CAL3 said:

.

I think you may have misunderstood my point, or maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wasn't suggesting that the film was made entirely in the style of old-time Hollywood of the '40s. It's not a full-on pastiche of any specific era, but there's enough of a melding of influences to prevent it from feeling like a period of its era. Which PR does. That doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other. Just that there is zero mistaking the era in which PR was produced and released. Everything about it screams mid-'80s.

.

UTCM sidesteps that. No, they wouldn't have used the line you quoted in anything of the '40s - but at the same time it doesn't link it to 1986 by any means. The dialogue in UTCM could've been in any post-Hays Code film.

.

UTCM doesn't evoke any particular time period, which isn't inherently a "good" or "bad" element. It just means that 30+ years later it doesn't come across as dated in the way that PR absolutely does.

but I think that those exact things make the movie appear messy and confused.Are we in the 40s or the 80s? It's just....strange an 80s movie in black and white? That right there lessened the movie's mainstream appeal.

...

[Edited 2/5/19 1:03am]

SoulAlive said:

CAL3 said:

.

I think you may have misunderstood my point, or maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wasn't suggesting that the film was made entirely in the style of old-time Hollywood of the '40s. It's not a full-on pastiche of any specific era, but there's enough of a melding of influences to prevent it from feeling like a period of its era. Which PR does. That doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other. Just that there is zero mistaking the era in which PR was produced and released. Everything about it screams mid-'80s.

.

UTCM sidesteps that. No, they wouldn't have used the line you quoted in anything of the '40s - but at the same time it doesn't link it to 1986 by any means. The dialogue in UTCM could've been in any post-Hays Code film.

.

UTCM doesn't evoke any particular time period, which isn't inherently a "good" or "bad" element. It just means that 30+ years later it doesn't come across as dated in the way that PR absolutely does.

but I think that those exact things make the movie appear messy and confused.Are we in the 40s or the 80s? It's just....strange an 80s movie in black and white? That right there lessened the movie's mainstream appeal.

...

[Edited 2/5/19 1:03am]

.

FOr me that "confusion" or time period/era adds a wonderfully surreal feeling to the movie.

.

And sure, a B&W movie in the '80s - like some great Woody Allen classics, too (Broadway Danny Rose, in particular). Nobody gives Woody shit about continuing to make B&W throughout his career.

.

UTCM is genius. Deal with it.

I found a few really funny podcasts that take down UTCM as well as GB and purple Rain. They're Batman podcasters but took a break to review these films. I might give them their own thread

UTCM:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQfD03im-ng


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umPq_eJdJr8

violetcrush said:

"The romantic chemistry between the two leads is practically nonexistent, which works in the early scenes when Mary is keeping Christopher at arms length, but not so much in the later scenes when they are supposed to be in love. Frankly, there is more genuine chemistry between Christopher and his cohort Tricky throughout, which adds an intriguing layer to the proceedings (and there is the insinuation that they have engaged in threesomes with their sexy landlord in order to beat paying the rent), it has the effect of making Mary seem like the beard than the object of desire."

*

Guess he should have re-thought pulling Susannah from the film???

There is no guarantee that the onscreen chemistry would have been any better with Susannah - especially since she was not a trained actor any more than Prince was.

Genesia said:

violetcrush said:

"The romantic chemistry between the two leads is practically nonexistent, which works in the early scenes when Mary is keeping Christopher at arms length, but not so much in the later scenes when they are supposed to be in love. Frankly, there is more genuine chemistry between Christopher and his cohort Tricky throughout, which adds an intriguing layer to the proceedings (and there is the insinuation that they have engaged in threesomes with their sexy landlord in order to beat paying the rent), it has the effect of making Mary seem like the beard than the object of desire."

*

Guess he should have re-thought pulling Susannah from the film???

There is no guarantee that the onscreen chemistry would have been any better with Susannah - especially since she was not a trained actor any more than Prince was.

Yeah, I don't see how swapping out Susannah changes the abysmal, nonsensical script or the fact that Chirsotpher Tracy is a complete asshole. The only competent part of this film is that, surprisingly, the direction is not terrible.

herb4 said:

Genesia said:

There is no guarantee that the onscreen chemistry would have been any better with Susannah - especially since she was not a trained actor any more than Prince was.

Yeah, I don't see how swapping out Susannah changes the abysmal, nonsensical script or the fact that Chirsotpher Tracy is a complete asshole. The only competent part of this film is that, surprisingly, the direction is not terrible.

The one good thing you can say about Prince's direction is that he had some sense of how to frame a shot - and what would make a pretty picture.

[Edited 3/18/19 14:58pm]

Genesia said:

herb4 said:

Yeah, I don't see how swapping out Susannah changes the abysmal, nonsensical script or the fact that Chirsotpher Tracy is a complete asshole. The only competent part of this film is that, surprisingly, the direction is not terrible.

The one good thing you can say about Prince's direction is that he had some sense of how to frame a shot - and what would make a pretty picture.

[Edited 3/18/19 14:58pm]

He honestly did OK. The direction wasn't half bad and was the least of the film's problems. Then again, he was the one who decided it should be in black and white which really adds nothing and ulimately only serves to make the whole "period piece" style of the thing even more confusing, so there's a strike right there. I think he was so into the "I'm totally an artist" thing that he went for B&W out of sheer pretentiousess because Scorcese and Lynch did it and he thought that making it B&W automatically made it "art".

You're supposed to harken back to "Casablanca" and Valentino films (apparently) but then "let's whip out a boom box for no reason!" After seeing some of the color stills...I mean, my god. At LEAST leave the color in to lend the film some visual flavor and add some eye candy. The shots I've seen look gorgeous. Here you've got this visually dynamic musical artist shooting in rich, colorful location. But, no, let's shoot in color, process it in B&W and then have a line in it that references the sparkling gold color of your outfit.

As an actor anda film maker...well...let's just say Prince was a hell of a musician. Even Purple Rain just BARELY works as film and half of that was Magnoli's eye and the amazing musical numbers. None of his more "narrative" approaches to his material ever really worked and, more often, detracted from the piece (Sign O the Times, 3 Chains of Gold, The Undertaker, Love 4 One Another).

I admire the sheer balls on the man and the way he just WILLED these things into existence, but their presence in his portfolio doesn't do anything to attract non fans and, to me, are really distracting at best and cringe worthy at worst.

I don't give a rat's ass why critics did/do hate Under the Cherry Moon. I love it. Cult classic.

It's funny because when I became a Prince fan in 89-90, Prince was known in the media as a musician but also as an actor and a director. It seemed taken for granted, at least to the 13-14 years old I was, that he'd go on with his film career. Retrospectively, and despite the tremendous impact of PR, Prince's film career now appear as a short-lived anomaly in his trajectory.

CAL3 said:

UTCM is genius. Deal with it.

Because it has a bad script and lack great direction. A little better script and better direction would have made it awesome. Just imagine Spike Lee directing??

herb4 said:

Genesia said:

The one good thing you can say about Prince's direction is that he had some sense of how to frame a shot - and what would make a pretty picture.

[Edited 3/18/19 14:58pm]

He honestly did OK. The direction wasn't half bad and was the least of the film's problems. Then again, he was the one who decided it should be in black and white which really adds nothing and ulimately only serves to make the whole "period piece" style of the thing even more confusing, so there's a strike right there. I think he was so into the "I'm totally an artist" thing that he went for B&W out of sheer pretentiousess because Scorcese and Lynch did it and he thought that making it B&W automatically made it "art".

You're supposed to harken back to "Casablanca" and Valentino films (apparently) but then "let's whip out a boom box for no reason!" After seeing some of the color stills...I mean, my god. At LEAST leave the color in to lend the film some visual flavor and add some eye candy. The shots I've seen look gorgeous. Here you've got this visually dynamic musical artist shooting in rich, colorful location. But, no, let's shoot in color, process it in B&W and then have a line in it that references the sparkling gold color of your outfit.

As an actor anda film maker...well...let's just say Prince was a hell of a musician. Even Purple Rain just BARELY works as film and half of that was Magnoli's eye and the amazing musical numbers. None of his more "narrative" approaches to his material ever really worked and, more often, detracted from the piece (Sign O the Times, 3 Chains of Gold, The Undertaker, Love 4 One Another).

I admire the sheer balls on the man and the way he just WILLED these things into existence, but their presence in his portfolio doesn't do anything to attract non fans and, to me, are really distracting at best and cringe worthy at worst.

^^

because it's infantile, all the way from the wrecka stow 'joke' up till the dying scene.

I liked it when it came out, but i was still half an infant back then.

paddypurple said:

You got lots of different replies for sure, successful thread by that measure. If you really want it locked, you can ask the mods to do it because you are the Original Poster.

herb4 said:

Genesia said:

The one good thing you can say about Prince's direction is that he had some sense of how to frame a shot - and what would make a pretty picture.

[Edited 3/18/19 14:58pm]

He honestly did OK. The direction wasn't half bad and was the least of the film's problems. Then again, he was the one who decided it should be in black and white which really adds nothing and ulimately only serves to make the whole "period piece" style of the thing even more confusing, so there's a strike right there. I think he was so into the "I'm totally an artist" thing that he went for B&W out of sheer pretentiousess because Scorcese and Lynch did it and he thought that making it B&W automatically made it "art".

You're supposed to harken back to "Casablanca" and Valentino films (apparently) but then "let's whip out a boom box for no reason!" After seeing some of the color stills...I mean, my god. At LEAST leave the color in to lend the film some visual flavor and add some eye candy. The shots I've seen look gorgeous. Here you've got this visually dynamic musical artist shooting in rich, colorful location. But, no, let's shoot in color, process it in B&W and then have a line in it that references the sparkling gold color of your outfit.

As an actor anda film maker...well...let's just say Prince was a hell of a musician. Even Purple Rain just BARELY works as film and half of that was Magnoli's eye and the amazing musical numbers. None of his more "narrative" approaches to his material ever really worked and, more often, detracted from the piece (Sign O the Times, 3 Chains of Gold, The Undertaker, Love 4 One Another).

I admire the sheer balls on the man and the way he just WILLED these things into existence, but their presence in his portfolio doesn't do anything to attract non fans and, to me, are really distracting at best and cringe worthy at worst.

I don't think Casablanca and Valentino were the influences here, at all. I think Prince was intending this to be more in the vein of 30s screwball comedies like My Man Godfrey, Bringing Up Baby, Nothing Sacred, Dinner at Eight, and It Happened One Night. He wanted to blend the visual look and fizzy storylines of films from that time, but set it in the present day. (Hence the boombox, late model cars and polka dot clothing with bigass shoulder pads.) The black and white was just a vehicle for getting people into the world he was trying to create. (I think it was also a conscious attempt to make the film as far from Purple Rain as possible.)

Prince's biggest problem as a film maker is his pitiful attention span. Granted, by all accounts, the script for Under the Cherry Moon was virtually non-existent. But surely, they had something more solid than the running series of sight gags (most of) the movie turned out to be. And that ending! WTF? How does a light, fluffy little comedy end in an honor killing? THAT is the most ridiculous part of the whole thing: Prince has so little focus that by the end of the movie, he had completely forgotten the beginning of it.

But he did create a very pretty world and filled it with (mostly) very pretty people. That is the thing that strikes me every time I watch this movie - which, admittedly, is not often.

Genesia said:

herb4 said:

He honestly did OK. The direction wasn't half bad and was the least of the film's problems. Then again, he was the one who decided it should be in black and white which really adds nothing and ulimately only serves to make the whole "period piece" style of the thing even more confusing, so there's a strike right there. I think he was so into the "I'm totally an artist" thing that he went for B&W out of sheer pretentiousess because Scorcese and Lynch did it and he thought that making it B&W automatically made it "art".

You're supposed to harken back to "Casablanca" and Valentino films (apparently) but then "let's whip out a boom box for no reason!" After seeing some of the color stills...I mean, my god. At LEAST leave the color in to lend the film some visual flavor and add some eye candy. The shots I've seen look gorgeous. Here you've got this visually dynamic musical artist shooting in rich, colorful location. But, no, let's shoot in color, process it in B&W and then have a line in it that references the sparkling gold color of your outfit.

As an actor anda film maker...well...let's just say Prince was a hell of a musician. Even Purple Rain just BARELY works as film and half of that was Magnoli's eye and the amazing musical numbers. None of his more "narrative" approaches to his material ever really worked and, more often, detracted from the piece (Sign O the Times, 3 Chains of Gold, The Undertaker, Love 4 One Another).

I admire the sheer balls on the man and the way he just WILLED these things into existence, but their presence in his portfolio doesn't do anything to attract non fans and, to me, are really distracting at best and cringe worthy at worst.

I don't think Casablanca and Valentino were the influences here, at all. I think Prince was intending this to be more in the vein of 30s screwball comedies like My Man Godfrey, Bringing Up Baby, Nothing Sacred, Dinner at Eight, and It Happened One Night. He wanted to blend the visual look and fizzy storylines of films from that time, but set it in the present day. (Hence the boombox, late model cars and polka dot clothing with bigass shoulder pads.) The black and white was just a vehicle for getting people into the world he was trying to create. (I think it was also a conscious attempt to make the film as far from Purple Rain as possible.)

Prince's biggest problem as a film maker is his pitiful attention span. Granted, by all accounts, the script for Under the Cherry Moon was virtually non-existent. But surely, they had something more solid than the running series of sight gags (most of) the movie turned out to be. And that ending! WTF? How does a light, fluffy little comedy end in an honor killing? THAT is the most ridiculous part of the whole thing: Prince has so little focus that by the end of the movie, he had completely forgotten the beginning of it.

But he did create a very pretty world and filled it with (mostly) very pretty people. That is the thing that strikes me every time I watch this movie - which, admittedly, is not often.

I also thought it was a bit of the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope "road" movies which featured them travelling to foreign countries and getting in trouble with the locals. I wonder if Prince saw the movie Black Orpheus because it had a similar ending with the death of the two lovers followed by little kids dancing cheerfully into the sunset.

TheFman said:

because it's infantile, all the way from the wrecka stow 'joke' up till the dying scene.

I liked it when it came out, but i was still half an infant back then.

I think the characters were supposed to be immature. Christopher used love to manipulate lonely women for money, Tricky was a greedy con man, and Mary was a spoiled princess. Somehow these lost people's interactions and Chris's death with each other made them better human beings at the end. It just wasn't portrayed effectively. I would say a movie like Boogie Nights did the idea of lost souls finding comfort and maturity in each other was much more successful.

lrn36 said:

Genesia said:

I don't think Casablanca and Valentino were the influences here, at all. I think Prince was intending this to be more in the vein of 30s screwball comedies like My Man Godfrey, Bringing Up Baby, Nothing Sacred, Dinner at Eight, and It Happened One Night. He wanted to blend the visual look and fizzy storylines of films from that time, but set it in the present day. (Hence the boombox, late model cars and polka dot clothing with bigass shoulder pads.) The black and white was just a vehicle for getting people into the world he was trying to create. (I think it was also a conscious attempt to make the film as far from Purple Rain as possible.)

Prince's biggest problem as a film maker is his pitiful attention span. Granted, by all accounts, the script for Under the Cherry Moon was virtually non-existent. But surely, they had something more solid than the running series of sight gags (most of) the movie turned out to be. And that ending! WTF? How does a light, fluffy little comedy end in an honor killing? THAT is the most ridiculous part of the whole thing: Prince has so little focus that by the end of the movie, he had completely forgotten the beginning of it.

But he did create a very pretty world and filled it with (mostly) very pretty people. That is the thing that strikes me every time I watch this movie - which, admittedly, is not often.

I also thought it was a bit of the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope "road" movies which featured them travelling to foreign countries and getting in trouble with the locals. I wonder if Prince saw the movie Black Orpheus because it had a similar ending with the death of the two lovers followed by little kids dancing cheerfully into the sunset.

I never thought of the "road" movies - but that's a great observation. And it would be just like Prince to think he could marry that to Black Orpheus.

The other thing that makes me think 30s is that All My Dreams has a total Rudy Vallee/Busby Berkeley vibe to it. Turn off the sound on this video and play it to All My Dreams and you'll see what I mean.

bonatoc said:

herb4 said:

UTCM was shit

U trying to defend this piece of shit film?

You mean THE SHIT, right? Agree.

Never cared for his movies. Too much bad acting. When I watch Purple Rain I always fast forward to the music segments. UTCM and GB are unwatchable. SOTT concert movie is genius despite all the studio tracks and overdubs

[Edited 4/25/19 10:01am]