doctorfaoust
http://www.flixster.com/user/doctorfaoust
| Name | Nikolas georgiadis |
|---|---|
| Gender | Male |
| I'm From | ATHENS |
| Member For | 304 days |
| Last Login | Wed. Aug 6 |
| Profile Views | 343 |
| Age | 45 |
| MCT Score |
| Movie: | Stalker by great Tarkovsky , is leading a huge train |
|---|---|
| Actor: | as an example , i ll say Jack Nicholson |
| Director: | there are too many , to say |
| Quote: | i ll make you an offer you can t deny , lets play chess ,look always the bright sight of life |
|
always i liked the moment when lights begin to turn
off , the people tried to find a more comfortable position , and all watched to the scene , waiting .. we are lucky . in Greece and Italy , there are still summer cinemas..the perfume of flowers , the stars or a full moon , and a good film . nights full of magic the first movie i show in my life , in a theater as a kid was James Bond and the island of doctor NO . for the next years Ursula Andres had the first role in my first erotic-sex dreams . from there i have not lost a James Bond film ,and sir Sean Connery was the best in the role. i dislike people who eat in the cinema but i like the break ..a coffee , a cigarette , quick talk about the film , and then back to our seats . in a movie theater , i kissed for first time a girl during a silly horror film yes ...finally i love movies |
Skin art by
CollapseTheLight
| Grab this skin
Nikolas' Recent Reviews
View All Ratings (1722) |
Rate Movies
And Life Goes On (Zendegi va digar hich) (Life, and Nothing More)
Unrated
a movie like a document ...Tough places ,
old cars , villages destroyed ..death and life ,but in a natural phenomenon like an earthquake so you can find hope
Zire darakhatan zeyton (Under the Olive Trees)
G
so simple , so human ...this is the art of cinema , true stories of true people
Nikolas' Favorite Movies
View All
(223) | Create a MovieBoard
1.
Fahrenheit 451
Unrated
whats going here ....the site tells me that i did not vote this and never wrote a review ....
Nikolas' Movie Scrapbook
Nikolas' Talk
View All (893)
-
busted123posted 2 days ago -
-
hello....how are you? my name is janet.l like to make friend can well be friend,if you don"t mind you can add me.this my id janet20085@yahoo.com so see you later....cos l always been online everyday
posted 3 days ago -
-
I recommend you see...
***
posted 3 days ago -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hey - try this quiz and see how we compare
Whats my name? (name the actor)posted 6 days ago -
-
-
-
-
-
Hey - try this quiz and see how we compare
How good is your eyesight?????posted 10 days ago -
I recommend you see...
Adieu Bonaparte (Weda'an Bonapart)
by SancarYoussef Chahine is one of the most forceful and complex of Egyptian filmmakers whose progress over the forty years or so since his debut at the age of twenty-four offers remarkable insight into the evolution of Egyptian society. A series of sharply critical social studies?of which The Sparrow in 1975 is undoubtedly the most successful?was interrupted by a heart attack while the director was still in his early fifties. This led him to question his own personal stance and development in a manner unique in Arab cinema, and the result was the splendidly fluent autobiography Alexandria . . . Why? in 1978, which was followed four years later by a second installment titled An Egyptian Story, shot in a style best characterized as an amalgam of Fellini and Bob Fosse's All That Jazz. As such references indicate, Chahine is an eclectic filmmaker whose cosmopolitan attitudes can be traced back to his origins. He was born in Alexandria in 1926 of middle-class parents. His father, a supporter of the nationalist Wafd party, was a scrupulous but financially unsuccessful lawyer, and Chahine was brought up as a Christian, educated first at religious school and then at the prestigious Victoria College, where the language of tuition was English. After a year at Alexandria University he persuaded his parents to allow him to study drama for two years at Pasadena Playhouse, near Los Angeles, and on his return to Egypt he plunged into the film industry, then enjoying a period of boom in the last years of King Farouk's reign.
Alexandria . . . Why? presents a vividly drawn picture of this vanished world: Alexandria in 1942, awaiting the arrival of Rommel's troops, who, it is hoped, will finally drive out the British. The film is peopled with English soldiers and Egyptian patriots, aristocrats, and struggling bourgeoises, the enthusiastic young and their disillusioned or corrupt elders. Chahine mocks the excesses of the nationalists (his terrorist patriots are mostly caricatures), leaves condemnation of Zionism to Jews, and tells love stories that cross the neatly drawn barriers separating Muslim and Jew, Egyptian aristocrat and English Tommy. The revelation of Chahine's own background and a few of his personal obsessions (as with the crucified Christ) seems to have released fresh creative powers in the director. His technique of intercutting the action with scenes from Hollywood musicals and newsreel footage from the Imperial War Museum in London is as successful as it is audacious, and the transitions of mood are brilliantly handled.
Chahine is a key figure in Third World cinema. Unlike some of the other major filmmakers who also emerged in the 1950s?such as Satyajit Ray or Lester James Peries?he has not turned his back on commercial cinema. He has always shown a keen desire to reach a wide audience, and Alexandria . . . Why?, though personal, is by no means an inaccessible or difficult work. Chahine's strength as a filmmaker lies indeed in his ability to combine mainstream production techniques with a very individual style and approach. Though intensely patriotic, he has shown a readiness to criticize government policies with which he does not agree, such as those of the late President Sadat. It is ironic therefore that the appearance of Alexandria . . . Why? should have coincided with the Camp David agreements between Egypt and Israel. As a result, Chahine's very personal statement of his belief in a tolerant society came to be widely criticized in the Arab world as an opportunistic political statement and a justification of Sadat's policies.
His underlying commitment to the making of an Egyptian identity, history, and memory is evident in his more recent works as well. The 1984 Adieu Bonaparte, a Franco-Egyptian co-production, portrays an East-West encounter through an Egyptian family during Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Chahine's continuous efforts to reconstruct and forge an Egyptian-ness, "to be nothing but Egyptian," can be most clearly seen in the ways in which he strives to retell this history from a strictly Egyptian perspective and none other. Chahine's endeavor may not be unique among the whole array of Third World filmmakers who act and/or react against the West. However, given his own involvement and interests in the Western arts and influences, which not too many non-Western filmmakers could in fact claim to be devoid of, it is his inventiveness in forms and consistency in content that make Chahine an important filmmaker in Egypt in particular and in the non-Western filmmaking world in general.
?Roy Armes, updated by Guo-Juin HongHey, you should really see this!
posted 11 days ago -
I recommend you see...
ABC Africa
by SancarClose-Up contains many key elements of Kiarostami?s cinema. The main character is innocent yet corrupt. Although here, unlike in Traveler (1974) or The Wind Will Carry Us, he is sympathetic. Both behind-the-scenes and within the frame, Kiarostami is self-critical as a filmmaker. We see him in the opening scene talking to the hero in prison and toward the end we hear him talking to his crew. In Homework (1990) he interviews the children and in Case No. 1 and Case No.2 (1979) he interviews a number of cultural authorities. The filmmaker, though as a fictional character, appears again in Through the Olive Trees (1994), Life and Nothing More? and The Wind Will Carry Us. This self-conscious cinema is a double-edged sword. It can be read as a self-critical cinema where Kiarostami questions his role as a filmmaker. Also, it can be seen as a means to distance the audience and make them conscious.
What is so specific in Kiarostami?s style is his attention to form and the role it plays in creating poetry and humor in his films. As Tati demonstrates, and as observed by Jonathan Rosenbaum, form plays a major role in creating cinematic humor. (4) What is normally non-humorous is seen and heard as humorous, ridiculous, or absurd through Kiarostami?s films. Similar to Tati?s Playtime (1967), Kiarostami?s fantastic short Orderly or Disorderly (1981) derives its power and humor through shot composition, the use of sound, and, in particular, Kiarostami?s voice over. The high angle long shots of the children in the school-yard lining up to drink water or getting on the bus, as well as the impatient drivers who complicate traffic in a Tehran intersection, reveal the humorous nature of chaos and order in public spaces.
The Wind Will Carry Us
Also, form as a zigzag pattern is emphasised through shot composition or camera movement. For example, the recurrent image of zigzagging roads in his films has become a philosophical and metaphysical statement as well as revealing the general situation of his characters. The zigzag path in Where is the Friend?s House? (1987) shows the many turns that the child has to take in order to find his friend. Similarly, the man who is driving on the hilly roads in Taste of Cherry is looking for someone to bury him. In Life and Nothing More?, the filmmaker has to find two children who acted in his previous film, following a deadly earthquake that shook northern Iran. Even sometimes the zigzagging movements of an object like an apple in The Wind Will Carry Us or the empty spray can in Close-Up show the randomness of fate. They are practically Kiarostami?s signatory shots.
Kiarostami?s later films, especially the three films that are known as a trilogy, Where is the Friend?s House?, Through the Olive Trees, and Life and Nothing More?, have a strong emphasis on landscape and architecture, revealing Kiarostami?s philosophical point-of-view. The beautiful view of trees revealed through the ruins of the village in Where is the Friend?s House?, the long shot of the cracked road in Life and Nothing More?, and the long shot of the wheat field in The Wind Will Carry Us, remind the audience of the beauty that the main character ignores. As Kiarostami gradually moves toward nature and rural characters and settings, the landscape shots become more instrumental in the structure of his post-revolutionary films.
A.B.C. Africa
Although Kiarostami uses small crews and mainly non-actors and no script, his recent documentary feature A.B.C. Africa signals the emergence of a new approach. It is his first film that is shot outside Iran and on digital video. The film is predominately shot in English, saturated in colour, and has wall-to-wall music. Unlike most of his previous films, A.B.C. Africa is populated with strong women characters ? a sharp contrast to his previous films, where the absence of women was noticeable. One can view this as another movement in his cinema that has started mainly with The Wind Will Carry Us and is continued in his most recent film, Ten (2002), films which feature mainly women characters.
Kiarostami?s cinema celebrates the economy of film language and offers an alternative to the fancy, excessive mainstream cinema. A controversial characteristic of his films is how they encourage the audience to reflect and creatively participate in them. His films challenge viewers? stereotypes and make them aware of their own blind spots. A refreshing experience of watching Kiarostami?s films is how they resist giving an expected, homogeneous, or exotic "third-world" image of Iranian culture to the audience. Each of his films, even those that are shot in the remote rural areas of Iran, reflect McLuhan?s concept of the "global village" and our disillusion of the image of "self" as separate, immune, and distant from the "other".Hey, you should really see this!
posted 11 days ago
View All (893)
