.

Word of mouth:

"Have you seen What??"
"What?"
"What?"
"Have I seen what?"
"What?"
"What are you talking about?"
"What?. Roman Polanski's What?."
"His what?"
"His new film, it's called What?"
"How should I know?"

[Vercetti]

Chinatown

[Capo]

wetdog said:

I haven't. I hear What? is every bit as bad, though.

Imagine naming your film What?. It's basically doomed from the start.

Word of mouth:

"Have you seen What??"
"What?"
"What?"
"Have I seen what?"
"What?"
"What are you talking about?"
"What?. Roman Polanski's What?."
"His what?"
"His new film, it's called What?"
"How should I know?"

That! would be considerably worse, though.

[Michael]

Updated.

Two 10-point films in a row for me? (Dead Man and Chinatown) Seems kind of weird, but there's no doubt they both deserve it.

[Capo]

The ten-out-of-ten scale, while it works for you, is something I could never adapt to. How would you differentiate between a 5/10 and 6/10. Or 8/10 and 9/10? Are you having half-points too? What's the difference between 7 and 7.5, assuming you are? Does the film go through some kind of mathematical procedure, like ticking boxes on this or that, before it is given a grade? Or is it a case of, if you love the film, and see no real point in searching for faults, then it merits ten straight away? The problem I would have with it was that, if I loved a film, then I'd want to give it ten. But then, after that, there's nine other increments by which I have to measure a film by. In this ration, I'd either give a film ten (I love the film), 5 (I sort of like it) or zero (I don't like it). But since ten is the top mark I can give, I would feel reluctant in giving it out to every film I loved; so I'd give nine-point-five to most films, and save ten to those which were currently in my top ten or something.

Say, you watch a film, fall in love with it, give it ten; weeks later, when all has calmed down, you realise you're not so hot on it after all; then you look stupid for taking it down a couple of points, or you keep it at ten for the sake of having an "all-time" list. It just gives much more room for inconsistency, I think.

Further discussion on this.

[Michael]

The 4-star system frustrated the hell out of me. I like using the 10-point system to differentiate between films. For example, if I were using the 4 star system, I'd give Last Days 4 stars, along with Elephant. But with the 10-point system, I give Last Days a 9/10, and Elephant an 8/10. It just further separates films for me. I think it's the perfect system.

[Capo]

So what didn't Last Days have which would have made it a ten?

[Michael]

Just like you with your 4-star films, I'm going to save the 10/10 scores for films that absolutely blow me away, like Chinatown and Dead Man. I don't require multiple viewings to give this score out, either.

[Capo]

So why was Elephant 9 points and Last Days only 8? How are you measuring them against each other? Just so I know where you're coming from with these ratings; I'd like to understand it more, so I can adapt to it.