c/o forsterthomas.com

When asked about what he’s been watching lately, Assistant Professor of the Practice in Film Studies Marc Longenecker took a good look at his DVD shelf, piled high with tapes, and proceeded to explain to The Argus what films he is using to create his curriculum for his Sophomore Colloquium course. Although that is the only course he is teaching this semester, he seems to be focusing a lot on the intricacies of the curriculum, making sure each film is teachable. The Argus sat down with Longenecker to find out more about his teaching, and what he’s been watching for pleasure.

The Argus: What have you been watching lately?

Marc Longenecker: What have I been watching lately? Well, as you know, I am teaching the Sophomore Colloquium, which is me trying to find ways to connect movies from different contexts that are sort of dealing with similar ideas. Whether it’s similar thematic ideas handled in different cinematic ways, or similar cinematic ideas applied to different things, or just kind of something that was made over here at this time that speaks to something that was over here made at that time. So, I’ve been watching a bunch of movies, and I have a curriculum that is sort of in place, but I always like to kind of massage and see if I can bring some new stuff into it. So actually, I sort of have to stare at my DVD shelf here to figure out what I’ve watched recently….

The one I’m really itching to play and probably will this semester is “Il Posto,” which is this Italian movie by Ermanno Olmi, which is about this kid getting his first job, and it’s wonderful. We actually played a 35mm print of this in the Film Series last semester, and it reminded me how much I love that movie…. There’s almost a little, like you can actually see some of the American “Office” TV show in this thing. It’s a little bit about taking someone who is young, and then kind of putting them into a situation that has the potential to be a little soulless and a little depressing. But, there’s also a little bit of romance in it. And then there’s also a sort of human thing, for better or for worse, connection to humanity thing and because he’s a young kid, it’s got like a little whiff of a coming-of-age type of thing, so there’s that.

A couple of the others I was looking at—there’s this one from last year I think—called “Their Finest.” There were three movies released last year about the evacuation of Dunkirk. One was “Dunkirk,” the Christopher Nolan movie, one was “Finest Hour”—Gary Oldman acting his pants off—and then the third one is “Their Finest,” which is not a movie so much about the Dunkirk evacuation itself, but a movie about the British film industry trying to make a movie about Dunkirk, which is really kind of cool. It’s set through the lens of a woman who thought she was applying for just a secretarial job to help make money for her household, but then gets pulled into the writer’s room. It’s neat because it’s both about her individual experience seizing her moment and building up her own belief in herself…but then it’s also about a country having to find its belief in itself, or recapture its belief in itself at a period in time where the British are being bombed by the Germans constantly.

And then [there is] one that’s a little colder, “Barton Fink,” by the Coen Brothers. I believe the story is that they were trying to get financing for “Miller’s Crossing,” and they had a little bit of spare time, so they made “Barton Fink.” It stars John Turturro and John Goodman, with a brief appearance by Steve Buscemi. Turturro plays this playwright, who’s like a Clifford Odets type of thing, kind of East Coast, socially driven playwright, who gets brought out to Hollywood to write scripts. And then it starts to spiral out in that typically Coen way. I think it’s most comparable to a movie like “A Serious Man.” I love that movie. The thing I love about the Coen Brothers is that they do comedy exceptionally well, and they do drama exceptionally well, but then they have this really interesting hybrid form that is some of their best stuff, like “A Serious Man.” And “Barton Fink” is kind of a prototype of “A Serious Man.” I think “A Serious Man” is a better movie but it does have a kind of similar essence…. Maybe it’s all just an excuse to show a Coen Brothers movie. There’s also this movie I haven’t seen in years—it’s one I have to re-watch to see if it’s good or not, and I haven’t yet. It’s called “Nightwatch.” It’s a Danish movie, and it stars Nikolaj Coster-Waldau from “Game of Thrones.” Jaime Lannister. And he takes a job as an overnight morgue attendant. Spooky stuff. But it’s been, I don’t know, 10 to 12 years since I’ve watched it, so it’s kind of like, does this thing still work? And also, can I teach it? Like there may be a movie I love, but I can’t teach it.

A: What makes you decide whether you can teach something or not?

ML: I think if I can help the class connect to something instructive about the creative decision-making process, because what I don’t want to happen in a classroom is just to have a kind of, “I liked it” thing. I want to show movies that people like, but I don’t want the conversation to be what [Corwin-Fuller Professor of Film Studies] Jeanine Basinger calls “lobby talk,” which is like you all sit around and say, “Well, I liked the guy but didn’t like the story.” You have to have something to latch onto, and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be a very flamboyant movie, you can deal with a more minimal or kind of quieter movie. It doesn’t have to be grand, obvious stuff, but I just think it sort of has to be something that everyone can see and feel and where there’s a whole flap hanging that you can peel back the layers.

A: So that’s all related to class material, but is there anything you’re watching for leisure?

ML: Yes. I just re-watched “Mars Attacks” the other day, the Tim Burton movie, because one of the things I keep debating is: Is Tim Burton good, or not? Or, was Tim Burton good or not? I’m in the “yes” camp there, and something like “Edward Scissorhands” I still really love. I like “Beetlejuice” an awful lot. I [take] a look at that every year or two, but then sometimes I’m like, “Well, I just like this movie, it doesn’t exactly hang together, it’s sort of a good idea that doesn’t necessarily gel into a movie.” Another one that I really have liked lately is “Big Trouble in Little China” with Kurt Russell. It’s a kind of goof on the American action movies of the ’80s and even kind of the overall tradition of action and adventure movies. The idea is that he gets caught up in this crazy situation in San Francisco’s Chinatown, and the movie-length joke is that he is completely out of his element and all of this stuff is happening and he’s completely useless…and then just ends up making a fool of himself. It’s a little bit of a comedy, but it’s also like a good special effects movie. Those very tactile mid-’80s special effects. That’s one that’s probably more fun than for a class.

What else? “Experiment in Terror” is interesting. That’s a Blake Edwards movie, and Edwards is most famous for kind of comedies like the “Pink Panther” Series, or “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” which isn’t really a comedy but sort of has some comedy elements in it. “Experiment in Terror” is really like a thriller, as the name would indicate. It’s about a woman who drives home one night and then a guy is in her garage, and basically threatens her life and her sister’s life if the woman doesn’t help him steal a bunch of money. It’s a good premise and there’s one wing of it that is police procedural—with I think Glenn Ford—but then the other aspect of it is her experience and the feeling terror everywhere she goes. It’s striking to see someone going from comedy to something suspenseful. But, this is a point I make often, I do feel like comedy people can do suspense very well because they’re already thinking about response, and how to get response, which is why “Get Out” is so good, because Jordan Peele is already thinking of, “Well, how does what I show and the way I show it get people to see it in a way so that they can have a response to it?” So, if you can do that very well for a comedy, you can do it the other way. A comedy is to some degree about making things feel safe enough that you can laugh at them, and terror is about stripping away that feeling of safety.

A: I doubt it works well the other way, with people going from suspense to comedy.

ML: It is hard to go the other way, you know, you sometimes have that taste question, if someone goes from pure horror to comedy. It can be hard for filmmakers who are serious and grave to do something that is very funny.

Stella Ginsberg can be reached at sginsberg@wesleyan.edu.