1. Absolutely no one expected an actual war with Ukraine. When the first news in english press were published (in November I think) about the coming war between Russia and Ukraine, everyone I know just simply dissmised the very idea of it. It seemed absurd, unthinkable. I did not believe there was any possibility of the war whatsoever and so were my friends, my colleagues, my parents, the ukranians I know. The news became a common joke, a meme even. So when I woke up Feb. 24th and opened the internet, I was stunned, appaled and absolutely embarrased on top of it.
I've never read or heard that it is possible to feel enormous embarrassment about the delcaration of war, but it was the strongest feeling in me at the time (and reading various russian sites - not just in me). Despite various disagreements between the Russian and Ukrainian governments, the news about war seemed bizarre. It would be similiar to waking up one day and reading that US Navy are blockading Liverpool and Bristol, US Airforce are bombing London and Manchester, and US Marines are storming Brighton and Southampton. Absolutely surreal.
It took a full week for this feeling to slowly fade away before I regained my ability to think straight; I just couldn't work or do anything productive during that time, I was glued to the news and even more news. My father still haven't recovered - he lost all appetite, doesn't talk with anyone and overall extremely depressed.
2. Reading various russian sites - the first reaction was very negative and almost no one supported the war as it happened. After the first 3-4 days the opinions started to change. People started to mentally cope with the news and invent various rationalizations in favour of war - nobody like to be a "baddie" or feel like one. So the opinion is slowly swaying towards the side that claims that the war is justified. That said, I believe even the official russian TV-propaganda were shocked and didn't know what to do or say at first - it took them several days to find the right groove. Propaganda-wise, there was zere preparation of the population for the coming war. The main downside of constantly manupulating statistics is that it is impossible to know which numbers are genuine and which aren't. It could really be that 70% of russians are supporting the war. Or it could be 50%. Or 30%. Or 99%. There is no way to know for sure.
3. On top of that no one really knows or understands what is it exactly that our army are fighting for, what are our end-goals and, especially, what exactly will happen if Ukrainian government will refuse to sign a peace treaty and deside to fight till the end. "Demilitarization" and "denazification' are extremely abstract goals with no clear purpose. There was (and still is) a strong emphasis that the russian army will not target civilian buildings and infrastructure (and soldiers are genuinly reluctant to do so). But it is plain to see now, that this goal is impossible to achieve in the modern war. So what do we do? Do we start to level Kiev and other cities to the ground? Do we march on Lviv? Just what is the plan? Nobody knows.
4. As for the future - right now I am genuinely more worried about the Ukranians than about Russia. I have friends in Sumy who are now almost two weeks under siege, and who knows how long it will last. The Ukraine itself is suffering an enourmous damage to it's infrastructure - how and when and with what funds it will be restored I have no idea. On top of that it looks like there will be at least 5.000.000 refugees (and probably much much more) - their fate is also unclear, I don't think EU can adequately deal with such a large number. In comparision the devaluation of the ruble doesn't seem as important. It looks like there are three main fears: 1) a large scale unemployment - a lot of businesses are leaving Russia, producing an enormous chain reaction; 2) lack of essential medicine - a lot of drugs are imported from the EU (Germany in particular); 3) complete default of the state - a lot of people have lived through the 90s (which in Russia were somewhat equivalent to the Great Depression in USA), so a certain level of impoverishment and hardship are ok, we are used to it, but a complete bancrupcy will be catastrophic. I don't believe there is any chance for an actual famine. The rest isn't so important in comparison.
5. It is also important to understand, that even in an unjust war it is impossible not to support and sympathize with your army. Wishing death and defeat to your own soldiers just isn't right and would feel dirty.
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" — from The Triumph of Stupidity, 1933.
>The constant nonsense UI redesigns that come about with every new update. The instability, and ridiculous resources consumption. The slowness and slugishness.
>I want a browser that works, respects my privacy, stays out of my way and lets me get shit done. A browser built for professionals, by professionals. I want a consistent UI that remains stable over time. I'm easily willing to pay for such a browser.
>Firefox used to be it, but I no longer feel like it is. Any suggestions for what to try next?
That's my experience as well. I was using FF from v 1.0 back in 2004. Upgrade to Quantum almost gave me a heart attack because it ruined majority of addons and disabled custom themes. Upgrade to "megabar" was a final straw for me. I've spent ~ 3 hours, but finally migrated to Pale Moon ... and it's like I'm back in 2004. Even Noia theme is working again.
FF, in my opinion, went full circle: from being the most functional and the most customizable browser to being the new IE6. There are no redeeming qualities left really.
Goodreads has been around for ~15 years now and it's still lacking the basic search functions. E.g. I'd would like to see a list of books published in 1965 in Science Fiction genre with at least 1000 votes, sorted by the number of votes. Hell, even just seeing a list of books, published in X year would be nice. IMDB can do this, progarchives can do this, a lot of similar sites can do this. But not Goodreads. And without the proper search function the "discoverability" tends to zero, which, in my opinion, should be the main focus of any site, devoted to books and book reviews.
On top of this, the UI is horrendous. Just as one example, compare Goodreads author page, say https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3706.George_Orwell where the only useful things you could see is the short bio and the most voted books of the author with a similar russian site https://fantlab.ru/autor238 Fantlab displays all the works, categorized into novels/novellas/short stories/essays sorted in chronological order (and you can sort by other criteria as well) that gives you a clear overview of the author's works. The book pages are hardly any better.
The only advantage Goodreads have over other sites is it's huge user base, and because of this, I'm afraid, we are stuck with it for a very long time and it's not going anywhere.
>Spotify and co have obliterated music piracy on the internet. It's hard to find torrents for music these days and even the best private trackers can't compete with Spotifys ever growing catalog.
Eh? Maybe it depends on a musical genre, but from my experience musical piracy is about as popular as it ever was, with a lot of new releases every day (although I admit that it didn't really grow). I can still find anything I'm interested in less than a minute.
Besides yandex there are also rambler.ru (less popular, but even older) and mail.ru
dic.academic.ru allows you to search through several dozens encyclopedias. And bigenc.ru adds onother one (the largest and the most recent).
fantlab.ru is the best site dedicated to sci fi/fantasy literature (it is IMO 10 times better than goodreads or librarything). There are also a lot of site dedicated to literature like proza.ru lib.ru litres.ru feb-web.ru www.obshelit.su etc.
Besides habr, forum.ru-board.com ixbt.com cyberforum.ru overclockers.ru 3dnews.ru are very popular sites dedicated to hardware/software/coding.
There are a lot of sited about video games like old-games.ru goha.ru stopgame.ru riotpixels.com as well as a streaming platforms like goodgame.ru
rutube.ru exists for many years now but it's crap.
There are several sites dedicated to popular science like elementy.ru arhe.msk.ru gramota.ru histrf.ru
www.intoclassics.net and www.classicalmusicnews.ru are popular for those interested in classical music. www.darkside.ru and rock.ru for rock music.
forum.awd.ru and otzyv.ru are popular travel sites.
There several general purpose forums like forum.rcmir.com www.e1.ru/talk/forum/ In general, classic forums are still very much alive in runet (hell, even LJ is still alive) and there are a lot of niche forums you could visit.
There are more than 100 news sites, but the quality is quite average (like everywhere else). meduza.io ria.ru rbc.ru tass.ru inosmi.ru for example. sports.ru and championat.ru for sport-related news.
ozon.ru is now a russian version of amazon.
And obviously there are a lot of pirate sites from rutracker to flibusta to libgen.
I am a casual internet user and have no connection to IT industry, but i've been using Firefox practically since the very beginning - I installed v. 1.0.0 back in 2004. It's main selling points for me were: 1) it wasn't IE; 2) easy customizability of the UI layout - FF had as many great themes as Winamp; 3) lots and lots of different plugins and extensions for even more customizability: from AdBlack and Smooth Scrolling to various video downloaders and paywall skips.
And it was great! More importantly it was already a more or less finished product. The updates were slow, sparse in time and didn't change much (it took 3 years to get from v. 1 to v. 3).
Then something changed in 2011 and updates started showering almost every week for no apparent reason. It was annoying and I've completly stopped installing updates after v. 13(everything worked perfectly anyway). Then after 4 or 5 years I started to have a problem with playing youtube and twitch videos, so I decided to finally update my FF. It was already v. 57 (Quantum) and it made me absolutely livid. 2/3 of my extensions weren't working (and still aren't) and the ability to change UI theme was completely gone (and so I am now stuck with that bland default theme). And all that for no visible benefit on my part whatsoever.
I've immediately installed Chrome, Opera and Safari to see if they were any better, but ... they all are almost identical to the new Firefox (although I am now using Opera on mobile). There is almost no incentive to change from one browser to another now.
Well, it's year 2021 now, but somehow my user experience is worse than it was fifteen years ago. How is that possible I do not know.
It's the rise of Chrome and web as an app delivery platform instead of just interlinked documents. This has necessitated a huge, ever expanding API and ever-increasing security concerns, and these have totally swamped browser devs to the point that they have simply stopped caring about end-user UI, productivity, customisation, backward-compatibility and such.
The web is now essentially an operating system under active, nascent development, so the churn is going to be enormous and the whole thing will lack any kind of polish or UX. Expect it to stabilise in a few decades as something else takes over (maybe).
Although I am an avid reader and have been reading on average 1 or 2 books each week for the past 15 years, I don't think I've ever read a book than "changed my life". Looking back, I think the most impactfull book for me was The Art of Loving (1956) by Erich Fromm because it opened up a world of psychology and psychoanalysis and significantly altered my view on how humans think.
Among the classic fiction the best so far were: T. Dreiser - The Bulwark, S. Maugham - Of Human Bondage, L. Tolstoy - The Kreutzer Sonata and E. Zola - l'Oeuvre & Germinal.
>A lot of people watch it with no background knowledge and subsequently don’t quite understand the “best film ever” label, but Citizen Kane is indeed a fantastic film. Just read about Orson Welles first.
Interesting. About 10 years ago I was tired of modern cinema and completely stopped watching new films. After some pause I decided to start watching classic cinema from 1930 onward in more or less chronological order (in the last year i've stopped at ~1800 movies, up to 1995).
In general, the quality of 1932-1942 american cinema (and, to a lesser degree, 1945-1950) far exceeded my expectations. And, while Citizen Kane is a very good film and deserves to be seen (it was actually one of the few "critically acclaimed" classic films that I've actually enjoyed), but when seen in context of what was filmed at the time, Citizen Kane doesn't really stand out among its contemporaries that much. A lot of technical details (but not all) that are praised by modern critics were more or less a common thing back at the time. I'd argue that Kane wasn't even the best film of the 1941 year (Sullivan's Travel was better and H.M. Pulham, Esq its equal) and definitely not the best film of the 1930-1950 "golden age" that ended at a very high point with Sunset Blvd. before plunging into the abyss in 1950s.
That's all of course only my opinion.
On a related note, if you enjoyed Citizen Kane, I'd highly recommend to see a soviet film from 1962 Nine Days in One Year. One of the most visually stunning b/w films in my experience. Thematically different, but stylistically very similar.
Sure, I’m not sure I’d actually call it the Best Film Ever, but it is a great movie. Part of its importance, compared to some of the other movies you’ve mentioned, is the story of how it got made / that it got made at all. Welles had zero film experience, yet was fully funded, and the movie itself was a direct attack on one of the single most powerful men of the era. Welles himself was a larger-than-life character and that’s probably half the reason we are still talking about Kane. Art isn’t created in a vacuum, after all.
I’m not sure what a modern equivalent would look like, but imagine a $200 million studio film that eloquently attacks the heads of CNN, The NY Times, and another half-dozen top media firms. That sort of thing would never get made today.
Thanks for the other suggestion though, I’ll look into it for sure!
> I’m not sure I’d actually call it the Best Film Ever
Most critics would, though. And I've never heard that its importance is in any way tied to its production. Welles took film from "filmed stage plays" and literally opened up the genre. He ripped up floorboards to get the right perspective. He innovated direction right and left.
The only aspect of the film being about Hearst was that its debut was canned, distribution was shot, and he would never (really) be allowed to make another film again.
I've started doing the same thing and recommend Witness for the Prosecution highly. Rear Window, Paths of Glory, and North by Northwest are others that have held up to modern eyes, IMHO.
I go back to watching North by Northwest every few months. The writing, the sets, the cinematography, the music and the acting all sublime. One of my favorite random facts is that Albert R Broccoli initially wanted to get Cary Grant for the first Bond film, but the producers ended up deciding to get a younger actor.
People often claim survivorship bias for such things, and it may sometimes be true, but I think it often misses the point. It may be true that overall, the landscape of an art form wasn't much different than today. However, it is obviously plausible that the "highest highs" would be higher in some period X than some period Y - it would be actually much more surprising if an art form were of uniform quality across many decades.
I don't have enough cinema culture to comment on cinema specifically, but I believe this is pretty obvious in music. Comparing things like Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies to any modern music (especially if comparing only the main themes, given today's preference for very short form music), it's obvious that there is nothing similar, and even modern audiences generally recognize the superiority of the older one.
As a more focused comparison, it's also obvious and largely uncontroversial that the amount of good rock music being produced has plummeted since at least the 1970s-1980s. There are still a few good bands (Rammstein has been an unexpected highlight for me), but compared to a period when you had Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Queen, Deep Purple, Metallica, The Rolling Stones and a good many others, it's obvious that something has gone down in the highest highs of music.
Well, I myself is an avid concert goer (before Covid at least) and I probably know more about classical music than I do about classical cinema :-) Although I mostly prefer music written c. 1900-1950 rather than Beethoven or his contemporaries (what a lot of people don't realise is that there were a lot of changes in classical orchestral music over time; the difference between, say, Mozart and William Walton is no less than the difference between Beatles and Metallica, probably even more so).
And indeed, the large & majestic sound of a symphonic orchestra has no parallels with the modern music. But on the other hand I think we can easily compare classical chamber music with jazz/tango/rock. And in this field I'd rather listen something like [1] than any classical quartet/quinter regardless whether it was written by Beethoven or by Shostakovich.
No, obviously out of ~300 films produced in 30s and 40s each year, 90% or more were dross. What I've meant is:
1. The best films of this period far surpassed my expectations from the technical point of view. And there were a lot of decent-to-exceptional films produced at the time; I could name at least 50 american films worth watching from 1930 to 1950. In comparison, I could hardly name 10 films from 1951 to 1960 that are at least decent (and yes, Paths of Glory, named below, is the best).
I think it was mostly due to the fact that all personnel, connected with the creation of a film at the time were still largely pioneers at the field and they had all possible expertiese in it (films in the 60s and especially in the 70s became noticeably more amateur; 50s suffered due to McCarthy). Movies were still relatively new and there were a lot of innovation in it each year. On top of that, it was a time of the Great Depression and high unemploymend. Hollywood were one of the better off industries and so were able to easlily atrract best of the best.
2. Even B-movies from rich studios had high production values. From the same 1941 I could easily recommend for example The Gay Falcon - Irving Reis - RKO/Nothing But the Truth - Elliott Nugent - Paramount/Charley's Aunt - Archie Mayo - 20 Fox. All are relatively simple, but well worth the watch.
3. What's more important, the 30s and 40s cinema had its own unique style and dynamic, very different from later decades. I'd say it was closer to Imre Kalman and Franz Lehar operettas, rather than more convential movies we are used today. It was, if I may say so, a thing-in-itself, hardly comparable with what came later.
I can give you my list as I've also been watching lots of "old" movies. Though "old" can mean almost anything depending on who you ask. Note: I'm picky so while I love movies if I check my ratings (I take notes because I forget what I watched), it turns out I only like about one out of 10 movies. Or maybe to put it in a slightly better light, only 1 of 10 or so is worth recommending. Some might be okay but not okay enough to tell someone "you should seek out this movie"
Anyway, here's some from my list from the last year (the list of ones I didn't like is MUCH longer and includes many that are highly rated on IMDB)
"Now, Voyager" (1942)
"Boom Town" (1940)
"The Best Years of Our Lives" (1947)
"The Little Princess" (1939)
"Destry Rides Again" (1939)
"Baby Face" (1933)
"Adam's Rib" (1949)
"In a Lonely Place" (1950)
"It Happened One Night" (1934)
"The Woman of the Year" (1942)
"The Awful Truth" (1937)
"Broken Arrow" (1950)
"The Lady Eve" (1941)
"His Girl Friday" (1940)
"12 O'Clock High" (1949)
"You Can't Take It With You" (1938)
"The Far County" (1954)
"Random Harvest" (1942)
"The Bad and the Beautiful" (1952)
"The Philadelphia Story" (1940)
"Cry Danger" (1951)
"This Gun For Hire" (1942)
"Casablanca" (1942). I didn't get it at 23 where as I shook from crying at 50. Basically I needed to truly feel Rick's loss and what he was going through (Bogart's character). At 23 I didn't. At 50 I did. I suppose you could have similar experiences to Rick at a younger age or you could never have them and then not have it do anything for you.
I don't think any of them are "lesser known". Basically I just look up IMDB. If it's rated > 7 and sounds mildly interesting I'll take a look. Tons of them don't work for me. Those above did. As recent examples of ones that didn't "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers" (1946), "Dark Passage" (1947), "Waterloo Bridge" (1940), "The Bishop's Wife" (1947), "Spellbound" (1945), "Fort Apache" (1948). Those are just from the last 2 weeks (^^;)
Ok, I'll try, but keep in mind, that there were a lot of well known films that I didn't lile (for example, I didn't like any film with Katharine Hepburn in it; although i've tried it three times, I've never finished Casablanca).
Anyway, If you are interested in classic movies I think the best way to start is with Frank Capra (1932 - American Madness, 1933 - Lady for a Day, 1934 - It Happened One Night, 1936 - Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, 1938 - You Can't Take It with You, 1939 - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), Preston Sturges (1940 - The Great McGinty, 1940 - Christmas in July, 1941 - Sullivan's Travels), some of Myrna Loy & William Powell films (1934 - Thin Man, 1936 - After the Thin Man, 1936 - Libeled Lady) and possibly Charlie Chaplin later films (1931 - City Lights, 1952 - Limelight). Continue to
Dramas: 1957 - Le notti di Cabiria - Federico Fellini; 1957 - Il Grido - Michelangelo Antonioni; 1957 - Paths of Glory - Stanley Kubrick; 1952 - Ikiru - Akira Kurosawa; 1954 - A Big Family - Iosif Kheifits; 1951 - The Browning Version - Anthony Asquith; 1959 - Les quatre cents coups - Francois Truffaut; 1959 - Room At The Top - Jack Clayton; 1962 - The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner - Tony Richardson; 1962 - Nine Days in a Year - Mikhail Romm; 1960 - The Lady with the Dog - Iosif Kheifits; 1962 - Il Sorpasso - Dino Risi; 1961 - La Ragazza con la valigia - Valerio Zurlini; 1948 - Ladri di biciclette - Vittorio De Sica; 1945 - Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne - Robert Bresson; 1936 - Dodsworth - William Wyler; 1937 - La Grande Illusion - Jean Renoir; 1940 - City for Conquest - Anatole Litvak; 1941 - Citizen Kane - Orson Welles; 1941 - H.M. Pulham, Esq - King Vidor; 1946 - The Best Years of Our Lives - William Wyler; 1942 - Now, Voyager - Irving Rapper; 1942 - Random Harvest - Mervyn LeRoy; 1960 - The Apartment - Billy Wilder; 1950 - Sunset Blvd. - Billy Wilder; 1962 - Lonely Are the Brave - David Miller; 1964 - The Americanization of Emily; 1965 - The Hill - Sidney Lumet; 1966 - A Man for All Seasons - Fred Zinnemann; 1966 - Nayak - Satyajit Ray; 1968 - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter - Robert Ellis Miller; 1971 - The Hospital - Arthur Hiller; 1975 - Barry Lyndon - Stanley Kubrick; 1975 - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Milos Forman; 1977 - Saturday Night Fever - John Badham; 1979 - ...And Justice for All - Norman Jewison.
Comedies: 1940 - The Shop Around The Corner - Ernst Lubitsch; 1939 - Destry Rides Again - George Marshall; 1950 - Father of the Bride - Vincente Minnelli; 1940 - Pride and Prejudice - Robert Z. Leonard; 1939 - Day-Time Wife - Gregory Ratoff; 1934 - Little Miss Marker - Alexander Hall; 1935 - The Gilded Lily - Wesley Ruggles; 1935 - If You Could Only Cook - William A. Seiter; 1935 - Ruggles of Red Gap - Leo McCarey; 1936 - My Man Godfrey - Gregory La Cava; 1937 - Easy Living - Mitchel Liesen; 1937 - Topper - Norman Z. McLeod; 1938 - Merrily We Live - Norman Z. McLeod; 1940 - My Favorite Wife - Garson Kanin; 1941 - Ball of Fire - Howard Hawks; 1941 - It Started with Eve - Henry Koster; 1941 - Charley's Aunt - Archie Mayo; 1942 - Larceny, Inc. - Lloyd Bacon; 1942 - The Big Street - Irving Reis; 1942 - The Major and the Minor - Billy Wilder; 1943 - The More the Merrier - George Stevens; 1948 - Sitting Pretty - Walter Lang; 1947 - Miracle on 34th Street - George Seaton; 1947 - Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House - H.C. Potter; 1949 - Little Women - Mervyn LeRoy; 1955 - Marty - Delbert Mann; 1956 - Spring on Zarechnaya Street - Marlen Khutsiev; 1957 - Porte Des Lilas - Rene Clair; 1958 - Mon Oncle - Jascques Tati; 1959 - Some Like It Hot - Billy Wilder; 1960 - Make Mine Mink - Robert Asher; 1963 - Sunday in New York - Peter Tewksbury; 1963 - Il Giovedi - Dino Risi; 1963 - Three Plus Two - Genrikh Oganisyan; 1964 - Walking the Streets of Moscow - Georgiy Daneliya; 1964 - A Hard Day's Night - Richard Lester; 1968 - The Odd Couple - Gene Saks; 1977 - The Goodbye Girl - Herbert Ross; 1978 - Same Time Next Year - Robert Mulligan
Crime/Action: 1969 - The Italian Job - Peter Collinson; 1974 - The Taking of Pelham One Two Three - Joseph Sargent; 1967 - Le Samurai - Jean-Pierre Melville; 1960 - Le Trou - Jacques Becker; 1960 - Un taxi pour Tobrouk - Denys de La Patelliere; 1970 - They Call Me Trinity - Enzo Barboni; 1973 - Papillon - Franklin J. Schaffner; 1973 - The Sting - George Roy Hill; 1973 - The Last Detail - Hal Ashby; 1975 - The Great Waldo Pepper - George Roy Hill; 1975 - Three Days of the Condor - Sydney Pollack; 1976 - The Seven-Per-Cent Solution - Herbert Ross; 1977 - Capricorn One - Peter Hyams; 1977 - Smokey and the Bandit - Hal Needham; 1939 - The Roaring Twenties - Raoul Walsh; 1939 - Beau Geste - William A. Wellman; 1939 - Stagecoach - John Ford; 1941 - The Gay Falcon - Irving Reis; 1941 - I Wake Up Screaming - Bruce Humberstone; 1941 - Johnny Eager - Mervyn LeRoy
I didn't like any film noir but three: 1946 - Nobody Lives Forever - Jean Negulesco; 1946 - The Killers - Robert Siodmak; 1956 - The Killing - Stanley Kubrick. There also were two great spoofs 1947 - My Favorite Brunette - Elliott Nugent and 1971 - Gumshoe - Stephen Frears.
I don't enjoy musicals, westerns and 'epic' historical films, so I can't recommend anything.
Thanks for that! I count only about seventeen of those that I've seen, despite having seen old movies in the hundreds.
Funnily enough, my favourite old Hollywood genres are musicals and westerns.
I grew up only really being exposed to post 1960 movie musicals which I never really liked. About seven years ago I thought, "I've never really watched any old movie musicals", and just started watching them. It was a revelation to discover the (to me) amazing stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s. My ideal movie musical was made in the 1930s, stars Fred Astaire, and has songs by the Gershwins, Cole Porter or Irving Berlin.
Some highlights for me would be:
42nd Street (1933)
Not the first `backstage musical' but sets the template. One of the things I love about old movie musicals is that people don't randomly start singing and dancing: they sing and/or dance because they are singers or songwriters or dancers or choreographers creating or rehearsing or performing.
Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)
More Busby Berkeley.
Footlight Parade (1933)
More Busby Berkeley.
James Cagney stars.
On the Avenue (1937)
Shall we Dance (1937)
Lady be Good (1941)
You Were Never Lovelier (1942)
The Gang's All Here (1943)
Anchors Aweigh (1945)
The Pirate (1948)
Don't listen to the naysayers, this film to me is pretty much perfect.
An American in Paris (1951)
Contains the amazing sequence in which Oscar Levant is portrayed conducting, playing every instrument, and being the audience of Gershwin's Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra (which I think is much better than the more famous Rhapsody in Blue).
The Band Wagon (1953)
Daddy Long Legs (1955)
High Society (1956)
Funny Face (1957)
Gypsy (1962)
And then a couple of years ago, I asked myself: which film genres have I never really watched? Westerns (and Horror, still haven't gone there) being my answer. Turns out I really love westerns.
Some favourites:
Destry Rides Again (1939)
Stagecoach (1939)
Fort Apache (1948)
To me, this is the best of John Ford's `cavalry trilogy'
Red River (1948)
Winchester '73 (1950)
My favourite of the Anthony Mann / James Stewart westerns.
Vera Cruz (1954)
Action movies weren't invented in the 1980s.
The Man from Laramie (1955)
Seven Men from Now (1956)
The best of the Budd Boetticher / Randolph Scott westerns.
Man of the West (1958)
The Horse Soldiers (1959)
Last Train from Gun Hill (1959)
Two Rode Together (1961)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
El Dorado (1966)
Rio Bravo gets all the love, but this is the more satisfying result for me.
Well, to the best of my knowledge, these are nice additions to my list of recommendations :-)
1. I agree, that final scene in An American in Paris is just mindblowing (for the lack of a better word). I've seen it at least 20 times and it still amazes me. Vincente Minnelli was a one of a kind genius. Another highlight for me was Astair's Puttin' on the Ritz from Blue Skies. And as for Gershwin - I myself prefer his Piano concerto.
2. As far as I know, musicals were the most popular genre in 1930s-40s and a lot of talent was put in their creation (and it shows). That said, I just don't like the genre for two reasons:
- Astair/Rogers-style, where actors suddenly transition from dialog to dancing, just seem too weird and far fetched to me;
- Busby Berkeley-style extravaganzas are, indeed, better and, as a rule, visually stunning. But for me they fail as films simply because there is usually not enough plot/dialogues (that is, the whole plot is just a vehicle to show dancing sequences). These type of films are better enjoyed as short clips on youtube :-) Uncharacteristically, I've enjoyed much later Saturday Night Fever and Dirty Dancing, both made in this style. Although I think these two films could have been even better if their creators were more ambitious. There were a lot of unused potential in them.
3. I have no objections to the westerns as a genre. I've included both Destry Rides Again and Stagecoach. It's just that I've seen ~10 westerns from 50s and 60s, didn't like any of them and decided to skip the genre altogether. I might return to them some time in the future.
1. Absolutely no one expected an actual war with Ukraine. When the first news in english press were published (in November I think) about the coming war between Russia and Ukraine, everyone I know just simply dissmised the very idea of it. It seemed absurd, unthinkable. I did not believe there was any possibility of the war whatsoever and so were my friends, my colleagues, my parents, the ukranians I know. The news became a common joke, a meme even. So when I woke up Feb. 24th and opened the internet, I was stunned, appaled and absolutely embarrased on top of it. I've never read or heard that it is possible to feel enormous embarrassment about the delcaration of war, but it was the strongest feeling in me at the time (and reading various russian sites - not just in me). Despite various disagreements between the Russian and Ukrainian governments, the news about war seemed bizarre. It would be similiar to waking up one day and reading that US Navy are blockading Liverpool and Bristol, US Airforce are bombing London and Manchester, and US Marines are storming Brighton and Southampton. Absolutely surreal. It took a full week for this feeling to slowly fade away before I regained my ability to think straight; I just couldn't work or do anything productive during that time, I was glued to the news and even more news. My father still haven't recovered - he lost all appetite, doesn't talk with anyone and overall extremely depressed.
2. Reading various russian sites - the first reaction was very negative and almost no one supported the war as it happened. After the first 3-4 days the opinions started to change. People started to mentally cope with the news and invent various rationalizations in favour of war - nobody like to be a "baddie" or feel like one. So the opinion is slowly swaying towards the side that claims that the war is justified. That said, I believe even the official russian TV-propaganda were shocked and didn't know what to do or say at first - it took them several days to find the right groove. Propaganda-wise, there was zere preparation of the population for the coming war. The main downside of constantly manupulating statistics is that it is impossible to know which numbers are genuine and which aren't. It could really be that 70% of russians are supporting the war. Or it could be 50%. Or 30%. Or 99%. There is no way to know for sure.
3. On top of that no one really knows or understands what is it exactly that our army are fighting for, what are our end-goals and, especially, what exactly will happen if Ukrainian government will refuse to sign a peace treaty and deside to fight till the end. "Demilitarization" and "denazification' are extremely abstract goals with no clear purpose. There was (and still is) a strong emphasis that the russian army will not target civilian buildings and infrastructure (and soldiers are genuinly reluctant to do so). But it is plain to see now, that this goal is impossible to achieve in the modern war. So what do we do? Do we start to level Kiev and other cities to the ground? Do we march on Lviv? Just what is the plan? Nobody knows.
4. As for the future - right now I am genuinely more worried about the Ukranians than about Russia. I have friends in Sumy who are now almost two weeks under siege, and who knows how long it will last. The Ukraine itself is suffering an enourmous damage to it's infrastructure - how and when and with what funds it will be restored I have no idea. On top of that it looks like there will be at least 5.000.000 refugees (and probably much much more) - their fate is also unclear, I don't think EU can adequately deal with such a large number. In comparision the devaluation of the ruble doesn't seem as important. It looks like there are three main fears: 1) a large scale unemployment - a lot of businesses are leaving Russia, producing an enormous chain reaction; 2) lack of essential medicine - a lot of drugs are imported from the EU (Germany in particular); 3) complete default of the state - a lot of people have lived through the 90s (which in Russia were somewhat equivalent to the Great Depression in USA), so a certain level of impoverishment and hardship are ok, we are used to it, but a complete bancrupcy will be catastrophic. I don't believe there is any chance for an actual famine. The rest isn't so important in comparison.
5. It is also important to understand, that even in an unjust war it is impossible not to support and sympathize with your army. Wishing death and defeat to your own soldiers just isn't right and would feel dirty.