Best Picture and Director 1970

[Big Magilla]

I'd like to change my vote here and I don't have that option available. My original votes were to Robert Altman and M*A*S*H, but after some growth and reconsideration, I should change them to Ken Russell and Five Easy Pieces, easily the best offered in this selection. In general, I can't change my vote in any poll. Thank you all.

The option is there. Did you uncheck your original choices as well as checking your new ones?

[CalWilliam]

I'd like to change my vote here and I don't have that option available. My original votes were to Robert Altman and M*A*S*H, but after some growth and reconsideration, I should change them to Ken Russell and Five Easy Pieces, easily the best offered in this selection. In general, I can't change my vote in any poll. Thank you all.

[ITALIANO]

the first film in which Fellini's name was part of the title.

Yes, but this wasn't exactly due to ego. Soon after it was announced that the maestro's next movie would have been based on the surviving parts of Petronius's masterpiece, B-movie director Gian Luigi Polidoro thought of making a cheap, quick version from the same material (which was, obviously, in the public domain). Polidoro's movie is quite bad of course, but it was completed and shown in cinemas a few months before Fellini's - and it was also reasonably successful. So the Fellini movie had to have a different title, and that's why they thought of including the director's name in it.

Pasolini wasn't gross AT ALL!!! Sexually explicit, yes - and he knew that sex isn't necessarily sophisticated or classy (at least not in Italy, I must admit - it's possible that in the US and Pakistan it's different, though sometimes reading your posts I wonder if they DO have sex there) - but not gross!

Tinto Brass seems to be this board's favorite director. First Salon Kitty, now Caligula. I'm actually not surprised. Not only because I've met him and he's an extremely intelligent, well-educated man, and probably even today one of Italy's most locally famous and successful filmmakers, but because, let's face it, his movies may not be great or even good but his approach to sex is so... how shall I put it... genuine, frank, flamboyant, that it's quite enjoyable even when you perfectly know that it doesn't have anything to do with art. Caligula, unfortunately, didn't turn out the way he wished, but there must be some reasons why this erotic'-historical extravaganza has been seen by so many, even on this board. Like most of Brass's movies, it doesn't leave one cold or indifferent.

As for censorship - no, it certainly didn't influence in any way Fellini.

[Big Magilla]

Caligula certainly has quite a camp value to it

It went where Fellini would probably like to have taken Satyricon but could not due to censorship.

First point, maybe - to a point.

Second point, no - Passolini, maybe, but not Fellini. He could never be that gross.

[Reza]

Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, mainly because there's never been a good DVD release in the States, and I don't have any other way of seeing it; I just thought it was a funny description. I would certainly be willing to give it a look some day.

The MGM DVD is perfectly fine, but out-of-print, however Amazon partners are selling used copies for under $7.

The film is not exactly Petronius, but it's very tongue-in-cheek, the first film in which Fellini's name was part of the title. I haven't seen it in years, but I still smile when I think of it, unlike Caligula which is totally revolting from beginning to end.

Caligula certainly has quite a camp value to it

It went where Fellini would probably like to have taken Satyricon but could not due to censorship.

[Big Magilla]

Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, mainly because there's never been a good DVD release in the States, and I don't have any other way of seeing it; I just thought it was a funny description. I would certainly be willing to give it a look some day.

The MGM DVD is perfectly fine, but out-of-print, however Amazon partners are selling used copies for under $7.

The film is not exactly Petronius, but it's very tongue-in-cheek, the first film in which Fellini's name was part of the title. I haven't seen it in years, but I still smile when I think of it, unlike Caligula which is totally revolting from beginning to end.

[dws1982]

Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, mainly because there's never been a good DVD release in the States, and I don't have any other way of seeing it; I just thought it was a funny description. I would certainly be willing to give it a look some day.

[ITALIANO]

I haven't seen the film, but I just read this description of Satyricon that was pretty priceless:

Basically, it's like if you were making a cake that called for 3 cups of Fellini, but you accidentally put in 10 cups instead, and then forgot to add any other ingredients.

But movies - luckily - aren't like cooking recipes, and anyway I'm strong enough for those 10 cups. I hope you are, too - because Satyricon is still probably the best - and strange as it may seem, the most believable - recreation of ancient Rome which cinema has ever given us. But if you prefer Cleopatra, no problem.

[dws1982]

I think you're all being too kind to Fellini here; I find Satyricon pretty close to a hideous movie -- garish and boring. I was only glancingly familiar with the source material from high school Latin, but I don't think Fellini got a whole lot closer. It seemed almost as if he wanted to validate his nastiest critics, to whom he was by then just the barker of the freak-show. I find most of the film's actors unappealing if not downright repellent, and the plot -- such as it is -- drearily "daring" (in retrospect, it seems the gateway to the Guccione Caligula). Fellini's worst nomination, hands-down.

I haven't seen the film, but I just read this description of Satyricon that was pretty priceless:

Basically, it's like if you were making a cake that called for 3 cups of Fellini, but you accidentally put in 10 cups instead, and then forgot to add any other ingredients.

[Greg]

01. Trash

Apparently, it does not bother you that Joe Dallesandro can hardly behave, let alone act.

[Eric]

01. Trash
02. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
03. Hi, Mom!
04. Zabriskie Point
05. Myra Breckinridge
06. The Little Theatre of Jean Renoir
07. Even Dwarfs Started Small
08. Husbands
09. Dionysus in '69
10. Brewster McCloud

For my money, Love Story has emerged as the squarer film against Airport, but ... well, we pick our battles.

[Heksagon]

My votes go to Five Easy Pieces and Fellini.

Odd that I'm the only one who liked Satyricon - at all, apparently. Maybe I'm just seeing the film I wish was there, rather than what really is there. It's a very imaginative film and, in my opinion at least, a great directorial effort. Unfortunately the screenplay is not very strong.

[Big Magilla]

Given that we're in the 70s, did My Night at Maud's stand a chance at the picture/director nomination? It did get the writing nomination.

No. Rohmer was a bit esoteric for broader Academy tastes, although the film was nominated for Best Foreign Film the previous year.

[Okri]

Voted for Russell and MASH. Some random thoughts.

a) I don't hate Airport. That Ryan's Daughter is de facto preferable rather startles me. That most seem to rate Love Story ahead of it floors me. Largely fine with Patton winning, but only with the knowledge that Love Story could've won.

b) Given that we're in the 70s, did My Night at Maud's stand a chance at the picture/director nomination? It did get the writing nomination.

c) Of the non-nominees, I love The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and The Honeymoon Killers, but obviously neither were making it into this race.

[Mister Tee]

Mister Tee, I'm curious -- had you never gotten through Catch-22 the novel by the time you saw the film, or have you never made it through EVER? Obviously its length prevents it from being a breeze of a read or anything, but I think it's quite enjoyable and often very funny, and would be surprised someone could find it to be an endurance test.

I was a little surprised myself -- it seemed/sounded like something I'd really like.

As I recall, it was toward the end of my freshman year in college. I'd just read Portnoy's Complaint in, like, 48 hours, and jumped right to Catch 22. Maybe it was just the contrast in ease of reading, but I didn't get very far with Heller -- 40 years back is hard to recall, but I think I found it rambly and not engaging enough. And I'm sure required books took precedence, so I put it aside.

Then I saw the movie only a month or two later, and once I've seen a movie I'm much less likely to want to read a book. Discussing this here has made me me think I ought to give it another try -- it's still sitting on my shelf. But I do remember starting Something Happened in the late 70s and having much the same reaction as I did to Catch 22, so maybe there's just something about Heller to which I don't respond.