question for everyone who thought this movie was great
-
chas437 — 13 years ago(May 01, 2012 10:05 AM)
Well stated. I could easily write thousands of words about the the virtues of this film. But I could sum it up better, by saying that when I first saw this film, almost 28 years ago, I fell into a trance, as if I were transported to another place. I was deeply effected by this film, and I felt as if this film was made just for me. This is the most important film of my lifetime, and I judge all other films by the standards set by "Paris Texas".
You can't possibly digest everything in this film in a single viewing. I've seen it probably 20 times, and every time, I notice a different tiny detail, and how that detail fits into the grand scheme. This film is just as outstanding in 2012, as it was in 1984. -
JTGleason — 13 years ago(July 24, 2012 12:48 AM)
I saw this movie on cable in the late 80's. I liked it a lot, but didn't really know why, still it haunted me. I went to film school in the 90's, and realized why it was so great.
They teach you in film school that there's a single point in any film where you realize what the movie is about. Moviemakers know this too, and they may show it early, in the middle, or late in their efforts to manipulate the viewer. "Paris, Texas" shows it really late til the last twenty minutes in fact, which could normally doom a film as many people found this movie boring, but it works here to tie it all together, and makes you realize that you've been manipulated.
Spoilers "Paris, Texas" is a psychological mystery movie disguised as something else. Travis has been walking in the desert seemingly oblivious for four years. His brother takes him in, and the movie concentrates on Travis returning to the real world. We learn a lot about his young son Hunter, and his life in the surrogate family of the brother. Travis gets better and decides to search for his wife, Jane. When Travis takes Hunter with him, we feel sorry for the surrogate family. Travis finds Jane at first, but talks to her poorly, which delays his rehabilitation into the real world This was actually all a distraction.
Travis talks to Jane a second time, in the third person because thats the only way he could explain it to tell her a story. The story is about a man who was going insane about love. When Travis gets to part of tying a bell to the wife so he would know if she left, was the point I realized what this movie was about. It was a film about a man that knew that he had gone completely insane, but had no one to tell who would understand. Thats why he walked the desert for four years. The insane life they had in that trailer, though never shown, but spoken matter of factly was the movie. The only other one who might have understood was Jane, who needed to confess herself. That was the payoff at the end. -
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(May 10, 2014 07:10 PM)
I'm not sure if this film is considered "famous" in this day of age. Which is unfortunate, since even major film buffs have probably overlooked the film. (it it ever hits the Top 250 more people could notice it). Maybe at the time of the release, because it won several famous awards, and Wenders and the cast gave some interviews about the film (they can be seen in some journal articles). It's a great American film with a decent storyline, wonderful scenery (contrast between rural/desert and urban/city life), and very good acting (although not the best but the quality is still very high). The haunting soundtrack by Cooder is said by many critics to be one of the best scores ever made for a film, and I totally agree.
When I first watched it in 2009 (probably that year, but could be in 2008), I only gave it an 8-8.5/10, but the second and third viewings really did it for me. I was fortunate enough to pick up the Criterion edition when I was in New York City at Borders for only $ 19.99, even though it was a fairly recent release (they made a mistake with the pricing). The folks over at Criterion really did a fantastic job with the technical aspects and the special features, although I would have liked to see more behind the scenes photos (I found some photos while browsing around that were not seen in the disc two gallery). The supplement booklet is very informative and it contains interviews with the cast and critics, but it also gives explanations to many questions that we usually ask on this forum. It was approved by Wenders himself so I really have no complaints about the technical restoration process.
With that being said, I eventually picked up a Blu-Ray copy of the Criterion edition (I was late making the transition), and it is identical to the standard edition, except the picture quality is much, much better. I have seen the film on standard about fifteen times, and the first viewing of the film on Blu-Ray I caught new details that I never noticed before. I think the sound has improved as well.
That's pretty much it. If you haven't seen the film but read about it and the storyline doesn't appeal to you, I still recommend giving it a try. The pacing may be a bit slow, but there's not a single scene wasted. A few of the people that I know that have seen the film have complained that it was too long, but their issue was the pacing (145 minutes isn't long). Good luck and enjoy the film.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
Morbius_Fitzgerald — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 08:50 AM)
I liked it because it has a theme of, what I can only describe as anti romance. We start out with the character trying to adapt back to the way things were with his son, his family and his old lover but by the end he knows that
he can't go back to the way things were, its not that simple. So he goes back to where he was at the start of the film andthats it.
It was, in many respects, a sad film of which I actually wanted to see these characters work it out but the film didn't have time.
Its not a well structured or well thought out reason but its the best I can come up with.
"I have always valued my lifelessness." -
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(July 29, 2014 06:01 PM)
The only good time they had as a family together was when Travis was watching his and Walt's family through the Super 8 footage. Apparently after Hunter was born Jane started getting irritated often at herself and Travis.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
suspiria777 — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 10:42 PM)
I only watched this film recently (i.e. tonight) because I wanted to watch another Wim Wenders movie after loving Wings of Desire so much. Also, I recently watched Sam Shepherd as an actor in COLD IN JULY (he was sooooo great!) and was impressed that he was a respected screenwriter, too. I really liked the cinematography, especially in the beginning because I'm fascinated by the California desert and this represented it beautifully. The score, too. But I think I was most impressed with Harry Dean Stanton's largely silent performance which was powerfully. I pretty much only knew him from Pretty in Pink, so what a great role for him here. I also love Dean Stockwell, esp. in Lynch movies.
I liked how the mystery of what happened to Travis built up. (Though I must say, the movie did feel a little long to me.
I was also impressed with the actor playing Hunter he was one of the best kid actors I've ever seen. Not cloying or annoying. That's quite a feat from an eight-year-old. -
damerriam — 10 years ago(October 21, 2015 11:23 AM)
I consider this a great film because of the climax scene with Harry Dean Stanton and Nastassja Kinski. Before this climax, I have watched this film for over 2 hours and I can honestly say that I am bewildered what's going on? where's the story? what's up with these characters? The director, Wim Wenders, locks the camera on Nastassja's face. She listens as Harry tells a story. Harry knows who she is but she doesn't recognize him. You can see that she is also bewildered who is this guy and why is he telling me this story? Then, Harry says something "telling" and in that INSTANT, Nastassja understands his story and the expression on her face changes from bewilderment to deep, deep sadness. In that exact same INSTANT, I too, understand the film, the scenes, the characters and their motivations INSTANTLY!
One simple change of emotional expression, on the face of a great actress, makes a great film. -
robbystoner — 9 years ago(April 15, 2016 10:07 PM)
Well here's my take on an answer for you.
This film was made in 1984. The era right after E.T. and the slew of 80s films that were made for the sake of making lots of money in the box office. This film sort of went very much against the grain back then - when you take it into context of when it was released and made.
It sort of is and it isn't an art film. It's set in the US, LA and Texas. It is and it isn't a road film. It's a introspective drama about a lost and failed man set within a road movie that has no action in it. Quite a unique and different film.
I also think the soundtrack that Ry Cooder did ushered in a new era of appreciation of Americana music. No one made soundtracks that sounded anything like what Ry Cooder was doing.
Can this really be the end..to be stuck inside of mobile
with the Memphis blues again. -
liv911 — 9 years ago(May 04, 2016 03:01 PM)
I really loved it, partly cause its a well made film, but also because it to me has one of the greatest plot twists of all time!! It's not exactly words you'd link to that movie but the fact that the lead character, the protaganist, really is an anti-hero was really suprising. I'd thought it was going to be the usual boring story about a man reconnecting with his son and "rescuing" the girl from the life she's living but it wasn't like that at all. The movie is also beutifully told and the story is so heartbreaking and sad and amazing that it can stand on it's own even though the film is quite slowpased.