MovieChat Forums > Le procès (1962) Discussion > Why was this great?

Why was this great?

posted 17 years ago by Badfellah
12 replies | jump to latest

What I want to know, is that you in your own words describe, why this film was great.

I just watched it, and would be interested to hear well founded answers. I never read the book, before seeing it. And I must admit, I did not know this film was as it was. Fictional, unreal, very demanding and frustrating. Naturally, I mean it was frustrating, because I didn't know what it was all about. It seems very many here saw this film after reading the book, and to all you, it is a very different encounter.

I did not fancy the picture, and it was much because it was all so obscure. Just like in "F for fake", I was waiting for it all to appear clear. The thing is, that when I use an entire film being frustrated by this, it ruins much. Off course, a second viewing in the future, will give me a totally different film. It would be nice to hear if anyone else saw this film, without reading the book. I did really like "F for Fake", and it was worth the at times frustrating viewing. There it was after all, only frustrating to know if it all was real, or what it was all about. "The Trial" did become more and more clear as I watched it. But off course I really never had the time to really think it over, it did demand all of my attention.

But don't let all this overshadow the meaning of this thread! My challenge/ question lies in the subject of this thread, and the first line. Would be very interesting to hear a well written reasoning. I don't demand very much writing, just as much as you feel like writing.

Thanks in advance!

[–] c_mar24 17 years ago

ya, i really didn't understand this film either. we watching it my philosphy class, the prof talked about it before we watched, and we had a discussion on it afterwords, and i still didn't understand it. i should watch it again, that would help, cause i was confused the first time i watched 2001, and every subsiquent viewing has brought me a better understanding of the film. i thought i'd throw it out there that i didn't understand it either, and if anyone could explain what i'm not getting, that'd be cool.

[–] jawebster2000 16 years ago

I'm with you. I am watching the movie right now, having DVR'd it. I have no idea what is going on. It seems like a bad dream. I am determined to finish watching this film. Only 27 minutes to go and I am done. Too bad there is no captioning available. Perhaps if I understood what they were saying, I could get more from it. I haven't read the book, but I know what it feels like to be unjustly accused of something. All the women seem interested in Tony Perkins, yet he is aloof to them, even the young girls (wild animals?). Was this not a symbol?

[–] LogansRun22 16 years ago

I have read the book, but I have not yet seen the movie. From the descriptions on this thread, it sounds like the movie's exactly in line with what the book's author (and my favorite author) Franz Kafka was all about. All of Kafka's material is enigmatic, labyrinthine, inscrutable, dreamlike, uncertain, insecure, endless, and complex.

This is next up in my Netflix queue. I can't wait.

[–] LogansRun22 16 years ago

Okay. I have now watched it, and perhaps I can dispel some of the confusion (although certainly not all of it).

This film is a remarkably faithful adaptation of Kafka's original work, with the exception of the ending. I've already described Kafka's material in general on this thread, but The Trial specifically is a dark and brooding nightmare of totalitarian barbarity tainted with a general sense of disorientation. It bears consideration that the novel was written in unfinished, unpolished fragments, and the current canon is a result of the educated guesswork of a team of scholars who left out some of the shorter or more problematic fragments. Orson Welles actually did an amazing job of bringing it all together into a story that really flows as smoothly and continuously as something like this possibly could.

But, ultimately, Kafka's work is too open to too many interpretations to be truly and fully understood. His stories simply defy all conventional logic.

It seems like a bad dream.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] balthazar13 16 years ago

i can't really speak for anyone else, but one of the reasons why i find this film so great is because it is one of the most effective pieces of filmmaking out there. i can honestly say that i wasn't sure what to think about it at first, but i could tell you that i found it highly disorienting to watch. to me, at least, it was obvious how calculated the film was, and could have easily fallen apart in a lesser director's hands. for that reason alone, i was compelled to watch it again.

yes, the film seems disjointed, but always has a purpose and always moves forward, steadily building from its awkward introduction of josef k. to absurd heights. and even though it's not a horror film, it is one of the most psychologically horrifying films there is all the way to its absolutely ridiculous conclusion. and yet, could it have ended any other way?

personally though, aside from the scene between mrs. bursener and josef k., i actually like to just listen to this movie. for some reason, i just find it soothing.

sorry if all that was stupid. it's 4:17 and i'm passing out. i just wanted to share what i thought.

[–] Kbmj1234 16 years ago

This is in fact exactly the same I thought when I first watched TT. : )

[–] Dr_Anton_Phibes 16 years ago

This film is an opus, you little worms, cant understand.

Films like this isnt for you, so Keep Away!!! A single dose of this in your empty heads and you get more retarded and idiot than you are right now, fuc%&$kers

Darn Remakes!
Just read intelligent answers

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bananacharlie 16 years ago

Having just watched The Trial I can tell you that I personally found it so confusing for several reasons. Firstly, the dialogue is hard to follow. Secondly, it eases you into the fact that it's some kind of dystopian society rather than establishing it immediately. Because of this when you first see the court scene, and several others, it's hard to comprehend why everyone is acting so oddly. Thirdly, and most significantly, I couldn't tell what Mr K's motivation was at each individual point. His actions and decisions seemed rather arbitrary.

Also, just another general wondering, what was his job? Who were those people getting attacked in the closet? Why were they being attacked in the closet? All I could hear was that it was something about Mr K's shirts, presumably the ones he had mentioned in in court.

Another question, why did they blow him up? Why not just stab him? Did he actually pick up the dynamite himself and decide not to throw it? I couldn't really tell.

In spite of all this, Welles was one hell of a director. Some of the direction in the film was truly superb.

[–] Citizen41 9 years ago

Personally, I found this movie quite engaging and I had to rewatch some scenes and I still have to understand more about this movie.

First of all, I enjoy the photography, we have a long take in the beginning and another long take when K is walking with the woman holding the suitcase. At some point welles also uses canted framing and the use of whip pan when K is with titorelli. The differing angles in framing which allow us to see K in an empowering position in certain times of the movie and numerous other examples where the photography emphasizes the theme of the movie or by itself photography which is enjoyable to watch.

Second, the set used and how virtually every scene emphasizes the impersonal world K lives in; to the point where K *spoiler* is murdered by an explosion. Emphasizing how careless and desolate the world we are shown is. Other memorable scenes include; People with a 'number tag', people working at K's place are constantly shown with their backs towards us and hence making them seem indistinct etc etc.

Third, K's "character development" and how his encounters with different people influence his decisions.

Fourth, this movie as you have aforementioned requires all your attention. It is not the kind of movie where you can "switch off your thinking processes" and simply sit through it half conscious half unconscious. It is a multi-layered movie which requires a lot of investment from the viewer when compared to other movies which barely require any investment at all. It is social commentary, character study and above all that seeing the various photographic and editing techniques welles uses to emphasize established themes within the movie.

I do have some criticisms of the movie. Mainly the role of Irmie, K's cousin. I don't understand her role in the movie and secondly we are not shown what K picked up and threw or kept in his final moments.

[–] arkast 8 years ago

Well can you answer some of my questions?
Why all the women in the movie (the very few there are) for some reason love K. and want to help him? What's the point of this? Also the web on the gorgeous lady's hand, Orson Welles assistant. Also why she was sleeping with everyone accused.
Having said that i understand the general concept of the film, even K. character. But i can't say i really enjoyed the film. I can see that it required incredible effort filming and editing, even though i was quite annoyed by the dubbing. In my opinion the film like the original Kafka's novel feels incomplete. It introduces you to the world and makes its points well presented, but the story seems to be disoriented itself.