« The New X-Files | Main | A Lenten Project »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I've been interested in seeing these films, especially the first one, for a long time. So far I haven't, but this post gives me more encouragement.

I'll certainly be interested in hearing your reaction, if and when you do see them. It's kind of a big investment of time. I think I wasn't sure I wanted to make it until a third or more of the way through Pather Panchali.

I watched Pather Panchali, slowly, over the last week or so. Not the ideal way to watch a film, but it was the best I could do.

It's a very good film. During the first half I kept waiting for something to happen, for the main narrative thread of the film to emerge, but it eventually became clear that there wasn't really going to be one apart from the lives and relationships of these people. As you say in your post, it's a beautiful looking film, with a strong but unobtrusive directorial hand. All the more impressive considering how it was made.

I did, though, find it quite slow. I'm not going to rush to watch the other two.

Oh yes, it's *very* slow. As I said in my post, I'm not entirely sure why I liked it/them so much, and can only point to the visual appeal, which naturally is a somewhat subjective thing. The other two are somewhat more focused in their narrative btw. And possibly shorter...I can't remember for sure.

As I watched it, I was thinking about how and why films become classics. Pather Panchali is a classic; I think it's been on the Sight & Sound film list for decades.

But why, exactly? Sure, I enjoyed it, and it packs an emotional punch in the end, and it is visually beautiful. But when those directors and film connoisseurs send in their votes, what is it about Pather Panchali that consistently attracts them? Pacing? Tone? Something technical? I really wonder about it.

After having Aparajito in the house for at least a month, I finally got a chance to watch it a couple of weeks ago. It doesn't seem anywhere near as slow as Pather Panchali because things are happening and the plot is going someplace. I liked it better than Pather Panchali which I liked. ;-) I'm hoping that Filmstruck will have the 3rd one because I can't seem to find it anywere.


Very odd that Netflix only has the first two. I hope that means the third one will be along eventually.

Sight & Sound also has Hitchcock's Vertigo as number 1 on its list of top 50 films of all time. I don't get that at all.

I definitely have some major quarrels with that list. If I'm not mistaken Rob G has praised Vertigo very highly. And I'm not 100% sure I've ever seen it. I think I have, and wasn't wildly enthusiastic.

Rob G has praised Vertigo very highly.

If you don't think there's something weirdly ironic in that sentence, you haven't seen it.

That was the first psychological drama I'd ever seen. I was in high school and not interested in anything but romance. It horrified me. I didn't really understand why they made movies like that.



Yes, I'm a big fan of Vertigo! :-)

Seriously though, it is one of my top five all-time favorite films. The first time I saw it was in the cinema in its 1983 re-release, and I was completely engrossed. I'm pretty sure I went back to see it a second time, and I've watched it probably four or five times since then.

I know we've talked about this before. In fact I just searched the blog for "vertigo" and found pretty much this same conversation in 2011--including my saying that I couldn't remember whether I'd seen it. I also said I was going to put it on my Netflix queue, but apparently I didn't. Well, now I have. Possibly the title has made me confuse it with North By Northwest, which includes some scenes involving scary heights.

I'm trying to figure out if James Stewart makes up for having to watch Kim Hunter.


Novak, I think. Does that make the prospect better or worse.

I was thinking about Kim Novak. I knew it was wrong, but I couldn't figure out why. ;-)


Kim Novak is like some French actresses -- Isabelle Huppert and Catherine Denueve come to mind -- who don't move their faces much. Maybe explains a lot of their appeal because it's mysterious, or something.

It occurs to me (speaking of Kim Novak) that the term "sex symbol" is pretty out of date. They're all sex symbols now.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)