A few very general pet peeves when discussing movies

[Sven]

I don't know about you cats (well, that's not true, I know some of you kitties fairly well by this point), but sometimes, people say certain things, or say them in a certain way, that gets right under my skin and drives me up the wall.

I have compiled a very broad and by no means comprehensive list of irritations that get my proverbial goat when talking about movies. Nothing too specific, just general attitudes and methods that seem calculated to maximize my bluster. Most of these are real-life related, as I tend to not get too irate over what's said on message boards, sassy as I may seem. (Though there is one gentleman who posts here who will go unnamed, though I think we all know who I'm talking about, that exercises remarkable skill in getting me to forsake my chillax ways.)

This list, and maybe a couple like it, is intended as a surrogate list-making endeavor for me, as the top 100 thread is more modestly paced than initially expected.

Grievances, ho!

[megladon8]

I expect many of my own to be on here :)

Hell, I annoy myself.

[Spinal]

Bring the noise!

[Sycophant]

I expect to post a lot of "Amen, sistah!" in this thread.

What I don't agree with will be received with chilly silence.

[Ezee E]

You should say who is responsible for such annoyances.

[Sven]

When people say you're taking a movie "too seriously"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/tr_toaster.jpg

For both good films and bad films, I have often been told that my love or disdain for a film is a result of my "thinking about it too much" or "taking it too seriously".

I do not see it this way. If your movie-watching habits can best be explained as time-killing, entertainment-only, watching-because-Jessica-Alba-is-hot, "just a movie", that's wonderful, great, don't let me take that enjoyment away from you. But please don't deprive me of the enjoyment that I get putting a film through rigorous (or at least, semi-intense) thought, deconstruction, reconstruction, theory, etc. I don't watch movies as a way to pass time (usually), nor do I really watch them as "artworks" (which implies a "to be looked at"-ness, and I like to think of myself as a more active participant). I like to see them as pieces of information to process. I like to think that each film is coded with a key into deciphering the film's message, and once retrieved, a conversation develops and a critical outcome, whether positive or negative, is reached (though always in a state of morphs, mutations, reconsiderations, revelations... just like any relationship's evolution).

In short, I take my entertainment seriously, and if that's too much for you, then don't talk to me or I'll get snappy.

[Sycophant]

In short, I take my entertainment seriously, and if that's too much for you, then don't talk to me or I'll get snappy.
AMEN, SISTAH!

Seriously. And this applies not just to movies, but all art and creative enterprise.

[number8]

Aww, I was just thinking of doing something similar.

[transmogrifier]

I'll start with two very related things:

- Weekend viewings: the only thing worse than boasting about what you've seen is boasting about something you intend to see. I couldn't care less.

- Lists of Movies You Haven't Seen Yet: Jesus Christ, just watch them and tell us about it then.

[Sven]

I'll start with two very related things:

- Weekend viewings: the only thing worse than boasting about what you've seen is boasting about something you intend to see. I couldn't care less.

- Lists of Movies You Haven't Seen Yet: Jesus Christ, just watch them and tell us about it then.

Good calls, though I'm guessing that I don't feel as acerbic about this as you. My guess is that most people announce their "haven't seen" films with the hopes that maybe they'll get some responses about the quality of the films that will steer them in a wise direction or temper their expectations. Which seems reasonable.

[Sven]

Aww, I was just thinking of doing something similar.

Uh-oh...

...sorry. If you want, you can post jointly. I don't mind. They're not numbered or anything. I like things to open up.

[Qrazy]

Just general attitudes and methods that seem calculated to maximize my bluster.

That's a fairly narcissistic way of viewing things that annoy you. Muaha. ;)

[transmogrifier]

Good calls, though I'm guessing that I don't feel as acerbic about this as you. My guess is that most people announce their "haven't seen" films with the hopes that maybe they'll get some responses about the quality of the films that will steer them in a wise direction or temper their expectations. Which seems reasonable.

Eh, I can see recommendations for, say, a film festival or a revival season, where there's a limited number of screenings and you want a quick gauge of what to prioritize. But a list of unseen movies that you can watch anytime? Why not use your own mood, watch what appeals to YOU? I don't get it.

[Qrazy]

- Lists of Movies You Haven't Seen Yet: Jesus Christ, just watch them and tell us about it then.

It's to see where other people stand. I've both been turned on and off watching certain films based on people who's taste I agree with. If there weren't collective value judgments on different pieces of art I'd spend a lot of my time bogged down in worthless crap.

[Spinal]

Good calls, though I'm guessing that I don't feel as acerbic about this as you. My guess is that most people announce their "haven't seen" films with the hopes that maybe they'll get some responses about the quality of the films that will steer them in a wise direction or temper their expectations. Which seems reasonable.

Yeah, it's just a social chit-chit thing. Not sure that it's something to get huffy about.

[Qrazy]

You should say who is responsible for such annoyances.

Think about it, then think some more, then stop thinking.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I find nothing annoying about reading a list of movies that haven't been seen or what people's movie plans are for the weekend. Its mostly because of the community part or Match Cut. If I see that rouge is watching a movie that I like, I'll be looking for thoughts from her on it. That's all it is.

As far as "taking a movie too seriously," it's a fine line. Sometimes I think a small second in the movie gets overblown by people as its judged for the 120 minutes of a movie. At that point, it might be taken too seriously. Sure, it might be a flaw, but I don't see it as a way to hate a movie. Nice thought though. I look forward to the rest.

[transmogrifier]

I've both been turned on and off watching certain films based on people who's taste I agree with.

But again, it just sounds like your in the process of making a gigantic list of "Films I Have Seen", rather than getting any personal joy out of discovering and watching movies for yourself.

Maybe it's because sometimes I like to watch movies that every loved to see what the fuss is about, that has a fifty-fifty split, to see why it can divide opinion and that every one hates, to see where all the hatred comes from.

Trouble is, most movies fit into one of these three categories, and seeing as I can't watch all movies, I tend to choose the ones that interest me personally anyway, which suggest that there's not much point messing around with canvassing with other people's opinions, unless you are trying to display to everyone the types of movies you tend to consider watching.

[transmogrifier]

If I see that rouge is watching a movie that I like, I'll be looking for thoughts from her on it. That's all it is.

Really? I very much doubt that. I assume that you'd be pretty much like me, notice it at the time, completely forget about it, and then remember when the review is posted anyway.

[Sven]

As far as "taking a movie too seriously," it's a fine line. Sometimes I think a small second in the movie gets overblown by people as its judged for the 120 minutes of a movie. At that point, it might be taken too seriously. Sure, it might be a flaw, but I don't see it as a way to hate a movie. Nice thought though. I look forward to the rest.

I see what you're saying, and I have to admit that at times I feel like there are some critics and writers that consistently bring too much of themselves to a film and try to pass off the shortcomings (or excellences) as the filmmaker's fault (or skill). At the same time, certainly there are films where one gesture, one image, one feeling, one sound really impacted you. I don't think it's wrong to build an impression from that.

[Ezee E]

Really? I very much doubt that. I assume that you'd be pretty much like me, notice it at the time, completely forget about it, and then remember when the review is posted anyway.
Nah. Typically I'll post, "Cool. Enjoy it. Let me know what you think."

And then I move on.

[Spinal]

Trouble is, most movies fit into one of these three categories, and seeing as I can't watch all movies, I tend to choose the ones that interest me personally anyway, which suggest that there's not much point messing around with canvassing with other people's opinions, unless you are trying to display to everyone the types of movies you tend to consider watching.

I guess this makes sense if you are someone with utter disregard for other people's opinions. But speaking for myself, there are numerous films that I have been coaxed into watching after being initially skeptical and then later was glad for it.

[Qrazy]

But again, it just sounds like your in the process of making a gigantic list of "Films I Have Seen", rather than getting any personal joy out of discovering and watching movies for yourself.

Maybe it's because sometimes I like to watch movies that every loved to see what the fuss is about, that has a fifty-fifty split, to see why it can divide opinion and that every one hates, to see where all the hatred comes from.

Trouble is, most movies fit into one of these three categories, and seeing as I can't watch all movies, I tend to choose the ones that interest me personally anyway, which suggest that there's not much point messing around with canvassing with other people's opinions, unless you are trying to display to everyone the types of movies you tend to consider watching.

Not really, films seen and films to see is just a way of grouping most efficiently together all the films I hope/think will be excellent. Obviously it's the films and viewings themselves that count in the end. I actually lost my movies seen list when my computer was stolen so now I only have a movies to see list which I delete from. I also watch many movies with 50/50 splits (Fear and Loathing) but I still need to hear that it has some supporters before giving it a go. I don't like watching films blind without having any recommendation from either a person a magazine/list or knowing the director or someone involved on the creative team. I'm not going to go into a video store and pick a film haphazardly. It's akin to gambling for me, I'm trying to maximize my gains by watching films I think I'll enjoy (which is connected and not separate from asking what my peers thought about a list of movies I haven't seen yet).

Most of the films we hear about we hear as a result of a recommendation from some source (person we know, list, filmmaker we've explored) so we're essentially already canvassing opinions anyway.

[Winston*]

Several days ago, I posted a list on this very forum of the films within the Internet Movie Database top 250 which I had yet to see. This list was compiled in an attempt to postpone my commencement of the undesirable task I had set out for me at my place of employment. I apologise, transmogifier, for any mental anguish it may have caused you had you left-clicked on the spoiler within which the list was contained.

[Qrazy]

Really? I very much doubt that. I assume that you'd be pretty much like me, notice it at the time, completely forget about it, and then remember when the review is posted anyway.

Well your assumption is wrong. I know many who ask others their thoughts on films they mentioned they were going to watch a few weeks back and never posted anything about. I never write reviews personally so if someone wants to know my response to a film they have to ask me.

Plus I'm also just interested in others opinions for the sake of their opinions and getting to know what they like and dislike.

[transmogrifier]

Several days ago, I posted a list on this very forum of the films within the Internet Movie Database top 250 which I had yet to see. This list was compiled in an attempt to postpone my commencement of the undesirable task I had set out for me at my place of employment. I apologise, transmogifier, for any mental anguish it may have caused you had you left-clicked on the spoiler within which the list was contained.

Apology accepted.

[number8]

Uh-oh...

...sorry. If you want, you can post jointly. I don't mind. They're not numbered or anything. I like things to open up.

No, no. I didn't have it compiled or anything, so no loss on my end. I'd like to see what you come up with, and I'll maybe add my own, though I suspect most of our pet peeves would be similar.

[transmogrifier]

Plus I'm also just interested in others opinions for the sake of their opinions and getting to know what they like and dislike.

Well of course, but doesn't this work better if you're discussing a movie you've both seen? That's different from all this "What rental should I watch first?" malarkey.

[Spinal]

Well of course, but doesn't this work better if you're discussing a movie you've both seen? That's different from all this "What rental should I watch first?" malarkey.

Well, if we're talking about situations where someone already has the films in their possession and needs encouragement to get off their butt and put it in the DVD player, then yes, I agree that is silly.

[transmogrifier]

I guess this makes sense if you are someone with utter disregard for other people's opinions. But speaking for myself, there are numerous films that I have been coaxed into watching after being initially skeptical and then later was glad for it.

Well, of course, but if I remember correctly (and I'm sure I do, as it was about 10 minutes ago), I was detailing my pet peeve about random lists of unseen films, which is not really the saem thing, as I would imagine any film you put on the list anyway is of interest to you in some form, and I can't imagine if I put a film on such a list that someone telling me not to watch it would make much difference. Hence, the pointlessness of those lists, hence my pet peeve.

[transmogrifier]

Well, if we're talking about situations where someone already has the films in their possession and needs encouragement to get off their butt and put it in the DVD player, then yes, I agree that is silly.

To be fair, what I describe was much more prevalent over at RT, but I was trying to be inclusive of our less fortunate cousins over there.

[Spinal]

Who would have guessed this would be a contentious thread? :lol:

[transmogrifier]

Who would have guessed this would be a contentious thread? :lol:


Yeah, I think I'll bow out and let iosos take his course. I have so many more I want to share, so many, many more, but I can guess that a lot will show up here in due time anyway.

[Qrazy]

Well, of course, but if I remember correctly (and I'm sure I do, as it was about 10 minutes ago), I was detailing my pet peeve about random lists of unseen films, which is not really the saem thing, as I would imagine any film you put on the list anyway is of interest to you in some form, and I can't imagine if I put a film on such a list that someone telling me not to watch it would make much difference. Hence, the pointlessness of those lists, hence my pet peeve.

Yeah but again you're assuming people all act the way you would, which they don't. I have many lists and some of the films on my lists I have moved at least to the bottom and sometimes off the list entirely based on feedback. The one recommendation that got it on the list is outweighed by the fifteen recommendations not to watch it.

[MadMan]

I don't really take most movies very seriously. In fact I don't really take film watching all that seriously either, as I consider it a mere hobby and nothing else. I imagine that some of your pet peeves will be things I do on a regular basis. I can't wait to read the rest of the list however, due to my curiosity.

[Sven]

Feel free to let your contentions run wild! That's what this thread is here for!!

The blanket acceptance or rejection of the worth of a film that you haven't seen based on popular opinion

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/gigli.jpg

You hate Gigli? Care to expound? What's that? You've never seen it? Then shut up.

Seriously, this one gets to me more than almost anything else. Every single person, I have no doubt, has ventured into the territory of watching a dubious film of disreputable status, and had a great time, perhaps even a revelatory experience. If it's even happened ONCE, you should know better than to take as gospel the often stupefying consensus of the tomatometer, the teenagers, mothers, and sycophants (no diss intended, syco!) that post on imdb, or the (I say at the risk of sounding condescending) friends and acquaintances who don't care about (or aren't as good at) dissecting films for substance. I know it's impulsive to coast along with everyone else, often difficult to not be pummeled into drinking the "See what I see!" Kool-Aid, but you guys know me... many of my most beloved films are not ones that have been easily swallowed by the masses, written off as absurd or terrible, or focus on elements more important to me than apparently to the average cinema smarty-pants. Be daring and strong and smart! Express doubt, but do not state definitively the worth of or judge others based on their opinions of a film you have not seen.

There is some guidance required, of course. That's what critics are meant to supply, I think. But this dialogue (not nearly as paraphrased as it should be) should not have happened as many times as it has:

"Popeye is your favorite movie?!?! PSSSSHHHH!!!"
"Yeah. You don't like it?"
"I've never seen it."

Bah!

[MadMan]

See I agree with that statement and opinion. But I will admit I have avoided films at times simply because they were bashed by critics or posters on the message boards I frequent. I'm slowly learning to trust my gut more and go see a film I do want to view, critics be damned (for instance despite it getting poor reviews I do want to see Hancock).

[Spinal]

I hope that this also includes "the blanket rejection of a film's worth based on popular opinion". That one is also prevalent and every bit as annoying.

[Mysterious Dude]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/gigli.jpg

You hate Gigli? Care to expound? What's that? You've never seen it? Then shut up.
I didn't hate Gigli until I saw this picture. Now I hate Gigli.

[Sven]

I hope that this also includes "the blanket rejection of a film's worth based on popular opinion". That one is also prevalent and every bit as annoying.

You speaking of contrarianism? Yeah, I suppose what I mean is "making judgments of a film based on its reception without having seen it." I will fix for clarity.

[Qrazy]

I hope that this also includes "the blanket rejection of a film's worth based on popular opinion". That one is also prevalent and every bit as annoying.

Yeah, it seems included. I would agree with that pet peeve. It's absurd to have an argument with someone about a film they haven't seen. Still their are some boundaries. For instance I have seen pieces of one Uwe Boll such that if someone told me they loved another one I would feel justified in not taking them very seriously... although yeah I wouldn't get involved in a protracted argument about it because I hadn't seen the film. Peripheral knowledge of the creative team writer/director does come into play somewhat is all I'm saying. I'm sure most people have films they have certain (and usually fairly reasonable) preconceptions about based on exposure to similar material.

[Spinal]

You speaking of contrarianism? Yeah, I suppose what I mean is "making judgments of a film based on its reception without having seen it." I will fix for clarity.

Yes. Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, but one of my pet peeves is when people (generally online critics) think that a kneejerk rejection against everything commercial is any better than going along with it in Maltinesque fashion.

[MacGuffin]

Gigli is one of the funniest movies of the decade so far, and Beverly Hills Cop is possibly the best, most underrated American comedy ever. So yeah, I think Martin Brest is a pretty excellent director from what I've seen (continue on, iosos, dear lad, it's a good thread).

[Sven]

Gigli is one of the funniest movies of the decade so far, and Beverly Hills Cop is possibly the best, most underrated American comedy ever. So yeah, I think Martin Brest is a pretty excellent director from what I've seen (continue on, iosos, dear lad, it's a good thread).

Check out Going in Style, with Burns, Carney, and Strasberg. Also, Midnight Run is essential. Great film.

[MacGuffin]

Check out Going in Style, with Burns, Carney, and Strasberg. Also, Midnight Run is essential. Great film.

I've seen bits of Midnight Run, but I don't think I ever saw the whole thing. Regardless, I'll probably get it from Netflix eventually.

Is Going in Style Brest also? I've never even heard of it.

[Watashi]

In regards to the first pet peeve, monolith over at RT said this quote which I thought was really awesome:

"I really don't mind films that take themselves seriously. I take film seriously. Except when, y'know, it's a comedy. Then I take it more seriously."

[Boner M]

The unspoken 'backlash policy'; the idea that once a film/filmmaker/whoever is well-loved enough or enjoying a peak of appreciation, is impervious to even the most insightful criticism, because backlash is so inevitable and predictable and anyone who dares go against the grain is obviously a fake, unlike those blessed few who loved *insert name/title* the first time around. Then we get unofficial periods where nobody wants to muster up the enthusiasm to diss No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood or whatever, even if it means the increase of intelligent and interesting discourse, because anyone who forms a part of this backlash is obviously a phony; a mere empty vessel for this inevitable phenomenon.

Discussion of the quality of a certain film(s) based solely around Academy Awards. Whether you're angry/glad it did/didn't get attention, that it just goes to show the Oscars are a fraud/occasionally make the right decisions, etc etc.

People getting up-in-arms about 'self-indulgence' in and of itself, instead of realising that all art is indulgent to a certain degree, and examining why they don't like what is being indulged in.

Hmm, I'll think up some more later.

[Ezee E]

Discussion of the quality of a certain film(s) based solely around Academy Awards. Whether you're angry/glad it did/didn't get attention, that it just goes to show the Oscars are a fraud/occasionally make the right decisions, etc etc.

Eh, I think when discussing Oscars, it's just another way of saying that it has spectacular "nomination." You could just as easily swap it out with a Match Cut award and insert your own quote to be written on the movie frame, and it's basically the same thing. Only funnier.

[Spinal]

People getting up-in-arms about 'self-indulgence' in and of itself, instead of realising that all art is indulgent to a certain degree, and examining why they don't like what is being indulged in.


Good one. I never understand when people call some of Fellini's films indulgent. Why wouldn't you want Fellini to indulge himself?

[Qrazy]

People getting up-in-arms about 'self-indulgence' in and of itself, instead of realising that all art is indulgent to a certain degree, and examining why they don't like what is being indulged in.

Hmm, I'll think up some more later.

Your other points are reasonable, but I don't find this one to be. Seems to me when you say 'all art is indulgent to a certain degree' you're just conflating two very different definitions of the term. When someone says a film or filmmaker is being self-indulgent it's usually fairly apparent what they're referring to (either in script digressions and extraneous material, extraneous CGI material or stylistic devices etc... i.e. elements that don't serve the story and/or idea being presented.

[Qrazy]

Good one. I never understand when people call some of Fellini's films indulgent. Why wouldn't you want Fellini to indulge himself?

Well sometimes people are wrong and/or one disagrees with the applicability of their term (i.e. I don't find Fellini indulgent because anything that could be construed as an indulgence is largely purposive... in most cases... in a few of his films the criticism applies). However I see nothing wrong with saying something like George Lucas application of CGI as a catch-all storytelling method in the prequel trilogy was self-indulgent and misguided... and pointing to particular scenes of self-indulgence like Anakin riding the cow-like creature in Attack of the Clones... a moment with little to no purpose which showcases some absolutely terrible sfx.

[balmakboor]

I don't get it much around here, but people would often start a thread (a whole fucking new thread) at RT to say, "I just rented ___. What should I expect?"

Or the variation, "I'm halfway through ___, should I finish it?"

Makes me want to reply, "NO! STOP RIGHT NOW! OR YOUR EYES WILL MELT!!"

About the only other thing that comes to mind right now is the utter worthlessness of calling a movie -- or some part of one -- cheesy.

[balmakboor]

The blanket acceptance or rejection of the worth of a film that you haven't seen based on popular opinion



Blanket rejection has had a tendency of late to make me want to see a movie. Two movies that I adore up and down, left and right, forwards and backwards -- Mission to Mars and Heaven's Gate -- were soundly rejected. Really makes me question popular opinion.

[Robby P]

It's 'The 400 Blows', not 'Les Quatre cents coups'. Referring to a movie title by its original language does not make you look smarter. It's just annoying.

[MacGuffin]

It's 'The 400 Blows', not 'Les Quatre cents coups'. Referring to a movie title by its original language does not make you look smarter. It's just annoying.

By this logic, anybody who is born French or knows how to speak French is "annoying".

[Sven]

Blanket rejection has had a tendency of late to make me want to see a movie. Two movies that I adore up and down, left and right, forwards and backwards -- Mission to Mars and Heaven's Gate -- were soundly rejected. Really makes me question popular opinion.

I am a defender of the former (you know that), and the latter is *ahem* on my top 100. So yes, I agree.

[Robby P]

By this logic, anybody who is born French or knows how to speak French is "annoying".

Are we communicating in French on this website? No, we are not.

[Sven]

It's 'The 400 Blows', not 'Les Quatre cents coups'. Referring to a movie title by its original language does not make you look smarter. It's just annoying.

This is one that I may've posted myself. Sure there're certain films that blend the distinction (it's certainly "Yojimbo", not "The Bodyguard"), but mostly, yes, I agree with you. The worst was when you-know-who French-ified the title of Death Proof. Puh-leeze.

[MacGuffin]

Are we communicating in French on this website? No, we are not.

If you are incapable of understanding basic French and are in great need of knowing a particular title, you can easily Google it. I don't see what the problem is with using a title that was originally intended by the director, especially if you know or are trying to learn a particular language. It's not like Truffaut said "Je pense que je vais appeler le film que j'ai fait The 400 Blows!" We have to learn to expand our horizons and to be more accommodating to others.

[Winston*]

It's kind of creating needless inconvenience for the talliers of these consensus threads to use film titles other than the ones commonly used by other posters. It won't damage your street cred to post a title in English just that once.

[Qrazy]

If you are incapable of understanding basic French and are in great need of knowing a particular title, you can easily Google it. I don't see what the problem is with using a title that was originally intended by the director, especially if you know or are trying to learn a particular language. It's not like Truffaut said "Je pense que je vais appeler le film que j'ai fait The 400 Blows!" We have to learn to expand our horizons and to be more accommodating to others.

I agree with Iosis, depends on what the film is most commonly called in the language people are discussing it in (Yojimbo, Ran are fine)... usually it's just obnoxious though because there's almost always a double standard where some films get their original language titles while many chinese/indian/etc films do not. It's a pain in the ass to have to google someone's list because you don't know what they're referring to when it's a fairly well known film. Like say 'Fa yeung nin wa', just over-complicates discussion for no reason.

[MacGuffin]

I agree with Iosis, depends on what the film is most commonly called in the language people are discussing it in (Yojimbo, Ran are fine)... usually it's just obnoxious though because there's almost always a double standard where some films get their original language titles while many chinese/indian/etc films do not. It's a pain in the ass to have to google someone's list because you don't know what they're referring to when it's a fairly well known film. Like say 'Fa yeung nin wa', just over-complicates discussion for no reason.

I wouldn't use original Asian titles since I'm not trying to learn any of them or don't know them. Oh well, I'm fighting a battle I already lost anyways since I agreed to not use original French titles on here anymore at the risk of sounding "annoying".

[Watashi]

All of you are a bunch of snobs.

Now excuse me while I go see Un film Maladroit.

[megladon8]

I know I'm late, but I have to throw in my two cents and say that it is possible for someone to take a movie too seriously.

When I heard an acquaintance say "What?? How the hell would a person without any wings or anything be able to fly??" after seeing Superman Returns...yeah...

[Sycophant]

There's a difference between taking a film too seriously and refusing to even attempt to engage with it.

[megladon8]

There's a difference between taking a film too seriously and refusing to even attempt to engage with it.


I don't think there's much of a difference there.

It drives me nuts when people pick apart these flaws in logic that are inherent within the story.

If someone says about The Matrix, "That's not possible...no one can move that fast!"

Or my aforementioned scenario from Superman Returns.

These are cases when I do think it's justified to yell at them "IT'S JUST A MOVIE"

[Spinal]

I think we have two different issues here:

1) Taking a film seriously (recognizing that films like The Brave Little Toaster are worthy of dissection and analysis).

2) Accepting only realism as the standard for all films (observing that Superman does not cohere to the laws of physics).

[Sycophant]

That's irritating, but I think there's a difference between people who will say movies are stupid because of their physics and those who believe it's possible to extract a relevant political meaning from a goofy comedy. Which I think is what's at issue here.

EDIT: Yeah, what Spinal said. Physics-based arguments pretty much never hold water with me when discussing art.

[Sven]

Edit: What Spinal said. Ha.

[Spinal]

Edit: What Spinal said. Ha.

Who's superfluous now, bitch?

[megladon8]

Ah, well, I stand corrected.

And I agree with you, iosos, that films should be discussed, and even if someone's views seem "totally out there", it's still enlightening to read someone else's take on it.

Even if you don't agree, it helps you to understand why you feel the way you do.

So, bravo!

[D_Davis]

It's not that it's "just a movie," it's that "it's fantasy." Make-believe. Fantasy and make-believe can be very serious, and can be taken seriously, and seriously discussed even when elements of their narratives exist outside the realms of human physics and understanding.

As far as foreign or translated titles, it just depends on the film.

I refuse to acknowledge any of Dimension's/Dragon Dynasty's re-titling of their Asian films. It's S.P.L., not Killzone. It's Tai Chi Master, not Twin Warriors. But then again, I do not call Tai Chi Master by its original Cantonese/Mandarin title. It's The Banquet, not Curse of the Red Scorpion Dragon Armor or some shit.

[Sven]

Who's superfluous now, bitch?

Ow... my feelings...

[megladon8]

It's not that it's "just a movie," it's that "it's fantasy." Make-believe. Fantasy and make-believe can be very serious, and can be taken seriously, and seriously discussed even when elements of their narratives exist outside the realms of human physics and understanding.

As far as foreign or translated titles, it just depends on the film.

I refuse to acknowledge any of Dimension's/Dragon Dynasty's re-titling of their Asian films. It's S.P.L., not Killzone. It's Tai Chi Master, not Twin Warriors. But then again, I do not call Tai Chi Master by its original Cantonese/Mandarin title. It's The Banquet, not Curse of the Red Scorpion Dragon Armor or some shit.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QZo3mFc9L._SS500_.jpg

[D_Davis]

Very cool! They finally got it right. Good for them.

[megladon8]

Very cool! They finally got it right. Good for them.


Indeed!

Their Heroes of the East DVD rocks. That is one great movie.

[Ivan Drago]

I don't think there's much of a difference there.

It drives me nuts when people pick apart these flaws in logic that are inherent within the story.

If someone says about The Matrix, "That's not possible...no one can move that fast!"

Or my aforementioned scenario from Superman Returns.

These are cases when I do think it's justified to yell at them "IT'S JUST A MOVIE"

Ugh...this happened with me when I watched Cloverfield with my aunt and sister after my recommendation. After ripping it for 10 minutes because nothing was happening, they both bitched about "Why is he still holding the camera? No one would do that in real life." And ever since, they do not want me to recommend movies for them anymore. Whatever, it's their loss. As a matter of fact, it's because of that I watch/go to movies by myself. I hate it when people bitch during a movie.

[Sven]

Ugh...this happened with me when I watched Cloverfield with my aunt and sister after my recommendation. After ripping it for 10 minutes because nothing was happening, they both bitched about "Why is he still holding the camera? No one would do that in real life." And ever since, they do not want me to recommend movies for them anymore. Whatever, it's their loss. As a matter of fact, it's because of that I watch/go to movies by myself. I hate it when people bitch during a movie.

...

I agree with them here, actually. But that's a different story.

[D_Davis]

Indeed!

Their Heroes of the East DVD rocks. That is one great movie.

They are contractually obligated NOT TO FUCK with their Shaw Brothers releases.

They have definitely been delivering the goods in this department.

[Qrazy]

I know I'm late, but I have to throw in my two cents and say that it is possible for someone to take a movie too seriously.

When I heard an acquaintance say "What?? How the hell would a person without any wings or anything be able to fly??" after seeing Superman Returns...yeah...

Yeah I went to Fellowship of the Ring with a bunch of people and one girl's biggest complaint was how Legolas always has arrows to shoot. Although funnily enough it is more or less explained... in Mordor he takes the goblin/orc arrows and after Lothlorien he has been given a magic quiver.

[Boner M]

Let's just change the thread title to 'thinly veiled attacks of fellow match-cutters' already.

[Sven]

Let's just change the thread title to 'thinly veiled attacks of fellow match-cutters' already.

In complete honesty, I had no specific Match Cutters in my head when devising my list.

[Qrazy]

Let's just change the thread title to 'thinly veiled attacks of fellow match-cutters' already.

I'd say my biggest pet peeve is when people with BM acronyms for usernames think their opinions are of any value. I mean I just think to myself really? I'm going to take advice from a bowel movement?

[Boner M]

In complete honesty, I had no specific Match Cutters in my head when devising my list.
I was partially jesting, although I can attribute a match-cutter to nearly every peeve listed here. Well, just one match-cutter. To preserve anonymity, I will say that his name starts with the letter 'Q'. And ends with 'razy'.

[Sven]

"Greatest Films" lists populated with the usual suspects

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/070621_citizenKane_vmed_11awid ec.jpg

Please do not misunderstand me: Citizen Kane is a great movie. As are Casablanca, The Godfather, On the Waterfront, It's a Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Lawrence of Arabia, Pulp Fiction, 2001, Rashomon, etc, etc, etc. All great (inarguable!). But when your "greatest films" list contains many, if not all of those films, the only thing it indicates is that you are a champion of the status quo, and that means you are boring.

Including one, two, three on your list is understandable, warranted, and will not indicate anything beyond those films' high reputation as being for a reason--they are great movies. But if you want anyone (well, at least me) to pay attention to your list, please go out of your way to make it personal.

[Winston*]

I was partially jesting, although I can attribute a match-cutter to nearly every peeve listed here. Well, just one match-cutter. To preserve anonymity, I will say that his name starts with the letter 'Q'. And ends with 'razy'.

You're talking about me aren't you?

[Winston*]

"Greatest Films" lists populated with the usual suspects

What about the opposite of this one where someone's populating their list with eccentric and eclectic choices just for the sake of being eclectic and eccentric? Annoyinger, I think.

[Sven]

What about the opposite of this one where someone's populating their list with eccentric and eclectic choices just for the sake of being eclectic and eccentric? Annoyinger, I think.

That was going to be the next entry on my list, but you ruined it. Thanks, jerkface.

[Boner M]

What about the opposite of this one where someone's populating their list with eccentric and eclectic choices just for the sake of being eclectic and eccentric? Annoyinger, I think.
Stop beating 'round the bush, QWinston*razy. Admit you're annoyed by the person whose name starts with C, and ends with "lipper Ship Captain".

[Winston*]

That was going to be the next entry on my list, but you ruined it. Thanks, jerkface.

Really? Because I was thinking of your top 100 specifically when posting that.

[Sven]

Really? Because I was thinking of your top 100 specifically when posting that.

:sad:

[Winston*]

:sad:

The internets are a magical kingdom where someone can post something false as if it were true.

[Qrazy]

I was partially jesting, although I can attribute a match-cutter to nearly every peeve listed here. Well, just one match-cutter. To preserve anonymity, I will say that his name starts with the letter 'Q'. And ends with 'razy'.

Not really, I don't do any of the 3 peeves he's listed so far.

[Boner M]

Not really, I don't do any of the 3 peeves he's listed so far.
j/k

[Qrazy]

j/k

I cried a little bit.

[Philosophe_rouge]

"Greatest Films" lists populated with the usual suspects

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/070621_citizenKane_vmed_11awid ec.jpg

Please do not misunderstand me: Citizen Kane is a great movie. As are Casablanca, The Godfather, On the Waterfront, It's a Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Lawrence of Arabia, Pulp Fiction, 2001, Rashomon, etc, etc, etc. All great (inarguable!). But when your "greatest films" list contains many, if not all of those films, the only thing it indicates is that you are a champion of the status quo, and that means you are boring.

Including one, two, three on your list is understandable, warranted, and will not indicate anything beyond those films' high reputation as being for a reason--they are great movies. But if you want anyone (well, at least me) to pay attention to your list, please go out of your way to make it personal.

I find this is the case more when in the first few years people "get" into films, looking back at my favourites just 3 years ago, it was not much different than AFIs. This was because this is where I started watching film. I do agree it's boring, but just a lame defense for my own previous insufficiencies :p

[megladon8]

I find this is the case more when in the first few years people "get" into films, looking back at my favourites just 3 years ago, it was not much different than AFIs. This was because this is where I started watching film. I do agree it's boring, but just a lame defense for my own previous insufficiencies :p


I agree with this post.

When I did my top 25 or whatever a couple years back, it's entirely different from what my top 25 would be now.

And it would have contained many more of the "classics".

[Sven]

So let me revise and say that you are either boring or inexperienced. In either case, I am bored. No offense. I'm sure your lists were full of great movies. I just already know they're great, and am therefore learning nothing.

[Philosophe_rouge]

So let me revise and say that you are either boring or inexperienced. In either case, I am bored. No offense. I'm sure your lists were full of great movies. I just already know they're great, and am therefore learning nothing.
No need to apologise, I agree. I like being able to look at a person's list of favourites, and see something new, or something different. Not for the sake of it, but to understand a person's experience and relationship with film better.

[transmogrifier]

What I love about this thread is that each post has the potential to tilt it over the edge into full-on Match Cut warfare, as weeks-old grievances burst forth from the bloody, fetid cavity of suppression, sucking in the fumes of hatred, razor-sharp teeth ready to tear to shreds all that have wronged them in the past.

[MacGuffin]

Stop beating 'round the bush, QWinston*razy. Admit you're annoyed by the person whose name starts with C, and ends with "lipper Ship Captain".

What! I'm not like that at all.

[Boner M]

What! I'm not like that at all.
Just your early stuff, man.

[Grouchy]

Heh, both posters mentioned by name so far jumped to their own defence like someone poked their anus with a broomstick.

[Pop Trash]

Here's my two cents: One of the most annoying criticisms is when people criticize a movie because one or more characters make a decision they would not make. I mean really...how many times in life have people done something that is nonsensical, disappointing, or simply something you wouldn't do or don't understand. I mean this happens all the time in real life in yet people are always like 'that girl's stupid for going into the house to look for her MIA friend' or the previous poster who mentioned why don't they put down the camera in Cloverfield. Maybe he doesn't feel like it? Maybe he want to capture these moments in time? Who knows, but he's not putting down the camera so deal with it.

[Qrazy]

Heh, both posters mentioned by name so far jumped to their own defence like someone poked their anus with a broomstick.

Yeah who would defend themselves when their being associated with negative traits, oh the insanity.

[MadMan]

Let's just change the thread title to 'thinly veiled attacks of fellow match-cutters' already.Ooh, ooh, I wonder if I'll be on the list! ;)

And looking at a Top 20 list I created on another website and my current Top 10 that is in my RT journal, I really don't give a damn if you think my lists are boring or not. I simply put forth what I think are the best movies I have ever seen. You don't like it, too bad. Not my problem. I've always been of the mind that I create lists and write reviews mostly for my enjoyment, and really for me only, audience be damned. That's how I roll *shrug*

[SirNewt]

This thread delivers. I have to admit very early on in my film safari I thought I was pretty hot stuff but when I tried to make a 1op 100 list I quickly realized I needed to see a lot more movies. Then when I found this site I got my ass kicked all over again. 8 1/2 and Persona are still vying for my number one. Sorry KF.



Wait! Captain, don't you have some Transmogrifier peeving to do?

You have a long way to go before the summer is out.

Even though I haven't been commenting I have been reading. My passion is to write but my vocation is work avoidance so they pretty much cancel each other out.

[transmogrifier]

Multiple choice questions (answers below):

1. "It's meant to be bad, because:

(a) it's a homage to bad movies
(b) it's a comment on bad movies
(c) it's satirizing bad movies

2. "I don't like this movie because:

(a) the lead character is not very nice
(b) the 5th draft of the script, which I read three months ago, had this cool scene on page 65 which they totally ruined by filming it in static, medium shot, rather than a Steadicam arc shot ended with a whip pan"
(c) it makes people look foolish

3. "If this movie:

(a) had subtitles, more people would like it.
(b) didn't have subtitles, no-one would like it.
(c) wasn't directed by X, no-one would care about it.
(d) wasn't directed by X, everyone would love it.

4. "This documentary sucks:

(a) because it is biased
(b) because it doesn't take a stand on the issue

5. "Man, I can't believe:

(a) I put a spoiler inside a spoiler tag without putting the name of the movie outside the tag so people know whether to click on it or not
(b) you don't like this movie when you liked another otherwise totally unrelated movie that shared a common technical or narrative detail
(c) you didn't like the use of this technique in this movie when you liked that other movie which also used that technique.











Answers: ALL OF THE ABOVE

[Qrazy]

(c) you didn't like the use of this technique in this movie when you liked that other movie which also used that technique.


I feel vindicated.

[number8]

That reminds me...

"I'm not taking your critique of this movie seriously, because you totally liked that other movie you're supposed to hate that has no similarity whatsoever to what we're discussing."

[Sven]

I feel vindicated.

Edit: But there, we were talking about the technique itself, not the films. Or, at least, that's what I was talking about.

[Benny Profane]

Trans, you crack me up kid.

[Benny Profane]

Someone said to me, when I commented I didn't like the acting in Rashomon, that "the only type of people who don't like the acting in Rashomon are people who only like 'realism' in their movies." (paraphrasing).

That peeved me a lot.

[Ezee E]

Regarding boring lists, I won't bother with it if there isn't any analysis or thoughts behind it.

Then again, that goes for most lists in general. It's the thoughts and the analysis of the films that make me enjoy a list, whether it has Ghostbusters or Le Muerte Fuego in it, it doesn't matter. You can eventually tell if a list is honest or not, and that's equally important. Thanks for that one Winston.

[D_Davis]

I hate it when someone says "You liked movie X, so therefor you must like movie Y because it's similar or in the same genre." As if there is some kind of connection between all movies in a certain genre that requires me to like them all.

As if it's impossible to like one martial arts/horror/SF film and not like them all, like you're supposed to be loyal to the genre or something.

***

Similar to number8's....

I also hate it when someone dismisses your opinion of one film because you happen to like another film that many find questionable. For instance, more times than I can count I've had my opinion completely dismissed because I also happen to like some of Michale Bay's films. As if this totally negates my opinion on the thousands of other films I've seen.

Lame.

I made this for such an occasion:

http://www.genrebusters.com/images/baycard.jpg

[Fezzik]

Despite the fact that I'm 100% sure that I will have been guilty of at least a few of these, I think this has the potential to be the best. thread. evar.

Reptastic :D

[Grouchy]

Yeah who would defend themselves when their being associated with negative traits, oh the insanity.
Yet again! This time I didn't even call names!

[number8]

Similar to number8's....

I also hate it when someone dismisses your opinion of one film because you happen to like another film that many find questionable. For instance, more times than I can count I've had my opinion completely dismissed because I also happen to like some of Michale Bay's films. As if this totally negates my opinion on the thousands of other films I've seen.

Lame.

Not similar... that's exactly what I was referring to. :)

"Juno sucks? Yeah, from the guy that gave 8.5 to Transformers!!"

[D_Davis]

Not similar... that's exactly what I was referring to. :)

"Juno sucks? Yeah, from the guy that gave 8.5 to Transformers!!"

Cool - then feel free to play the Bay Card whenever this happens to you.

:)

[Ivan Drago]

Oh boy, this is getting epic already.

:sets up lawn chair, grabs popcorn:

[Qrazy]

I also hate it when someone dismisses your opinion of one film because you happen to like another film that many find questionable. For instance, more times than I can count I've had my opinion completely dismissed because I also happen to like some of Michale Bay's films. As if this totally negates my opinion on the thousands of other films I've seen.


I watched Transformers last night... and liked it. :eek:

[Qrazy]

Yet again! This time I didn't even call names!

You're a real waste of space some times.

[Sven]

Multiple choice questions (answers below):

1. "It's meant to be bad, because:

(a) it's a homage to bad movies
(b) it's a comment on bad movies
(c) it's satirizing bad movies

I agree, when the term being used is "bad". However, I think it's legit to acknowledge throwbacks to films of a lesser grade, and I think it can be intentionally done. I wouldn't use the word "bad", though.


2. "I don't like this movie because:

(a) the lead character is not very nice
(b) the 5th draft of the script, which I read three months ago, had this cool scene on page 65 which they totally ruined by filming it in static, medium shot, rather than a Steadicam arc shot ended with a whip pan"
(c) it makes people look foolish

If (c) is in reference to my response to Borat, I will go on record now as saying that my response was always more complex than that.

And has (b) ever happened? I don't think I've ever experienced that.


3. "If this movie:

(a) had subtitles, more people would like it.
(b) didn't have subtitles, no-one would like it.
(c) wasn't directed by X, no-one would care about it.
(d) wasn't directed by X, everyone would love it.

The worst for me was "If Brokeback were about a heterosexual couple, it wouldn't be anything special."


5. "Man, I can't believe:

(b) you don't like this movie when you liked another otherwise totally unrelated movie that shared a common technical or narrative detail
(c) you didn't like the use of this technique in this movie when you liked that other movie which also used that technique.

To the extent that 8 and D are talking about, I agree (and this was, in fact, one of my entries... so what if I like Popeye? Gimme a break). And I do think that to do either of the above is too blunt, too direct, and ultimately irrelevant. However, I think it's very fair to weave other titles in and out of criticisms. I like to open things up, and introduce other films with other relevant ideas to the fray.

[Qrazy]

The worst for me was "If Brokeback were about a heterosexual couple, it wouldn't be anything special."


Yeah, equally terrible for me is if Memento wasn't in reverse chronology it wouldn't be anything special... it would also be an entirely different film monkey nuts.

[MacGuffin]

The worst for me was "If Brokeback were about a heterosexual couple, it wouldn't be anything special."

But the movie does seem to believe that because it is a homosexual couple, the relationship is automatically more interesting.

[Qrazy]

But the movie does seem to believe that because it is a homosexual couple, the relationship is automatically more interesting.

The film is about a stifled homosexual relationship. If it was about a heterosexual relationship it would be an entirely different film with different shot selection, scene construction, etc. Everything would be different.

[D_Davis]

But the movie does seem to believe that because it is a homosexual couple, the relationship is automatically more interesting.

It would have been really awesome if it were about a couple of hot lesbians.

[MacGuffin]

The film is about a stifled homosexual relationship. If it was about a heterosexual relationship it would be an entirely different film with different shot selection, scene construction, etc. Everything would be different.

I'm not arguing that.

[Sven]

But the movie does seem to believe that because it is a homosexual couple, the relationship is automatically more interesting.

How does the movie seem to believe this?

[MacGuffin]

How does the movie seem to believe this?

All of the emotion that can be gathered by the audience stems from the fact that they're gay. Nobody cares about the beginning, where the one guy is seen with his family or any of the exposition for that matter. Of course, I didn't buy into it, because I know it was merely an attempt to force liberalism into the conservative public. Still, it seemed rather shameless to me that the only thing Ang Lee seemed to care about was the fact that they were gay, and nothing else in the whole movie matter, thematically speaking.

[Winston*]

I don't like how Brokeback Mountain seems to believe that a relationship where the members are wearing cowboy hats is automatically more interesting than a cowboy hatless relationship. I get it, you can pull off a cowboy hat, I can't and my relationships will inevitably reflect that. Big deal!

[Watashi]

I wish I could quit you, Winston!

[Qrazy]

Of course, I didn't buy into it, because I know it was merely an attempt to force liberalism into the conservative public.

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. So acceptance of people who are different and the misery a lack of acceptance creates are not worthy issues?

[MacGuffin]

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. So acceptance of people who are different and the misery a lack of acceptance creates are not worthy issues?

I guess they are, but Ang Lee doesn't seem to care about these issues and I don't really think they're necessary topics to talk about in movies since I learned that stuff in preschool.

[Sven]

All of the emotion that can be gathered by the audience stems from the fact that they're gay. Nobody cares about the beginning, where the one guy is seen with his family or any of the exposition for that matter. Of course, I didn't buy into it, because I know it was merely an attempt to force liberalism into the conservative public. Still, it seemed rather shameless to me that the only thing Ang Lee seemed to care about was the fact that they were gay, and nothing else in the whole movie matter, thematically speaking.

But... but the movie was about their homosexuality. It was about how family got relegated to the periphery because of their homosexuality. It seems to me that making the family a small part of the picture was necessary to show just how little they mattered to the characters.

And your preschool comment is all kinds of inappropriate. All movies can be boiled down to lessons we learned when we were five.

[MacGuffin]

But... but the movie was about their homosexuality. It was about how family got relegated to the periphery because of their homosexuality. It seems to me that making the family a small part of the picture was necessary to show just how little they mattered to the characters.

It's okay that the movie is about their homosexuality, but still, I think there should be more to it then that. For example, at the end I'm sure we had many people that were crying. But they were crying likely because a homosexual was not accepted in this world, not because we are not accepting of the homosexual. There are bigger issues that can be examined than just: "Oh no, these guys are gay. What's gonna happen now!?"


And your preschool comment is all kinds of inappropriate. All movies can be boiled down to lessons we learned when we were five.

Also, we can take an example like Tropical Malady which focuses on a homosexual relationship in the first half, and then you can look at the second half as many different things. For one, it can be read as an allegory for acceptance. Nobody accepts the creature in the woods, who leaves one of the villagers stunned. But it can also be read as mystic mythology, and about man's relationship with the forest. It's stuff like this that I wouldn't label "preschool thematics" (and I apologize for using this term again), but is clearly more complex then just: "Oh no, these guys are gay. What's gonna happen now!?"

[Sven]

I have to admit it, Clipper, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[MacGuffin]

I have to admit it, Clipper, I have no idea what you are talking about.

:frustrated:

[Sven]

:frustrated:

I am sorry. Try to explain this to me in different words:


But they were crying likely because a homosexual was not accepted in this world, not because we are not accepting of the homosexual. There are bigger issues that can be examined than just: "Oh no, these guys are gay. What's gonna happen now!?"

[MacGuffin]

I am sorry. Try to explain this to me in different words:

That's me saying that Ang Lee evokes emotions out of his audience because of the fact a homosexual is not accepted, not because we as a nation are not accepting of homosexuals, which would be much more complex and interesting; not what Lee settles for which is not daring and safe.

[Sven]

That's me saying that Ang Lee evokes emotions out of his audience because of the fact a homosexual is not accepted, not because we as a nation are not accepting of homosexuals.

Need it work on a national scale? Can't one man's story be a uniter or a signifier?

[MacGuffin]

Need it work on a national scale? Can't one man's story be a uniter or a signifier?

Read my new edit. It would work much better and feel much less like a Hollywood movie if it was daring enough to use the relationship as something more profound. I mean, come on. I get it that people in Wyoming hate queers.

[Spinal]

Need it work on a national scale? Can't one man's story be a uniter or a signifier?

Yeah, that's a pretty standard dramatic device. Using one man's tale of injustice to stand for injustice everywhere.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, that's a pretty standard dramatic device. Using one man's tale of injustice to stand for injustice everywhere.

They should have done it somewhere less obvious then. I mean, Wyoming, really!?

[Spinal]

They should have done it somewhere less obvious then. I mean, Wyoming, really!?

Well, it has to be someplace they have cowboys. I mean, I guess they have cowboys in San Francisco, but that's a very different sort of cowboy.

[Qrazy]

They should have done it somewhere less obvious then. I mean, Wyoming, really!?

It's a commentary on not only location but on genre. Kind of sheds decades of westerns in a new light when viewed through the lens of homosexuality... something most westerns have never wanted to talk about previously.

[Russ]

But... but the movie was about their homosexuality. It was about how family got relegated to the periphery because of their homosexuality. It seems to me that making the family a small part of the picture was necessary to show just how little they mattered to the characters.
Sorry, iosos, but I've got to disagree here. To say that it was about their homosexuality (and by extension, how they treated their respective families) is like saying Ratatouille is about an intelligent, highly-motivated rat. The film simply used the homosexual romance to illustrate a snapshot of a time in our country's evolution when people were pressured to make choices they didn't always agree with. Showing that the families "meant little" to the characters really says nothing about them or their sexual orientation, but was meant to be representative of a time when people of that persuasion felt a pressure to "fit in". Something that still rings true today, tho, admittedly (and thankfully) less so.

[MacGuffin]

It's a commentary on not only location but on genre. Kind of sheds decades of westerns in a new light when viewed through the lens of homosexuality... something most westerns have never wanted to talk about previously.

So what about the action flicks that didn't want to talk about homosexuality previously? Or the horror flicks? Or the kung fu flicks? Or even the mafia flicks? I don't think it's fair to label the movie genre commentary, and that seems like a disservice to Lee, when there are several other things that haven't been explored in several other genres.

[Sven]

Sorry, iosos, but I've got to disagree here. To say that it was about their homosexuality (and by extension, how they treated their respective families) is like saying Ratatouille is about an intelligent, highly-motivated rat. The film simply used the homosexual romance to illustrate a snapshot of a time in our country's evolution when people were pressured to make choices they didn't always agree with. Showing that the families "meant little" to the characters really says nothing about them or their sexual orientation, but was meant to be representative of a time when people of that persuasion felt a pressure to "fit in". Something that still rings true today, tho, admittedly (and thankfully) less so.

Good calls. My response was hasty and not necessarily well thought out. I particularly like your last two sentences. I don't think i agree with your implication that the film is somehow archaic (it's a snapshot, as though it's not a relevant or contemporary film).

[Izzy Black]

But... but the movie was about their homosexuality. It was about how family got relegated to the periphery because of their homosexuality. It seems to me that making the family a small part of the picture was necessary to show just how little they mattered to the characters.


I think Clipper Ship Captain is on to something when he says all the emotion derived from the film is largely based on their homosexuality. It is true the film is about homosexuality, but this was Clipper's point, that it was about that and not much else. The problem arises when a film focuses on a theme only for its political and taboo nature rather than developing on its actual relationship with society and people. In society, homosexual relationships should be respected with the same regard as heterosexual relationships. We can do this by not just showing us that "look gay people suffer from bigotry," and actually show what it means for two homosexual men to be in love. Instead of employing cliche, manipulative plot conventions of the past to stir up emotions for these ill-fated protagonists, Ang Lee could have did what he did best by focusing on the romantic development of these characters.

This is seen at the beginning of the film where there is no real exposition between the characters. It is even difficult to understand where exactly their attraction stems from - unless it is a purely animalistic/psychological/repressive one. The couple is presented as something alien and strange, further solidifying stereotypes about homosexuality, and perhaps, reifying the audience's already preconceived conservative notions of homosexuality. It is like an old white mother feeling sympathy for a black mother who lost a child at Vietnam, but thinking she could not feel pain the same way a white woman does. There is nothing particularly emotional or romantic about their first encounter, or even this film for that matter. It is a cold, calculated observation of sexual lust, but the romance is foregone the moment they practically rape each other.

Conversely, a romantic development could have lifted the material into something meaningful, but as it stands, it strikes me as overly condescending and preachy in the way that Lions for Lambs is. In short, Lee forgot about the human heart - the centerpiece of his cinema.

[Russ]

I don't think i agree with your implication that the film is somehow archaic (it's a snapshot, as though it's not a relevant or contemporary film).
Oops, bad wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that at all.

[Qrazy]

So what about the action flicks that didn't want to talk about homosexuality previously? Or the horror flicks? Or the kung fu flicks? Or even the mafia flicks? I don't think it's fair to label the movie genre commentary, and that seems like a disservice to Lee, when there are several other things that haven't been explored in several other genres.

1) The western was ripe for homosexual commentary given that it's often a bunch of guys alone in the desert/hills for an extended period of time.
2) How is not fair to label a film genre commentary or a disservice to the director? That's absurd. It seems fairly obvious to me that it's genre commentary given that it's exploring something in a genre that hasn't been explored before.

[MacGuffin]

1) The western was ripe for homosexual commentary given that it's often a bunch of guys alone in the desert/hills for an extended period of time.

And? Kung fu movies show men grappling each other.


2) How is not fair to label a film genre commentary or a disservice to the director? That's absurd. It seems fairly obvious to me that it's genre commentary given that it's exploring something in a genre that hasn't been explored before.

I never said all movies. I said this one. Maybe it is genre commentary. But how does that make it any better, especially when they are many other genres that still need commenting on?

[D_Davis]

And? Kung fu movies show men grappling each other.


And? The director largely considered to be the father of the kung fu pian, Chang Cheh, the director to take a more masculine view on the wuxia pian, was a closeted homosexual. More than a few of his films feature heroes who bleed from their anuses when they are close to death...read into that what you will.

[MacGuffin]

And? The director largely considered to be the father of the kung fu pian, Chang Cheh, the director to take a more masculine view on the wuxia pian, was a closeted homosexual. More than a few of his films feature heroes who bleed from their anuses when they are close to death...read into that what you will.

My point is that there are so many different genres that can explore so many different things, the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a "genre commentary" about gay cowboys seems almost irrelevant.

[Sycophant]

Is all genre commentary inherently useless, then? Or if I want to do genre commentary, do I have to comment on all genres?

I think if you expand your viewpoint on what the Western genre is and means in American culture, there's a great deal to be gained from that.

[D_Davis]

My point is that there are so many different genres that can explore so many different things, the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a "genre commentary" about gay cowboys seems almost irrelevant.

I didn't really take BBM as genre commentary. I've kind of always assumed there was some homoeroticism bubbling away under the surface of most westerns. Even if on a purely innocent level, many westerns are about men, and what it means to be a man, and how men deal with each other and with nature.

I recently read Deliverance - great, great freaking book, some of the best nature/adventure prose I've read - and it was similar in its themes. Never seen the film.

[MacGuffin]

I didn't really take BBM as genre commentary. I've kind of always assumed there was some homoeroticism bubbling away under the surface of most westerns. Even if on a purely innocent level, many westerns are about men, and what it means to be a man, and how men deal with each other and with nature.

I recently read Deliverance - great, great freaking book, some of the best nature/adventure prose I've read - and it was similar in its themes. Never seen the film.

That's fine; I was only responding to Qrazy's labeling of it.

[Izzy Black]

There is hardly a self-reflexive moment in Brokeback Mountain. It might be genre reinvention, which is a stretch, and the only genre I can think of that fits is 'romantic epic,' but a commentary does not exactly arise, especially when this is more a cowboy flick, and much less a Western in the "genre" sense.

The clever Academy Awards montage on gay cowboys in Westerns was a nice ironic moment in defense of Brokeback Mountain -- insofar as Westerns have cowboys and so the implication is not absurd -- but that does not make Brokeback Mountain a Western, or a commentary on genre.

[D_Davis]

Even labeling it a "western" might be argued as a stretch if you consider the genre to be more than a setting. In terms of themes and archetypes, one might argue that, yes, it has more in common with the epic romances.

[Izzy Black]

Even labeling it a "western" might be argued as a stretch if you consider the genre to be more than a setting. In terms of themes and archetypes, one might argue that, yes, it has more in common with the epic romances.

Which is exactly what I wrote (or are you not responding to me?)

[Sycophant]

True. It trades in the iconography of the cowboy. But Western is not defined by the presence of dudes in hats measured in gallons.

[number8]

I admit it. I am lost.

[D_Davis]

Which is exactly what I wrote (or are you not responding to me?)

Nope, just responding in general, reaffirming what you wrote.

[Dukefrukem]

I already know what your #1 pet peeve is... I saw you post it before and it burned into my mind...

[Sven]

I already know what your #1 pet peeve is... I saw you post it before and it burned into my mind...

Wait, really?

As for reflexivity in BBM, what about the Marlboro Man? It's quite blatant in its appropriation of the image of masculine rangers.

[Grouchy]

It's okay that the movie is about their homosexuality, but still, I think there should be more to it then that. For example, at the end I'm sure we had many people that were crying. But they were crying likely because a homosexual was not accepted in this world, not because we are not accepting of the homosexual. There are bigger issues that can be examined than just: "Oh no, these guys are gay. What's gonna happen now!?"
This is some of the funniest shit I've ever read on this site.

And yeah, Qrazy, I'm a waste of space. I only breathe air because it's free.

[MacGuffin]

This is some of the funniest shit I've ever read on this site.

Ever?

[Grouchy]

Ever?
Yes.

[Winston*]

I don't know about this thread. I don't really see it going good places from here.

[Dukefrukem]

Wait, really?

As for reflexivity in BBM, what about the Marlboro Man? It's quite blatant in its appropriation of the image of masculine rangers.

Yup. Well at the time you said it was your biggest pet peeve. want me to post it in spoiler wrap? :)

This is a really entertaining read tho. I'm enjoying it immensely.

[Sven]

Yup. Well at the time you said it was your biggest pet peeve. want me to post it in spoiler wrap? :)

Sure! It goes without saying at this point, though, that I am prone to absolutes and speak in hyperbole more than I should.

[Dukefrukem]

You hate it when you are arguing about a ridiculous or unfeasible scene in a film, or a scene that feels completely out of place, and someone who enjoys the scene says: "What would you have done to make it better then?" (or something on those lines). The other person is pretty much saying, 'you can't think of something better but your arguing the scene sucks'

:)

[Sven]

You hate it when you are arguing about a ridiculous or unfeasible scene in a film, or a scene that feels completely out of place, and someone who enjoys the scene says: "What would you have done to make it better then?" (or something on those lines). The other person is pretty much saying, 'you can't think of something better but your arguing the scene sucks'

:)

That sounds like me!!

[Sven]

So I may as well knock this one out of the way now:

"Why don't you make a better movie?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/post3244.jpg

Really? Really, really?

I don't think I even need to explain why this is annoying.

[Dukefrukem]

That's it!

[NickGlass]

As for reflexivity in BBM, what about the Marlboro Man? It's quite blatant in its appropriation of the image of masculine rangers.

Absolutely. The film is also a veiled allegory on cigarettes and their lack of acceptance in society.

"I can't quit you."

[Qrazy]

There is hardly a self-reflexive moment in Brokeback Mountain. It might be genre reinvention, which is a stretch, and the only genre I can think of that fits is 'romantic epic,' but a commentary does not exactly arise, especially when this is more a cowboy flick, and much less a Western in the "genre" sense.

The clever Academy Awards montage on gay cowboys in Westerns was a nice ironic moment in defense of Brokeback Mountain -- insofar as Westerns have cowboys and so the implication is not absurd -- but that does not make Brokeback Mountain a Western, or a commentary on genre.

Luckily self-reflexivity isn't necessary for genre commentary. One can comment on a genre via reinvention of previous relationships, archetypes, etc common to the genre. And no BBM is not a Western in the archetypal narrative definition of the term, but it has very strong western elements and is therefore capable of commenting on them... namely making explicit a homosexuality which has long lain dormant in stories of cowboys, the west and the mid-west. These men herd animals, live in the wilderness for long periods of time, attend rodeos, etc and so forth. There is a distinct western influence just as if they were detectives in a shadow filled city there would be a distinct noir influence.

On a different note I disagree with your comments that Lee does not show the love in the film. There are numerous scenes of them fostering their relationship... by the campfire, dealing with the sheep, etc. The animalistic/lust element of their relationship is a natural expression of and outlet for a relationship which the two parties realize is taboo. They do not know how to have a 'healthy' relationship with one another because they are constantly burdened by social and familial guilt. The way they speak and interact with one another (particularly after having not seen each other for a long time) made it quite clear to me the depth of their affections.

[Qrazy]

And? Kung fu movies show men grappling each other.

I never said all movies. I said this one. Maybe it is genre commentary. But how does that make it any better, especially when they are many other genres that still need commenting on?

It doesn't necessarily make it better it just makes it interesting when viewed in relation to pre-established archetypal relationships which have come before... it therefore thematically has something new to bring to the table. Your argument that it is somehow limited because there are other archetypes which also need commenting on is just an absurd smokescreen. It's like saying a thing can't do something if it's not doing everything.

[Skitch]

I hate it when people won't admit that Dances With Wolves is a western.

[Watashi]

I hate it when people won't admit that Dances With Wolves is a western.

No, it's just a bad movie.

[MadMan]

I hate it when people won't admit that Dances With Wolves is a western.Yeah. That opinion doesn't make any sense. How the flying fuck is Dances With Wolves not a western? Honestly. Just because it doesn't feature gunfights? Is that it? I have yet to encounter that, but I hope I never do because the person(s) who hold that opinion are in for a severe beatdown.

[MadMan]

No, it's just a bad movie.:| I'm starting to wonder if people hate that movie just because it won Best Picture that year instead of Goodfellas. Well guess what folks: get over it. Shit happens. I mean common Chicago undeservedly won Best Picture in 2003 for crying out loud. I realize that in the past I've been guilty of bitching about films, actors/actresses, directors, etc. getting either past over for nominations or losing out on awards. I think that needs to end, and I'm going to stop now because its become a pet peeve of mine now.

[Mysterious Dude]

I mean common
Here's one of my pet peeves. "Common" is an actual word with a different pronunciation from "come on." They are not interchangeable. Please don't use them as such.

[Lucky]

This thread has taken some strange turns. I think we're in the boondocks now discussing Brokeback Mountain.

[Ezee E]

:| I'm starting to wonder if people hate that movie just because it won Best Picture that year instead of Goodfellas. Well guess what folks: get over it. Shit happens. I mean common Chicago undeservedly won Best Picture in 2003 for crying out loud. I realize that in the past I've been guilty of bitching about films, actors/actresses, directors, etc. getting either past over for nominations or losing out on awards. I think that needs to end, and I'm going to stop now because its become a pet peeve of mine now.
Wats isn't even a huge fan of Goodfellas so why would he care about that?

[Watashi]

What? I love Goodfellas.

I just think Miller's Crossing is superior.

[Boner M]

Absolutely. The film is also a veiled allegory on cigarettes and their lack of acceptance in society.

"I can't quit you."
God hates fags, indeed.

[MadMan]

Wats isn't even a huge fan of Goodfellas so why would he care about that?I was just using his post as a sounding board to rant about something related. I have yet to read a convincing negative review of Dances With Wolves though. I don't think the film is a masterpiece, but the hate it often receives is baffling to me.


Here's one of my pet peeves. "Common" is an actual word with a different pronunciation from "come on." They are not interchangeable. Please don't use them as such.I rarely, if ever, bother to spell check my work. I'll try harder in the future Mr. English Language Teacher :P

[Qrazy]

I was just using his post as a sounding board to rant about something related. I have yet to read a convincing negative review of Dances With Wolves though. I don't think the film is a masterpiece, but the hate it often receives is baffling to me.

I rarely, if ever, bother to spell check my work. I'll try harder in the future Mr. English Language Teacher :P

I don't think it's an OK film but as to the hate... I think a lot of people just really dislike Kevin Costner.

PS You might want to fix this "in a very subtitle manner" in the film discussion thread before someone jumps on you. ;)

[Acapelli]

God hates fags, indeed.
i want to rep you forever for this

[transmogrifier]

HUGE pet peeve: people who spend pages arguing about whether a film belongs in a particular genre or not. What.the. hell. does. it. matter?!

[Skitch]

No, it's just a bad movie.


And yet, still the best western made that wasn't a hotel.

[Sven]

HUGE pet peeve: people who spend pages arguing about whether a film belongs in a particular genre or not. What.the. hell. does. it. matter?!

This was on my list as well.

Seriously, genre is just about the most boring film-related discussion topic of all time to me. At this point, when I hear the word, my eyes start to glaze over.

[transmogrifier]

This was on my list as well.

Seriously, genre is just about the most boring film-related discussion topic of all time to me. At this point, when I hear the word, my eyes start to glaze over.

What gets me is that whether film A is a horror or not has no realtionship in any way to the quality of the film. Even if Film A is commenting on the iconography of the horror genre, it STILL doesn't matter whether it is a horror film itself.

I find that too often, people discussing film become too reliant on topics with a layer of relative objectivity (what genre is it? how similar/different is it to something else) as security for not really knowing how to express their more subjective reactions - or as a way to joust with someone who they disagree with, but have no idea why.

[Sven]

I find that too often, people discussing film become too reliant on topics with a layer of relative objectivity (what genre is it? how similar/different is it to something else) as security for not really knowing how to express their more subjective reactions - or as a way to joust with someone who they disagree with, but have no idea why.

Excellent observation.

[Sven]

That said, thinking about it now, and tying this into something I said a ways back, I do think it's fair, and usually quite interesting, to compare things in terms of similar affectations, approaches, and styles (and maybe plot points and cultural points of reference).

For example, an extensive compare/contrast of Topkapi and Mission:Impossible may be in the works for me, both as read as films with a central heist, a compendium of strange (and symbolic) characters, and a vivid visual style. Do you see what I'm saying?

[D_Davis]

I love discussion on genre, and the various tropes and conventions that run throughout the various genres, and how particular filmmakers shaped the landscape of certain genres. Connecting the dots from one genre to another, and from one film within a certain genre to another, is, to me, one of the most fascinating aspects of cinema.

[Qrazy]

HUGE pet peeve: people who spend pages arguing about whether a film belongs in a particular genre or not. What.the. hell. does. it. matter?!

It only matters if the argument is serving to negate something else you're saying about the film(s). But yeah despite the fact that I've roped myself into a few of them, I don't like genre discussions either.

[Sven]

I love discussion on genre, and the various tropes and conventions that run throughout the various genres, and how particular filmmakers shaped the landscape of certain genres. Connecting the dots from one genre to another, and from one film within a certain genre to another, is, to me, one of the most fascinating aspects of cinema.

As a science, I can see its relevance. As a gauge of a film's quality, I find it fetid.

[D_Davis]

As a science, I can see its relevance. As a gauge of a film's quality, I find it fetid.

Oh, totally.

[Sven]

Oh, totally.

Too frequently I hear people (not you, at all) dismiss films with: "It's not really a superhero movie" or "I don't like horror films" or "this Western is not as good as that Western because of these qualities that MAKE it a Western".

Also, it is frustrating when someone tries to call you out on an offhand but accurate labeling of a film. "Alien is a fun little horror film." "NO, it's science-fiction." "Sigh."

[number8]

And yet, still the best western made that wasn't a hotel.

*bites .44*

[Skitch]

*bites .44*

Yeah, I know. I'm not big on westerns. I continue to smash illusions with my horrible taste in film!

...on second thought, Tombstone would be the best one yet. Or maybe Once Upon A Time In The West. I do like Dances With Wolves though.

[Sven]

No, it was your pun that killed number8.

[MadMan]

I don't think it's an OK film but as to the hate... I think a lot of people just really dislike Kevin Costner.

PS You might want to fix this "in a very subtitle manner" in the film discussion thread before someone jumps on you. ;)Okay, I can understand the Costner hate even though I'm a fan of a good deal of his work.

As for the other spelling error, eh I'm just too lazy. I'm surprised no one noted it though, all things considered.

Also skitch I can't agree that its the best western ever. I won't reveal my #1 western of all time though because I'm planning a Top 10 westerns list for Match-Cut. Which will follow my Top 20 Horror Films list over on the Axis (I may or may not post that list here. I'm not sure if I want to get torn to pieces just yet heh).

[Duncan]

I love it when gay guys are referred to as "the homosexual."

[Duncan]

I find that too often, people discussing film become too reliant on topics with a layer of relative objectivity (what genre is it? how similar/different is it to something else) as security for not really knowing how to express their more subjective reactions - or as a way to joust with someone who they disagree with, but have no idea why. Totally agree with this.

[Skitch]

No, it was your pun that killed number8.

It was utterly unavoidable.

:lol:

[Dukefrukem]

What? I love Goodfellas.

I just think Miller's Crossing is superior.

the Departed is better than both.

[Ezee E]

the Departed is better than both.
...

[number8]

the Departed is better than both.

Then you must really, really hate those two movies.

[Sycophant]

Pet peeve: People bringing up The Departed like it's really a great movie, even though there really isn't a discernible reason to even bring it up at all.

[Qrazy]

Goodfellas > Miller's Crossing > The Departed

[D_Davis]

Miller's Crossing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goodfellas > The Departed

[balmakboor]

Miller's Crossing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goodfellas > The Departed

Yeh yeh, that's all fine and dandy. But the real question is where does Boxer From Shantung fall for you in the spectrum?

[balmakboor]

P.S. - I've been meaning to re-watch The Departed. It did nothing for me the first go around, something that shocked me considering how highly I praise Scorsese in general. Was I wrong?

[D_Davis]

Yeh yeh, that's all fine and dandy. But the real question is where does Boxer From Shantung fall for you in the spectrum?

Psh...it's off the scale!

[Qrazy]

Miller's Crossing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goodfellas > The Departed

Yeah lord knows Goodfellas could have used more abusive mob lords smacking their whiny sons around... Needless to say I find the Coens vastly overrated.

[Sven]

Pet peeve: People bringing up The Departed like it's really a great movie, even though there really isn't a discernible reason to even bring it up at all.

This is a thread for GENERAL peeves about film discussion, not specific ones like this. Plus, you are capable of a better dis than this, because there are three really obvious discernible reasons to bring it up.

[Qrazy]

OK I have a general pet peeve (with apologies to Boner and Watashi)... variations on the following as either justification or dismissal of a criticism...

All *insert element of filmmaking or filmmaking itself* is manipulative.
All *insert element of filmmaking or filmmaking itself* is artificial.
All *insert element of filmmaking or filmmaking itself* is indulgent.

Wide scope versus narrow scope definitions people, it makes a difference.

[Spinal]

All *insert element of filmmaking or filmmaking itself* is manipulative.
All *insert element of filmmaking or filmmaking itself* is artificial.
All *insert element of filmmaking or filmmaking itself* is indulgent.


My pet peeve is the assumption that those three adjectives are inherently negative.

[Qrazy]

My pet peeve is the assumption that those three adjectives are inherently negative.

Then you can thank your lucky stars that no one is making that assumption. The point being that when someone describes a film or an element of a film with any such or similar descriptor and the other party responds with 'Well every film...' the other party is transmuting the definition of the term the first party is using into something completely different from what the first party actually meant.

If someone says... I feel *insert Hollywood title here* is emotionally manipulative and the response is well all art is emotionally manipulative... it's just a meaningless response.

[SirNewt]

Despite the chance that I'll have my eyes ripped from my face, I'm going to say I liked 'The Departed'. I derived great joy from watching Nicholson ham like the smoked lump of salty pork he is.

[Pop Trash]

Despite the chance that I'll have my eyes ripped from my face, I'm going to say I liked 'The Departed'. I derived great joy from watching Nicholson ham like the smoked lump of salty pork he is.
I liked it as well. It was hella entertaining, if not all that deep. I imagine it would make the top ten consensus of 2006 on Match-Cut. I do, however, feel that Scorsese might be co-opted by Hollywood too much these days.

[Silencio]

I think Clipper Ship Captain is on to something when he says all the emotion derived from the film is largely based on their homosexuality. It is true the film is about homosexuality, but this was Clipper's point, that it was about that and not much else. The problem arises when a film focuses on a theme only for its political and taboo nature rather than developing on its actual relationship with society and people. In society, homosexual relationships should be respected with the same regard as heterosexual relationships. We can do this by not just showing us that "look gay people suffer from bigotry," and actually show what it means for two homosexual men to be in love. Instead of employing cliche, manipulative plot conventions of the past to stir up emotions for these ill-fated protagonists, Ang Lee could have did what he did best by focusing on the romantic development of these characters.

This is seen at the beginning of the film where there is no real exposition between the characters. It is even difficult to understand where exactly their attraction stems from - unless it is a purely animalistic/psychological/repressive one. The couple is presented as something alien and strange, further solidifying stereotypes about homosexuality, and perhaps, reifying the audience's already preconceived conservative notions of homosexuality. It is like an old white mother feeling sympathy for a black mother who lost a child at Vietnam, but thinking she could not feel pain the same way a white woman does. There is nothing particularly emotional or romantic about their first encounter, or even this film for that matter. It is a cold, calculated observation of sexual lust, but the romance is foregone the moment they practically rape each other.

Conversely, a romantic development could have lifted the material into something meaningful, but as it stands, it strikes me as overly condescending and preachy in the way that Lions for Lambs is. In short, Lee forgot about the human heart - the centerpiece of his cinema.This is kinda late but, it was made quite evident that the two men aren't fully accepting or even aware of their own sexual orientation until they spend time together. The film is largely an observation of self-denial. I don't think neither Jack or Ennis ever truly felt like their romance could evolve under the repressive society of the times. All they know is that who they are and what they do is "wrong" but they can't help it because it's in their nature, and that's where the "cold, calculated observation of sexual lust" comes in. They obviously have a romantic bond too however, it's evident in the scene when they reunite for the first time after the lengthy time apart.

[SirNewt]

Wooops

Did KF run out of peeves or did we just derail his thread so badly that he had to jump clear before the impact?

[balmakboor]

Wooops

Did KF run out of peeves or did we just derail his thread so badly that he had to jump clear before the impact?

Don't you mean iosos?

[Kurosawa Fan]

My pet peeve is when people mix up iosos and myself. Twice. In a thread I haven't participated in as of yet.

:P

[Izzy Black]

Luckily self-reflexivity isn't necessary for genre commentary. One can comment on a genre via reinvention of previous relationships, archetypes, etc common to the genre.

I note self-reflexivity because reinvention by way of active genre invocation seems to me as a non-option since this is not a Western. A reinvention of genre requires keeping with enough of the genre's main functions so to have a family resemblance with other films in the genre. Brokeback Mountain does not peserve such elements, nor is it interested in being a genre film. Ang Lee noted in several interviews this film aspires to be an epic romance in the vein of Gone With the Wind. I would say he is half successful.


And no BBM is not a western in the archetypal narrative definition of the term, but it has very strong western elements and is therefore capable of commenting on them... namely making explicit a homosexuality which has long lain dormant in stories of cowboys, the west and the mid-west.

It is true that a film can comment on elements that might be found and/or popularized by a given genre, but that does not mean it is a genre reinvention, to be sure. If anything, Brokeback Mountain is more a commentary on cultural myths rather than anything particularly filmic. These myths may have been popularized by genres such as the Western, but this does not entail ispo facto that it is a commentary on genre. The film does not give the pretense of working within a genre so as to reconstruct it. This film is far more interested in the political than film. Moreover, the elements of the genre it is ostensibly commenting on are very loose, and arguably, insignificant ones. The Western genre is defined by stylistic archetypes of alpha male competition and codes of masculinity, amoral protagonists, typically noir conditions, and general existential malaise denoted by the western landscape. The romance is rarely a central function of the tale. The Western puts emphasis on gunslingers and outlaws, and less, or not at all, on working-class cowboys.


These men herd animals, live in the wilderness for long periods of time, attend rodeos, etc and so forth. There is a distinct western influence just as if they were detectives in a shadow filled city there would be a distinct noir influence.

Why must there be a Western influence? I do not see it. We have several films made about the western heartland that have nothing to do with the Western genre. This goes without mentioning that your charge is a bit anachronistic, since no Western proper really takes place during this period. The period is the 60s. A time of cultural and sociopolitical transition and change. Indeed, the film's emphasis on this story and era is no doubt a political one. Its deconstruction of cultural myths need not be assumed as genre commentary when the only thing really shared with the genre is two cowboys and western landscape. It is no more a Western than Paris, Texas is a Western. This is not colonial America. There are no gunslinger outlaws, amoral protagonists, and competitive gangs. What we have is a semblance of landscape and two gay cowboys, and that is a loose relationship at best.


On a different note I disagree with your comments that Lee does not show the love in the film. There are numerous scenes of them fostering their relationship... by the campfire, dealing with the sheep, etc.

I touched upon these scenes. I would not call them numerous, nor would I call them ones that foster the relationship. There is nothing particularly developmental about the scenes. There are some glances and plenty of shots of them sitting around. Ledger's character says one or two lines about his family, and then there is a lunge into animalistic, lustful passion.


The animalistic/lust element of their relationship is a natural expression of and outlet for a relationship which the two parties realize is taboo. They do not know how to have a 'healthy' relationship with one another because they are constantly burdened by social and familial guilt. The way they speak and interact with one another (particularly after having not seen each other for a long time) made it quite clear to me the depth of their affections.

You are speaking of an infidelity tale. The familial guilt can easily be attributed to their own infidelity. I do not contend that Ang Lee would like us to believe that they are in love, and that there are several lines like "Why can't I quit you" that should suggest they were written to be in love, but it is hardly presented as such on the screen. Why must their relationship as presented to us center around sexuality? Why can they not merely be with each other, hold each other, and talk to each other just as they are? Why do we not see more scenes of them spending quality time with each other as such that they long to salvage those fleeting moments of merely being in one another's presence? It is made quite clear that every time they do meet it is sexual. They meet up on the mountain for a booty call, or at least, that is all that we really get a hint at. If there is anything romantic to be had, it is not on the screen. This is not the screen magic and romance that speaks about the nature of love. This says to me that homosexuality is a repressed/psychological reaction to sociocultural taboos. It alienates the heart in homosexual relationships, and confirms the audience's fears of a strange, sexualized lifestyle.

[Izzy Black]

This is kinda late but, it was made quite evident that the two men aren't fully accepting or even aware of their own sexual orientation until they spend time together. The film is largely an observation of self-denial. I don't think neither Jack or Ennis ever truly felt like their romance could evolve under the repressive society of the times. All they know is that who they are and what they do is "wrong" but they can't help it because it's in their nature, and that's where the "cold, calculated observation of sexual lust" comes in. They obviously have a romantic bond too however, it's evident in the scene when they reunite for the first time after the lengthy time apart.

I must depart for the moment, but I shall respond to your post shortly. Thank you for the response.

[Watashi]

My biggest pet peeve are people who go on how amazing a film is and how it will stand the tests of time and such, and then give it something like a B- and say "a B- is really damn good on my scale".

[Ezee E]

My biggest pet peeve are people who go on how amazing a film is and how it will stand the tests of time and such, and then give it something like a B- and say "a B- is really damn good on my scale".
Who does that? D'Angelo is a tough critic, but he doesn't really do that with his bizarro scores.

[Watashi]

Who does that? D'Angelo is a tough critic, but he doesn't really do that with his bizarro scores.

I've seen plenty of people over at RT do it.

[Ezee E]

I've seen plenty of people over at RT do it.
Ah, well that's RT.

Screw RT.

[Silencio]

How about using "depressing" and "dark" as genuine criticisms against a film? That really ticks me off.

[Sven]

How about using "depressing" and "dark" as genuine criticisms against a film? That really ticks me off.

I don't get annoyed about "depressing", because there are plenty of films I think go too far in their cynicism as to be nearly anti-human, which I find way too depressing to side with. "Dark", though, I don't think I've heard lately applied as a criticism.

However, on the flipside:

The equation of "dark", "mature", "gritty", or "realistic" with "good"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/b_batman_begins.jpg

Maybe it's just that my personality attracts me to whimsy, optimism, vibrancy, and color, which is not to say that I'm incapable of appreciating explorations of man's darker nature. It just kills me when those words are used as a defense, as though they are inherently positive qualities. I think I attribute this to an unfortunate trend in film culture that for some reason denies artful artifice or banks on populist optimism. I do not demand formula, but I think that in this era of irony, catharsis is seriously undervalued.

Edited: word use

[Russ]

Maybe it's just that my personality attracts me to whimsy, optimism, vibrancy, and color
And you're not a fan of Amelie?


:) I keed.

[Sven]

And you're not a fan of Amelie?


:) I keed.

:P
However, I do not like cloying. Fine line, very fine line.

[Boner M]

My tastes tends to lean toward the dark and gritty (with streaks of sunshine!), but I do get annoyed by what seems to be a general rule among film buffs that downbeatness automatically equates with sophistication and intelligence. So, good call.

[Izzy Black]

This is kinda late but, it was made quite evident that the two men aren't fully accepting or even aware of their own sexual orientation until they spend time together.

I am not sure this is made quite evident at all. In fact, if it is evident, and I somehow missed it, then I am even more concerned with the film. Why would they not know they are gay? That is a can of beans I doubt Ang Lee is bold enough to explore. Jack seems to be aware of his desires and in control of even the relationship nearly the entire film. It may be there is some repression on behalf of Ennis, but I never gathered the implication that they were not aware of their sexual orientation, and especially not so for Jack.


The film is largely an observation of self-denial. I don't think neither Jack or Ennis ever truly felt like their romance could evolve under the repressive society of the times. All they know is that who they are and what they do is "wrong" but they can't help it because it's in their nature, and that's where the "cold, calculated observation of sexual lust" comes in. They obviously have a romantic bond too however, it's evident in the scene when they reunite for the first time after the lengthy time apart.

As I recall, they reunite and talk about the fact that they meet up and have sex, and Ennis would like it to be permanent rather than temporal and secret. The romantic bond between them is relegated to a footnote. I also do not think the film is largely an observation of self-denial. The repression is there, but it is more a tale about one's inability to express identity in a world that rejects your identity. It is not that they deny their homosexuality, but they do not know how to handle it, or express it to others without fear of being chastised, ostracized, and persecuted.

[Dukefrukem]

My pet peeve is when people mix up iosos and myself. Twice. In a thread I haven't participated in as of yet.

:P

When are you gonna post your next pet peeve?

[SirNewt]

Don't you mean iosos?

Didn't you hear KF is the new Iosos. Start posting peeves (besides ones targeted at me).

P.S. that's what he gets for having an AV from 'Hidden Fortress' (which is a good movie despite Bosley Crowther)

[Dukefrukem]

bump!

[MadMan]

This thread is good stuff. It should continue.

[MacGuffin]

When people get angry for not tagging minor spoilers in a review.

[Raiders]

When people get angry for not tagging minor spoilers in a review.

Uh-huh.

A) Nobody was upset in your thread and,
B) No plot synopsis or general knowledge of this movie necessarily gives this information away. It may be minor, but perhaps people would like to discover this aspect for themselves. At the very least, you could have put prior to your review a "Potential spoilers" remark.

[MacGuffin]

Uh-huh.

A) Nobody was upset in your thread and,

It's the subtle assholeishness that pisses me off (seriously, if I ever did something to you, I apologize). Also, the missing spoiler tag was a mistake; didn't think anybody was going to read the review anyways.

[Raiders]

It's the subtle assholeishness that pisses me off (seriously, if I ever did something to you, I apologize).

Uh, what? I didn't even comment on the spoilers in the thread. I just did what people were requesting.

[Winston*]

Subtle assholeishness is what the Internet's for. Also, outright assholeishness.

EDIT: assholeishness