28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Rowland]

Hm. Really? I don't know... you find Herzog is being hubristic with Aguirre? Even so, how does this reflexive approach to man's duality communicate hubris?Being faintly familiar with the mythology surrounding the picture's creation before my viewing may have helped me make this connection, but knowing that Herzog precociously dragged his crew and actors out into the jungle wilderness with little money and a single camera to attempt a reenactment of the Spanish expedition for El Dorado, to be shot in sequence ("We'll stage history like others stage plays!" indeed), the shoot notorious for the tensions and hardships suffered by all involved, suggests an apt parallel to the narrative at hand. The duality is between creation and entropy, the seeking of enlightenment versus notoriety, and how proximate these reflections are to one another.

[jamaul]

Sátánfuckingtangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)

Dude, you spelled this shit wrong.

Anyway, good flick. Lots of explosions.

[Qrazy]

I should probably move this to the contemporary moral issues thread. The general question is what morally questionable acts can you commit in order to create art. The specific question is how do people feel about how Herzog created Fitzcarraldo. I hadn't really thought of it before but my girlfriend really hates him and his work in general primarily as a result of the creation of Fitz. I actually haven't seen Burden of Dreams or read anything about it but I have seen a few short clips and heard some audio (I think it was on the fitz dvd). Essentially (she argues at least, I don't really know) he seems to have treated the aboriginal people in the film the same way Sweeney treated them fictionally. Such that the aborigines were out there pulling the steamship over the hill, not really understanding what they were doing and doing it for little remuneration.

Tangentially how do you feel about Boyle not providing for the Slumdog Millionaire stars or Borat (Cohen) not paying the faux-Khazakstan townspeople well... I'm sure there have been many other instances of this kind of thing... I wonder how the Rabbit Proof Fence kids faired.

[baby doll]

Dude, you spelled this shit wrong.

Anyway, good flick. Lots of explosions.Oops.

[jamaul]

I think when you go into the making of any film, ambitious or not, you're looking for the most cost-effective and efficient ways to do it. I imagine that any natives who were underpaid or overworked, gave forth their deepest consent and likely were very excited to be involved, regardless if they understood the scale or were appropriately compensated. And I doubt the filmmakers themselves were acting on any sort of diabolocial god complex that justified overworking those that offered a hand. They just wanted to make their film.

[Qrazy]

I think when you go into the making of any film, ambitious or not, you're looking for the most cost-effective and efficient ways to do it. I imagine that any natives who were underpaid or overworked, gave forth their deepest consent and likely were very excited to be involved, regardless if they understood the scale or were appropriately compensated. And I doubt the filmmakers themselves were acting on any sort of diabolocial god complex that justified overworking those that offered a hand. They just wanted to make their film.

I'll have to see the documentary and/or read up a bit more but based upon what I've been told I think both of these points are up for debate.

[baby doll]

Tangentially how do you feel about Boyle not providing for the Slumdog Millionaire stars or Borat (Cohen) not paying the faux-Khazakstan townspeople well... I'm sure there have been many other instances of this kind of thing... I wonder how the Rabbit Proof Fence kids faired.Maybe I'm being unusually hard on Boyle, because I didn't like the movie, but it made like 300 million dollars, so of course the kids should get something out of it.

As for the Romanians in Borat, I'm sure there was a craft services table at the very least. And it's not like their the stars of the film, they were just extras.

[jamaul]

I'll have to see the documentary and/or read up a bit more but based upon what I've been told I think both of these points are up for debate.

I may be wrong, but all I'm saying is: beware of the hyperbole. If you were there on the set, I'm doubting it was nearly so over-the-top. And I find Herzog's crazy-insane dedication to his craft, displayed in Burden of Dreams, to be more inspiring than revelatory or revealing. He may have acted rash, but ultimately, it wasn't about playing god, or stroking his ego: he simply wanted to make the best movie possible.

[jamaul]

Maybe I'm being unusually hard on Boyle, because I didn't like the movie, but it made like 300 million dollars, so of course the kids should get something out of it.

As for the Romanians in Borat, I'm sure there was a craft services table at the very least. And it's not like their the stars of the film, they were just extras.


The kids don't deserve anything more than what was contractually agreed upon. No one expected it to make as much as it did. But it did. And people got rich cuz they made the investment. Such is life.

[[ETM]]

Boyle not providing for the Slumdog Millionaire stars

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/27/slumdog-millionaire-actors-homes

[Rowland]

;168309']http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/27/slumdog-millionaire-actors-homes
But while Boyle and Colson were photographed hugging Rubina...

Blech.

[EyesWideOpen]

I finally saw a The Brothers Bloom trailer on tv and yeah that is a pretty horrible representation of the film. It's a lot darker in tone then that spot showed. It made it look like a screwball comedy.

[Qrazy]

I may be wrong, but all I'm saying is: beware of the hyperbole. If you were there on the set, I'm doubting it was nearly so over-the-top. And I find Herzog's crazy-insane dedication to his craft, displayed in Burden of Dreams, to be more inspiring than revelatory or revealing. He may have acted rash, but ultimately, it wasn't about playing god, or stroking his ego: he simply wanted to make the best movie possible.

Whether or not he wanted to make the best movie possible isn't really the question. I'm asking do the means (specifically Fitz but more generally other films and artists... for instance Tarkovsky/Andrei Rublev or Kim Ki Duk/The Isle/Spring Summer with animal death/cruelty) justify the ends? If you're underwhelmed by animal rights issues that's why I offered potential human exploitation as initial examples.

[Qrazy]

I may be wrong, but all I'm saying is: beware of the hyperbole. If you were there on the set, I'm doubting it was nearly so over-the-top.

It was very much over the top. Many people died and/or were injured in the shooting. The camp prostitute was in the film. One of the natives offered to kill Kinski. Whether or not the natives were exploited is up for debate... I'm kind of wondering if anyone can substantiate or unsubstantiate this... but whether or not the shooting was over the top... it most definitely was.

[Qrazy]

;168309']http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/27/slumdog-millionaire-actors-homes

OK? They've been living in shanty towns for months. Would Boyle have done anything without the media pressure? Based upon the timeline of events it seems unlikely to me.

What the hell were they even paid if they were still living on the street after shooting this picture?

[Qrazy]

The kids don't deserve anything more than what was contractually agreed upon. No one expected it to make as much as it did. But it did. And people got rich cuz they made the investment. Such is life.

The film had a multi-million dollar budget. No, no one expected it to make as much as it did but they expected it to do decently enough. Enough that the stars of the film shouldn't be back to living on the street after the shooting.

I don't even know what that means such is life. Such is life such that it isn't morally reprehensible for the crew and production companies not to provide housing for the child stars of their film? These are freakin' kids. He is not legally obligated to do so but that doesn't make it morally legitimate.

60,000 pounds is actually somewhat low for a lead actor.

[baby doll]

The kids don't deserve anything more than what was contractually agreed upon. No one expected it to make as much as it did. But it did. And people got rich cuz they made the investment. Such is life.Remember at the Oscars how on every photo it was Danny Boyle with the kids? Well, I was reading a few months back, even before the girl's house was demolished, that she was having a hard time readjusting to life in the slums, because in Hollywood she got to sleep in a nice hotel with a real bed. And she wouldn't take off the dress they gave her for several weeks. And these are just little kids; with the older actors, I don't feel like Boyle should buy them a new house, but here it just seems kind of sleazy.

Apparently Boyle is planning to make more films in India. Be still my palpitating heart.

[jamaul]

It was very much over the top. Many people died and/or were injured in the shooting. The camp prostitute was in the film. One of the natives offered to kill Kinski. Whether or not the natives were exploited is up for debate... I'm kind of wondering if anyone can substantiate or unsubstantiate this... but whether or not the shooting was over the top... it most definitely was.

Mainly, what I'm trying to say is that people tend to blow things out of proportion, and for such a controlled medium that relies on such precision, I think I lot of shit bounced around is exaggerated. Like Herzog pulling the gun on Kinski (on Aguirre). Did it happen? I'm pretty skeptical that it did -- or if it did, it was probably meant completely as a joke, regardless of what either party would admit to now (although Kinski isn't in a position anymore to admit much of anything).

There is a possibility that Herzog did exploit the natives. And if he did, I honestly don't see him as a bad person for it. They weren't enslaved, they weren't forced, and I'd be willing to bet that it was NEVER Herzog's intention to have things get out of control, or completely take advantage of people and put them in danger to stroke his ego.

[baby doll]

The camp prostitute was in the film.Didn't the church give its blessing for them to have an on-set prostitute? I should watch that movie again.

[jamaul]

Remember at the Oscars how on every photo it was Danny Boyle with the kids? Well, I was reading a few months back, even before the girl's house was demolished, that she was having a hard time readjusting to life in the slums, because in Hollywood she got to sleep in a nice hotel with a real bed. And she wouldn't take off the dress they gave her for several weeks. And these are just little kids; with the older actors, I don't feel like Boyle should buy them a new house, but here it just seems kind of sleazy.

Apparently Boyle is planning to make more films in India. Be still my palpitating heart.

Um. If you feel so bad, why don't you send her some money? Because bitching about this poor girl's living conditions on a message board and criticising Boyle for giving the girl a one-night-only Cinderella experience sounds to me like you speaking very loudly out of your ass.

[Qrazy]

Mainly, what I'm trying to say is that people tend to blow things out of proportion, and for such a controlled medium that relies on such precision, I think I lot of shit bounced around is exaggerated. Like Herzog pulling the gun on Kinski (on Aguirre). Did it happen? I'm pretty skeptical that it did -- or if it did, it was probably meant completely as a joke, regardless of what either party would admit to now (although Kinski isn't in a position anymore to admit much of anything).

There is a possibility that Herzog did exploit the natives. And if he did, I honestly don't see him as a bad person for it. They weren't enslaved, they weren't forced, and I'd be willing to bet that it was NEVER Herzog's intention to have things get out of control, or completely take advantage of people and put them in danger to stroke his ego.

Assuming Herzog did what he has been said to have done. Do you also sanction colonialism because the people aren't enslaved?

[Qrazy]

Didn't the church give its blessing for them to have an on-set prostitute? I should watch that movie again.

I don't know. I don't really mind that they had one either. I just think that a lot of crazy shit actually does go down on Herzog sets... probably Jodorowsky sets as well.

[Rowland]

How perfect that this discussion is directly following my response to iosos regarding the tenuous distinction between Herzog and Aguirre.

[jamaul]

Assuming Herzog did what he has been said to have done. Do you also sanction colonialism because the people aren't enslaved?

Maybe I need to go back and dust the cobwebs off my Herzogian history, cuz nothing I've ever seen with him featured has ever given me the impression that he is a crazy, maniacal tyrant without a thought or care for those working on his film, seeking to exploit his underlings for the 'greater good.' I'm tempted to use the words of the great David Lynch: 'Get real.'

[baby doll]

Um. If you feel so bad, why don't you send her some money? Because bitching about this poor girl's living conditions on a message board and criticising Boyle for giving the girl a one-night-only Cinderella experience sounds to me like you speaking very loudly out of your ass.I didn't make any money off her. That's the difference between Boyle and myself.

[jamaul]

I didn't make any money off her. That's the difference between Boyle and myself.

Okay, am I wrong, but was she not paid? I mean, even if she was paid scale, would that not be fair if it was agreed upon? Do you really think Boyle's intention was to exploit the child by giving her as little as possible so he can have super hit, win a bunch of Oscars and swim in a pool filled with money?

And how much of the super-millions that the film made actually went to Boyle? From everything I've read about the film's production, it was made very tightly, with a lot more of the money going toward getting the film made than over-paying above-the-line talent. When it comes to the success of the film, it rests in the filmmaking team, and those that invested the money to pay that team. Not the little girl herself, or the cute slumdog kids. Fair is fair.

[Qrazy]

Maybe I need to go back and dust the cobwebs off my Herzogian history, cuz nothing I've ever seen with him featured has ever given me the impression that he is a crazy, maniacal tyrant without a thought or care for those working on his film, seeking to exploit his underlings for the 'greater good.' I'm tempted to use the words of the great David Lynch: 'Get real.'

I'll 'get real' when I see some evidence one way or the other about how he actually treated the natives. I'm not just going to blindly hero worship the guy as you seem to be doing. If he misled and manipulated people (I don't know if he did) to make art than I don't think we can just sweep that under the rug because 'it was to make the best film possible'.

[Qrazy]

Okay, am I wrong, but was she not paid? I mean, even if she was paid scale, would that not be fair if it was agreed upon? Do you really think Boyle's intention was to exploit the child by giving her as little as possible so he can have super hit, win a bunch of Oscars and swim in a pool filled with money?

And how much of the super-millions that the film made actually went to Boyle? From everything I've read about the film's production, it was made very tightly, with a lot more of the money going toward getting the film made than over-paying above-the-line talent. When it comes to the success of the film, it rests in the filmmaking team, and those that invested the money to pay that team. Not the little girl herself, or the cute slumdog kids. Fair is fair.

It's fair to pay the star of your film so little that they're back out living on the streets after production is done? The film cost 15 million give or take. It grossed over 340 million. You seem to have a rather tenuous grasp on fairness.

[Robby P]

On the one hand, one could argue that the natives in Fitzcarraldo acted on their own accord and did not explicitly ask or bargain for 'reasonable remuneration' in return for their labor. On the other hand, one could also argue that the filmmakers knowingly exploited a people whose concept of 'reasonable remuneration' widely differed from their own. The natives' clearly consented to what was asked of them but it does seem like the filmmakers took a rather unethical approach to the project.

Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with the basic idea of placing individuals in harm's way for the sake of art so long as those involved give their reasoned consent through non-coercive measures.

[jamaul]

I'll 'get real' when I see some evidence one way or the other about how he actually treated the natives. I'm not just going to blindly hero worship the guy as you seem to be doing. If he misled and manipulated people (I don't know if he did) to make art than I don't think we can just sweep that under the rug because 'it was to make the best film possible'.

Okay, did he in fact do the manipulating? Did he in fact mistreat them? If there was manipulation or mistreating, I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening unbeknownst to Herzog. 1st Unit AD's usually work with extras and are usually never given direction straight from the actual director. And producers handle a lot of the hiring, casting and compensation mumbo-jumbo, so what indeed can be blamed on Herzog?

I'm not saying I agree with people having to die at the behest of a filmmaker's vision. I'm just saying it's probably not nearly as tyrannical as you think.

[Qrazy]

Okay, did he in fact do the manipulating? Did he in fact mistreat them? If there was manipulation or mistreating, I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening unbeknownst to Herzog. 1st Unit AD's usually work with extras and are usually never given direction straight from the actual director. And producers handle a lot of the hiring, casting and compensation mumbo-jumbo, so what indeed can be blamed on Herzog?

I'm not saying I agree with people having to die at the behest of a filmmaker's vision. I'm just saying it's probably not nearly as tyrannical as you think.

I don't think I ever said anything about tyranny. I would however like to know exactly how the natives were treated.

[jamaul]

It's fair to pay the star of your film so little that they're back out living on the streets after production is done? The film cost 15 million give or take. It grossed over 340 million. You seem to have a rather tenuous grasp on fairness.

Hmmm, I'm guessing you were the kinda kid growing up bitching and crying to mom that it wasn't fair that other kids had more than you.

If the girl was compensated with a certain amount of the budget alotted for that role, that was fair in the context of keeping within budget restraints, and that, my friend, is fair. Yeah, in a perfect world, she'd have gotten a phat extra paycheck, I'd have a million dollars, there'd be no poor people, no wars, no religion, possessions, countries, no need for hunger, above us only sky . . . Imagine that.

[Qrazy]

Hmmm, I'm guessing you were the kinda kid growing up bitching and crying to mom that it wasn't fair that other kids had more than you.

If the girl was compensated with a certain amount of the budget alotted for that role, that was fair in the context of keeping within budget restraints, and that, my friend, is fair. Yeah, in a perfect world, she'd have gotten a phat extra paycheck, I'd have a million dollars, there'd be no poor people, no wars, no religion, possessions, countries, no need for hunger, above us only sky . . . Imagine that.

You've jumped the shark.

[baby doll]

Okay, am I wrong, but was she not paid? I mean, even if she was paid scale, would that not be fair if it was agreed upon? Do you really think Boyle's intention was to exploit the child by giving her as little as possible so he can have super hit, win a bunch of Oscars and swim in a pool filled with money?

And how much of the super-millions that the film made actually went to Boyle? From everything I've read about the film's production, it was made very tightly, with a lot more of the money going toward getting the film made than over-paying above-the-line talent. When it comes to the success of the film, it rests in the filmmaking team, and those that invested the money to pay that team. Not the little girl herself, or the cute slumdog kids. Fair is fair.Obviously I don't think Boyle set out to exploit her, but whether or not Boyle got all the money, I'm sure he got a piece. Also, the international fame and Oscars aren't anything to sneeze at. His house isn't going to be demolished anytime soon.

If the film's budget was, as Qrazy said, 15 million (pounds or American dollars?), that's only a "tight" shoot in relation to Hollywood super productions like Star Trek and Up. How many Indian productions do you think cost that much? I suspect part of the reason Boyle wants to continue making films in India is that it's much cheaper to shoot there than the UK because you don't have to pay your technicians or actors as much. Those unions, they'll cost you a fortune.

[jamaul]

I would however like to know exactly how the natives were treated.

Hmm, I'll bet you they were paid and fed. And that very few of them were actually raped by Herzog himself.

[Robby P]

If the child actors in Slumdog were paid what they contractually bargained for (or rather, what their representatives bargained for), I don't see how the producers are in any way obligated to further pay them. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to pay the kids a little something extra, particularly considering the circumstances, but it's not like they're money-hording monsters for sticking to the original contract which both parties agreed to.

[megladon8]

If the child actors in Slumdog were paid what they contractually bargained for (or rather, what their representatives bargained for), I don't see how the producers are in any way obligated to further pay them. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to pay the kids a little something extra, particularly considering the circumstances, but it's not like they're money-hording monsters for sticking to the original contract which both parties agreed to.


This.

[Kurosawa Fan]

If the child actors in Slumdog were paid what they contractually bargained for (or rather, what their representatives bargained for), I don't see how the producers are in any way obligated to further pay them. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to pay the kids a little something extra, particularly considering the circumstances, but it's not like they're money-hording monsters for sticking to the original contract which both parties agreed to.

Really? Because, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, but I'm willing to bet they didn't have the best representation. It's not like they had agents. Didn't the girl's father try to sell her after the film's success? If he was in charge of negotiating in the first place, I'm sure he was looking out for her best interest.

[baby doll]

If the child actors in Slumdog were paid what they contractually bargained for (or rather, what their representatives bargained for), I don't see how the producers are in any way obligated to further pay them. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to pay the kids a little something extra, particularly considering the circumstances, but it's not like they're money-hording monsters for sticking to the original contract which both parties agreed to.But do you think that they were in much of a position to negotiate? I don't think they were getting SAG rates.

[jamaul]

Obviously I don't think Boyle set out to exploit her, but whether or not Boyle got all the money, I'm sure he got a piece. Also, the international fame and Oscars aren't anything to sneeze at. His house isn't going to be demolished anytime soon.

If the film's budget was, as Qrazy said, 15 million (pounds or American dollars?), that's only a "tight" shoot in relation to Hollywood super productions like Star Trek and Up. How many Indian productions do you think cost that much? I suspect part of the reason Boyle wants to continue making films in India is that it's much cheaper to shoot there than the UK because you don't have to pay your technicians or actors as much. Those unions, they'll cost you a fortune.

15 million is actually tight for a film with a sizable crew, that many actors and that many locations. Equipment, food, and everything that goes into shooting, especially a film by that scale, I bet you every one of those 15 million dollars (or pounds) were used (and probably not on whisky, whores or new cars). And you know? -- if the girl had decided she thought there was a chance she might be exploited, and backed out, there would have been thousands of other girls lining up to take her place. Now, you can fault the filmmakers, the government, God, humanity itself . . . but nothing's really going to change that situation, unless those people decide to rise up and do something about it. But that's not the fight of Mr. Boyle or his film crew. And no matter what you say, making that film, without stars, and without anything really commercially viable going for it, was a risk.

As for me, if a producer attached to a prominent filmmaker asked if his crew could shoot at my home, I'd let 'em do it for free, provided they fix whatever they break and allow me to stay and watch.

[Qrazy]

Hmm, I'll bet you they were paid and fed. And that very few of them were actually raped by Herzog himself.

Regardless of your general pidgeon-holing assumptive assery since I've already admitted a position of ignorance in relation to what Herzog did or did not do... people did die in relation to the making of the film. This was in service of his art and some of them were native and perhaps did not fully understand what it was they were doing or why. So you're right. He's not a rapist but he may have contributed to manslaughter.

[Qrazy]

If the child actors in Slumdog were paid what they contractually bargained for (or rather, what their representatives bargained for), I don't see how the producers are in any way obligated to further pay them. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to pay the kids a little something extra, particularly considering the circumstances, but it's not like they're money-hording monsters for sticking to the original contract which both parties agreed to.

They aren't legally obligated. They are morally obligated to pay the stars of their greatly successful film enough so that they aren't living on the fucking street.

[baby doll]

15 million is actually tight for a film with a sizable crew, that many actors and that many locations. Equipment, food, and everything that goes into shooting, especially a film by that scale, I bet you every one of those 15 million dollars (or pounds) were used (and probably not on whisky, whores or new cars). And you know? -- if the girl had decided she thought there was a chance she might be exploited, and backed out, there would have been thousands of other girls lining up to take her place. Now, you can fault the filmmakers, the government, God, humanity itself . . . but nothing's really going to change that situation, unless those people decide to rise up and do something about it. But that's not the fight of Mr. Boyle or his film crew. And no matter what you say, making that film, without stars, and without anything really commercially viable going for it, was a risk.

As for me, if a producer attached to a prominent filmmaker asked if his crew could shoot at my home, I'd let 'em do it for free, provided they fix whatever they break and allow me to stay and watch.First of all, if you did let them do it for free, you'd be incredibly stupid. If Ron Howard came to you and said, I want to film The Da Vinchi Code 3 in your suburban home, I'm sure he'd be willing to pay you a ton of money.

I'm sure compared to Boyle's other recent films, it was a low-budget affair, but for most independent filmmakers, and certainly for a film made in India (post-production costs were probably greater than the actual shooting), that's a huge amount of money.

As far as there being a thousand other girls willing to take her place, (a) you're talking like the owner of a Dickensian workhouse, and (b) how many of them could act?

[jamaul]

They aren't legally obligated. They are morally obligated to pay the stars of their greatly successful film enough so that they aren't living on the fucking street.

Morally obligated by whose dubious standards? Yours? Sweet jesus, grow up.

[Qrazy]

15 million is actually tight for a film with a sizable crew, that many actors and that many locations. Equipment, food, and everything that goes into shooting, especially a film by that scale, I bet you every one of those 15 million dollars (or pounds) were used (and probably not on whisky, whores or new cars). And you know? -- if the girl had decided she thought there was a chance she might be exploited, and backed out, there would have been thousands of other girls lining up to take her place. Now, you can fault the filmmakers, the government, God, humanity itself . . . but nothing's really going to change that situation, unless those people decide to rise up and do something about it. But that's not the fight of Mr. Boyle or his film crew. And no matter what you say, making that film, without stars, and without anything really commercially viable going for it, was a risk.

As for me, if a producer attached to a prominent filmmaker asked if his crew could shoot at my home, I'd let 'em do it for free, provided they fix whatever they break and allow me to stay and watch.

Making that film was not a risk. The screenplay has oscar bait shite written all over it.

[baby doll]

Morally obligated by whose dubious standards? Yours? Sweet jesus, grow up.Just personally, if a movie I directed made 300 million dollars and won nine Oscars, and two of the stars were small children who were living on the streets in India, I like to think that I'm a caring enough person that I would want to help them of my own accord.

[jamaul]

First of all, if you did let them do it for free, you'd be incredibly stupid. If Ron Howard came to you and said, I want to film The Da Vinchi Code 3 in your suburban home, I'm sure he'd be willing to pay you a ton of money.

I'm sure compared to Boyle's other recent films, it was a low-budget affair, but for most independent filmmakers, and certainly for a film made in India (post-production costs were probably greater than the actual shooting), that's a huge amount of money.

As far as there being a thousand other girls willing to take her place, (a) you're talking like the owner of a Dickensian workhouse, and (b) how many of them could act?

1. Fuck Ron Howard. I wouldn't let him in my house. But if it was Marty Scorsese, I'd pay him to shoot there, just so I could watch him, shake his hand, maybe have a conversation.

2. Have you ever tried to assemble a cast and crew for a day of shooting, compensate them, feed them, and pay for equipment you are renting? It's fucking expensive.

3. What I speak is truth. You and I both know if she had opted out, someone would have opted in in seconds.

Lastly, maybe the moral of the story is, in order to not exploit poor third world kids, Slumdog should have been made in an America dressed to look Indian, with white actors doing silly Indian accents. Then -- no one gets exploited.

Except maybe the moviegoer.

[D_Davis]

I remember reading that Keanu Reeves donated a large portion of his salary from the Matrix films to the actual film crew because they were the one who were really doing the work. I thought that was an awesome move.

[Qrazy]

Morally obligated by whose dubious standards? Yours? Sweet jesus, grow up.

I was more thinking along the lines of the standards of most systems of equitable distribution and justice (Rawls for instance). Moral obligation as in it is morally incumbent (although not legally required) upon these people who have vast sums of money to spend a pittance to get their lead actors off the street. But clearly with your vast wisdom and presumably old age I guess you must be right that fulfilling specious and clearly under paying contracts = complete fulfillment of all moral obligations.

[[ETM]]

I thought that was an awesome move.

He's awesome like that in general. I respect him, even though he's not the greatest actor ever.

[Rowland]

I remember reading that Keanu Reeves donated a large portion of his salary from the Matrix films to the actual film crew because they were the one who were really doing the work. I thought that was an awesome move.Didn't he buy them all motorcycles or something? Seems like a cool guy.

[Pop Trash]

This convo is making me laugh. I keep hearing the drunken voice of Jack Nicholson in my head whenever I read jamaul's posts. Dannneeeeeeeee!!!

[jamaul]

Making that film was not a risk. The screenplay has oscar bait shite written all over it.

You are ridiculously naive. If the story was bait, the actorly choice wasn't. How many other oscar-winning (or nominated) films were comprised completely of unrecognizable foreign actors? Shit, even The Last Emperor had Peter O'Toole. Slumdog came very close to not even getting a distributor.

And my god, I can't believe I'm defending a movie to this degree that I didn't even like very much.

[Qrazy]

2. Have you ever tried to assemble a cast and crew for a day of shooting, compensate them, feed them, and pay for equipment you are renting? It's fucking expensive.

True, the film I may be working on shortly with SAG involved costs about 100,000. Hey wait a sec that's a lot less than 15 million dollars.


Lastly, maybe the moral of the story is, in order to not exploit poor third world kids, Slumdog should have been made in an America dressed to look Indian, with white actors doing silly Indian accents. Then -- no one gets exploited.

*facepalm* Alternatively just pay your lead actors a bit more to get them off the street.

[megladon8]

I remember reading that Keanu Reeves donated a large portion of his salary from the Matrix films to the actual film crew because they were the one who were really doing the work. I thought that was an awesome move.


That's not the exact story I read, but who knows which one is "right".

I read that he donated his salary because the film was getting too expensive, and he wanted to see it finished and released, so basically worked for free.

Still a pretty cool move, I think.

[D_Davis]

;168383']He's awesome like that in general. I respect him, even though he's not the greatest actor ever.

Totally.

[baby doll]

1. Fuck Ron Howard. I wouldn't let him in my house. But if it was Marty Scorsese, I'd pay him to shoot there, just so I could watch him, shake his hand, maybe have a conversation.

2. Have you ever tried to assemble a cast and crew for a day of shooting, compensate them, feed them, and pay for equipment you are renting? It's fucking expensive.

3. What I speak is truth. You and I both know if she had opted out, someone would have opted in in seconds.

Lastly, maybe the moral of the story is, in order to not exploit poor third world kids, Slumdog should have been made in an America dressed to look Indian, with white actors doing silly Indian accents. Then -- no one gets exploited.

Except maybe the moviegoer.1. I'm sure he'd have more pressing things to do than sit around and talk with the guy who owns the house. And you'd be losing a lot of money. But you would get to eat off the craft services table.

2. Luckily, on those occasions when I have had to organize a day's shooting, I was a student and didn't have to pay anyone, but I did have to arrange for craft services to feed everyone. So compared to my crappy little student films, fifteen million dollars is a huge amount of money.

3. Casting is hard. Not everyone can be an actor.

As far as not exploiting anyone, you don't have to pay Indians the same rates as people in the UK for it to be a fair wage, because the cost of living there is different, but if they're still on the streets, it can't be a fair wage, can it?

[jamaul]

Just personally, if a movie I directed made 300 million dollars and won nine Oscars, and two of the stars were small children who were living on the streets in India, I like to think that I'm a caring enough person that I would want to help them of my own accord.

And this is the first time I've somewhat agreed with you. If my film made a buttload of money and I had access to the profits, I too would do the same, because morally, I'd feel obliged. But that is MY perspective. My moral standing, and I CANNOT fault the filmmakers for not sharing my sensibilities. They have every right to believe that the agreed upon initial salary was sufficient within the context of what means they had to work with at the time she was hired.

[megladon8]

Didn't he buy them all motorcycles or something? Seems like a cool guy.


I also like that he very frequently donates money to charities but doesn't make a big deal about it (notifying the press, making a show of it).

That's why I hate people like Bono so much. When you make such a big deal about how saintly you think you are, it robs the act of any genuineness it had in the first place.


And yes, "genuineness" is a word - I looked it up :)

[MacGuffin]

Can anybody tell me which movie this is from?

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6048/3805jpg.jpg

[Qrazy]

You are ridiculously naive. If the story was bait, the actorly choice wasn't. How many other oscar-winning (or nominated) films were comprised completely of unrecognizable foreign actors? Shit, even The Last Emperor had Peter O'Toole. Slumdog came very close to not even getting a distributor.

And my god, I can't believe I'm defending a movie to this degree that I didn't even like very much.

City of God
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Letters from Iwo Jima
Life is Beautiful
Il Postino
Amelie

[jamaul]

1. I'm sure he'd have more pressing things to do than sit around and talk with the guy who owns the house. And you'd be losing a lot of money. But you would get to eat off the craft services table.

2. Luckily, on those occasions when I have had to organize a day's shooting, I was a student and didn't have to pay anyone, but I did have to arrange for craft services to feed everyone. So compared to my crappy little student films, fifteen million dollars is a huge amount of money.

3. Casting is hard. Not everyone can be an actor.

As far as not exploiting anyone, you don't have to pay Indians the same rates as people in the UK for it to be a fair wage, because the cost of living there is different, but if they're still on the streets, it can't be a fair wage, can it?

1. But would that make me stupid? I'd trade in the money for the opportunity to watch a filmmaker I admire work, regardless of if he talked with me or paid me for the use of my home.

2. On the films I've worked on, we've done it for next to nothing, with HD cameras, dedicated people working for free, and as much tape as we wanted to burn (actually, we weren't even shooting on tape). Craft services is expensive, if you have a lot of people, but most crew and cast are a dime a dozen. They are willing to be involved just for the possibility of gaining exposure. Only thing that really costs are props if needed, or equipment . . . if needed. Obviously, Slumdog had way more involved than one HD camera, half a dozen crew and a few actors . . . even if they shot guerilla and w/o permits, I can still see money well-spent plastered all over that film. It has production value, friend.

3. See number 2.

[Qrazy]

And this is the first time I've somewhat agreed with you. If my film made a buttload of money and I had access to the profits, I too would do the same, because morally, I'd feel obliged. But that is MY perspective. My moral standing, and I CANNOT fault the filmmakers for not sharing my sensibilities. They have every right to believe that the agreed upon initial salary was sufficient within the context of what means they had to work with at the time she was hired.

Not everyone subscribes to moral relativism. In fact in terms of the way society is structured there are very few who do.

[jamaul]

City of God
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Letters from Iwo Jima
Life is Beautiful
Il Postino
Amelie

Not all of these got the BP nod, and NONE of them won. And most of them featured very well-known world actors, whereas Slumdog featured not a one.

[baby doll]

1. But would that make me stupid? I'd trade in the money for the opportunity to watch a filmmaker I admire work, regardless of if he talked with me or paid me for the use of my home.

2. On the films I've worked on, we've done it for next to nothing, with HD cameras, dedicated people working for free, and as much tape as we wanted to burn (actually, we weren't even shooting on tape). Craft services is expensive, if you have a lot of people, but most crew and cast are a dime a dozen. They are willing to be involved just for the possibility of gaining exposure. Only thing that really costs are props if needed, or equipment . . . if needed. Obviously, Slumdog had way more involved than one HD camera, half a dozen crew and a few actors . . . even if they shot guerilla and w/o permits, I can still see money well-spent plastered all over that film. It has production value, friend.

3. See number 2.1. If you could get to watch him work (I'm sure it'd actually be boring) and make money while doing it, that would be even better.

2. The crew Boyle used on Slumdog likely consisted of Indian professionals who work in Bollywood, and were probably paid what they would be normally paid, possibly a little more, which would still be well below what a crew in the UK would get (as I said, the cost of living is different there). The people I've worked with were in it for the experience, but they want experience so they can get a professional job and be paid for it.

3. I'm sure there was an extensive search to find these kids, and of however many people were willing, they found a handful of kids who were right for the role and could act. (In my experience, it's just been whoever I could get, basically.)

[Qrazy]

Not all of these got the BP nod, and NONE of them won. And most of them featured very well-known world actors, whereas Slumdog featured not a one.

Indeed, Slumdog won because it has the oscar baity script that people eat up. Given Boyle's track record, production values and given the script Slumdog was not a financial risk. There was no reason to believe it would do as well as it did but unless it had been complete shite (on a technical level) it would have made back it's cost and then some.

[MacGuffin]

Can anybody tell me which movie this is from?

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6048/3805jpg.jpg

Rep to anyone who answers.

[jamaul]

Indeed, Slumdog won because it has the oscar baity script that people eat up. Given Boyle's track record, production values and given the script Slumdog was not a financial risk. There was no reason to believe it would do as well as it did but unless it had been complete shite (on a technical level) it would have made back it's cost and then some.

Funny, cuz I was under the impression, from what I'd read, that the film had a hard time finding financing and that it very nearly failed to find a distributor.

[jamaul]

1. If you could get to watch him work (I'm sure it'd actually be boring) and make money while doing it, that would be even better.

2. The crew Boyle used on Slumdog likely consisted of Indian professionals who work in Bollywood, and were probably paid what they would be normally paid, possibly a little more, which would still be well below what a crew in the UK would get (as I said, the cost of living is different there). The people I've worked with were in it for the experience, but they want experience so they can get a professional job and be paid for it.

3. I'm sure there was an extensive search to find these kids, and of however many people were willing, they found a handful of kids who were right for the role and could act. (In my experience, it's just been whoever I could get, basically.)

1. Don't get me wrong: if they offered cash, I'd accept.

2. This is probably very true, but I'm not going to blame the filmmakers for this. They wanted to get the film made, they wanted it to have production value, and their means were limited.

3. There probably was an extensive search.

Actually, I'm liking this -- there's really nothing left to disagree on, except you don't like that more funds were not offered to the little slumdoggies post-success, and I honestly don't really care. Is it because I'm an apathetic American, spoiled brat living in a bubble? -- probably.

[Bosco B Thug]

Is there a chance Boyle did in fact give them the standard salary they would earn as actors? Having to support them more, then, after, due to the kids' poverty, is for Boyle and co. to prove their personal compassion.

I think I'm somewhat on jamaul and Robby P.'s page. Even if Boyle did foresee the fact that his child actors would just end up back in the slums again after filming with the compensation they got, the notion that, knowing this, he still perceives their wages as fair within some ethical floormark of the industry, is much more the actuality and reality. I'm not averse to a systemic change, of course, but I do harbor a pessimism and fatalism to the idea. Like jamaul, it seems.

Now Herzog, he just seems to exhibit that weird dissocial sociopathy of artists who have really strong dark visions or points to make. Does "method directing" exist? Since he's trying to channel through himself the megalomania and abusiveness of the subject matter he wants to expose through his art. A la Von Trier, right? I personally don't think this justifies Herzog with Fitzcarraldo and supposed unjust terms he had with his employs. Even if it's to ultimately make a humanist point, it's abuse for the sake of jaded intellectualism more than art, and committed against fellow human beings.

[jamaul]

Now Herzog, he just seems to exhibit that weird dissocial sociopathy of artists who have really strong dark visions or points to make. Does "method directing" exist? Since he's trying to channel through himself the megalomania and abusiveness of the subject matter he wants to expose through his art. A la Von Trier, right? I personally don't think this justifies Herzog with Fitzcarraldo and supposed unjust terms he had with his employs. Even if it's to ultimately make a humanist point, it's abuse for the sake of jaded intellectualism more than art, and committed against fellow human beings.

It's funny, because the man holding the camera and narrarating The White Diamond, Wheel of Time, Grizzly Man, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, Lessons of Darkness and Encounters at the End of the World DOES NOT give off the impressions you've illustrated. Herzog seems to me a man in love with life, fascinated by nature and human folly and dazzled by dreams made reality. His films, I believe, can have nothing short of a positive influence on humanity.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's funny, because the man holding the camera and narrarating The White Diamond, Wheel of Time, Grizzly Man, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, Lessons of Darkness and Encounters at the End of the World DOES NOT give off the impressions you've illustrated. Herzog seems to me a man in love with life, fascinated by nature and human folly and dazzled by dreams made reality. His films, I believe, can have nothing short of a positive influence on humanity.
Well, I've only seen one Herzog documentary (Grizzly Man), and I haven't seen Burden of Dreams, so I don't think I've taken in all the evidence on Herzog's methods of filmmaking, definitely. Just going off what I'm hearing about the productions of 'Aguirre' and 'Fitzcarraldo.'

[jamaul]

Well, I've only seen one Herzog documentary (Grizzly Man), and I haven't seen Burden of Dreams, so I don't think I've taken in all the evidence on Herzog's methods of filmmaking, definitely. Just going off what I'm hearing about the productions of 'Aguirre' and 'Fitzcarraldo.'

The craziest thing that Herzog did on those productions was choose to shoot in the jungle, and you'll gather that if you watch Burden of Dreams . . . you'll also realize that this man is very calm, very collected. He chooses his words. He is dedicated to his art. In the film he says 'I live my life or I end my life with this project' which leads me to believe that the fate of his life and his work are intertwined. To me, that is inspiring.

Never once does he give off the impression that he's willing to irrationally and knowingly put people in danger to make his film.

[Robby P]

Yes, I think the children were in a position to negotiate a fair and legitimate contract with the film distribution company. Obviously, none of us know the specifics of the deal so I'm reluctant to immediately assume they were low-balled because they were not part of any actors' union. Realistically, they were probably offered less than what a union member would have received but again they voluntarily agreed to these terms which they obviously found to be satisfactory. At the risk of sounding like Barty there was no element of force or coercion involved in the negotiation process and the alternative was always available to simply reject the terms altogether.

I'm hesitant to say that the producers have a "moral obligation" to pay the children insomuch as I don't see how it's morally wrong to abide by the terms of a consensual agreement but I do agree that it probably wouldn't kill them to grant a reasonable financial addendum to the children.

However, I am curious as to whether we would still feel this way if the cast members were adults. I suspect not but maybe there's good reason for that.

[Robby P]

I would certainly characterize Herzog as a humanitarian but there's no question he's employed some, at best, questionable ethical practices in the makings of his movies.

[EyesWideOpen]

Funny, cuz I was under the impression, from what I'd read, that the film had a hard time finding financing and that it very nearly failed to find a distributor.

Your correct and his last film Sunshine did very poorly so that probably added to the distribution difficulties.

[baby doll]

Your correct and his last film Sunshine did very poorly so that probably added to the distribution difficulties.As I understood it, the company that produced the film (I forget whether it was Fox Searchlight or if they sold the film to them) went out of business.

[Russ]

Those who haven't seen Les Blank's documentary (and especially the commentary) should do so before questioning Herzog's ethics. It's true that Herzog had to relocate his original film camp from near the Peru-Ecuador border because of the strong local resistance to any type of encroachment, which was an attitude in place long before Herzog's arrival. He just happened to make a convenient and high-profile whipping boy. He was forced to relocate and establish a second film camp and, according to Blank and editor Maureen Gosling, Herzog, after learning of the troubles the indigenous Indians had in retaining legal rights to land, began including promises of land in exchange for work and services from the local Indians. After the film was completed, Herzog and a team of lawyers met with the President of Peru and the Minister of Indian Affairs and successfully secured the ownership of forty villages for two of the tribes that worked on the film. I agree with virtually all of the points that jamaul has been making and that some folks have seemingly been unable, or unwilling, to grasp.

[Pop Trash]

Rep to anyone who answers.

The Beast or La Bete in French. A surreal French softcore 70s movie with implied bestiality. Rep me por favor.

[MacGuffin]

Les Chansons d'amour

Wanna hear your thoughts on this. The song "Je n'aime que toi" has been stuck in my head since I saw the movie, the two leading ladies are super hot, and you're right, the movie is a really good modern day representation of Paris. I think I'll have to see it again, because I was only ambivalent towards it a first time.

[MacGuffin]

The Beast or La Bete in French. A surreal French softcore 70s movie with implied bestiality. Rep me por favor.

Yeah, I actually found out, but thanks, I guess there's a reason you go by Pop Trash! Is the movie actually any good, because some people say the director is actually really good.

[Pop Trash]

Yeah, I actually found out, but thanks, I guess there's a reason you go by Pop Trash! Is the movie actually any good, because some people say the director is actually really good.

You know, I actually liked it. I could see why some people wouldn't though. Some of the beast effects are fairly cheesy (but in a good way IMO) But I thought the film had an eerie dreaminess reminiscent of Bunuel. Most of the beast sex scenes are in dream sequences and it has an interesting reality/unreality quality to it. And yes, the director is pretty respected by people who can get beyond the softcore aspects of his films. He died recently so Film Comment had a nice article about his work post mortem.

[MacGuffin]

You know, I actually liked it. I could see why some people wouldn't though. Some of the beast effects are fairly cheesy (but in a good way IMO) But I thought the film had an eerie dreaminess reminiscent of Bunuel. Most of the beast scenes are in dream sequences and it has an interesting reality/unreality quality to it. And yes, the director is pretty respected by people who can get beyond the softcore aspects of his films. He died recently so Film Comment had a nice article about his work post mortem.

Interesting, it's on Netflix so I'll try to look into his work.

[Pop Trash]

Interesting, it's on Netflix so I'll try to look into his work.

Like I said, it's not for all tastes...oh and if memory serves, the lead actress is quite the hotty and is graphically naked through a lot of the film, so bonus points for that.

[baby doll]

Wanna hear your thoughts on this. The song "Je n'aime que toi" has been stuck in my head since I saw the movie, the two leading ladies are super hot, and you're right, the movie is a really good modern day representation of Paris. I think I'll have to see it again, because I was only ambivalent towards it a first time.It was good. It was different than I expected (it's more about grief than amour). Paris was beautiful, so I hated that. There's even one scene where Louis Garrel is walking along the main intersection at Montparnasse-Bienvenue, which is very close to where my hotel was, so as I was watching it, I was thinking, bitterly, "I know that theatre--that's where I saw Rachel Getting Married and Adoration. I know that ugly building. I know that newsstand that looks like every other newsstand in Paris; I bought a copy of Pariscope there for €1,50." I was almost expecting to see the homeless woman who hangs out by the McDonald's down the street.

P.S., Chiara Mastroianni is starting to look a lot like her father. They even have the same mole.

[Qrazy]

Funny, cuz I was under the impression, from what I'd read, that the film had a hard time finding financing and that it very nearly failed to find a distributor.

And that means what? That studio heads aren't interested in funding/embracing anything that isn't cookie cutter nonsense. Something that seems that it's been created by a focus group. That doesn't mean that the film itself wasn't going to make money. Someone would have picked it up eventually and it would have been just fine. They publicize it being difficult to pick up because that makes it seem more risque and indie. It really isn't. Aside from the central love story and the guy getting the girl and the money the film also consists of a series of chase sequences scored to MIA. Yeah I'm sure it will be hard to find an audience for that. :rolleyes:

[Qrazy]

Yes, I think the children were in a position to negotiate a fair and legitimate contract with the film distribution company. Obviously, none of us know the specifics of the deal so I'm reluctant to immediately assume they were low-balled because they were not part of any actors' union. Realistically, they were probably offered less than what a union member would have received but again they voluntarily agreed to these terms which they obviously found to be satisfactory. At the risk of sounding like Barty there was no element of force or coercion involved in the negotiation process and the alternative was always available to simply reject the terms altogether.

I'm hesitant to say that the producers have a "moral obligation" to pay the children insomuch as I don't see how it's morally wrong to abide by the terms of a consensual agreement but I do agree that it probably wouldn't kill them to grant a reasonable financial addendum to the children.

However, I am curious as to whether we would still feel this way if the cast members were adults. I suspect not but maybe there's good reason for that.

Given the going rate in the industry for similar work I consider it low balling when after starring in a multi-million dollar film you are then back living in the street from whence you came. An American child actor would have made substantially more money.

[Qrazy]

Those who haven't seen Les Blank's documentary (and especially the commentary) should do so before questioning Herzog's ethics. It's true that Herzog had to relocate his original film camp from near the Peru-Ecuador border because of the strong local resistance to any type of encroachment, which was an attitude in place long before Herzog's arrival. He just happened to make a convenient and high-profile whipping boy. He was forced to relocate and establish a second film camp and, according to Blank and editor Maureen Gosling, Herzog, after learning of the troubles the indigenous Indians had in retaining legal rights to land, began including promises of land in exchange for work and services from the local Indians. After the film was completed, Herzog and a team of lawyers met with the President of Peru and the Minister of Indian Affairs and successfully secured the ownership of forty villages for two of the tribes that worked on the film.

Not really at all, but thank you for finally clarifying what I was asking about. In my argument against Herzog I was (and repeatedly stated as such) arguing based on the assumption that the information I had been given was correct. Still I'll have to do my own research into the issue before coming to a final conclusion.


I agree with virtually all of the points that jamaul has been making and that some folks have seemingly been unable, or unwilling, to grasp.

Or neither, alternatively we (I) disagree with his points. But by all means if you think the creators of a multi-million dollar film have no moral reason to keep their child stars from living in the streets than that is your prerogative.

What was your favorite part of his argument where he repeatedly told me to grow up? Perhaps if he were to repeat his hollow jabberings one more time this time they would somehow manifest some rhetorical strength.

[Russ]

Or neither, alternatively we (I) disagree with his points. But by all means if you think the creators of a multi-million dollar film have no moral reason to keep their child stars from living in the streets than that is your prerogative.
I was referring to the points he had made about Herzog.


What was your favorite part of his argument where he repeatedly told me to grow up?
The parts where he repeatedly tells you to grow up.

[Qrazy]

I was referring to the points he had made about Herzog.


The parts where he repeatedly tells you to grow up.

Perhaps you guys should hold hands and celebrate each others geriatric genius. Mind you don't break a hip.

[baby doll]

I wrote something about The Graduate for my blog. You should all feel very lucky, and I expect you hang on my every word with great interest. I am the greatest blogger in the world, and think of you as my guests, so no questions about why I wanted to bring this review to the internet.

[Pop Trash]

I wrote something about The Graduate for my blog. You should all feel very lucky, and I expect you hang on my every word with great interest. I am the greatest blogger in the world, and think of you as my guests, so no questions about why I wanted to bring this review to the internet.

Meh, you could do better. Maybe it's because I'm older and actually saw The Graduate before Waynes World 2 and American Pie, but those comparisons seem off the mark. I also watched The Graduate again recently (I bought the DVD but hadn't seen the movie in probably a decade or so) and I forgot just how downright sad a lot of the second half is. That scene with Anne Bancroft all wet from rain in the car and you can't tell if her make-up is running from the rain or tears is just devastating. Also, anyone who likes Rushmore more than The Graduate can go to hell.

[soitgoes...]

I wrote something about The Graduate for my blog. You should all feel very lucky, and I expect you hang on my every word with great interest. I am the greatest blogger in the world, and think of you as my guests, so no questions about why I wanted to bring this review to the internet.That's about the worst review I've ever read for a 3 and a half star film. I mean comparing The Graduate to Wayne's World II? Some of what you said is spot on, but that last line makes me want to vomit on you.

[origami_mustache]

The Toxic Avenger (Herz, Kaufman 84) - 7.5
Street of Shame (Mizoguchi 56) - 6.5


oh c'mon :lol:

[The Mike]

At least someone else gets how awesome Wayne's World 2 is.

(Which is not quite as awesome as The Graduate, but still.)

[jamaul]

And that means what? That studio heads aren't interested in funding/embracing anything that isn't cookie cutter nonsense. Something that seems that it's been created by a focus group. That doesn't mean that the film itself wasn't going to make money. Someone would have picked it up eventually and it would have been just fine. They publicize it being difficult to pick up because that makes it seem more risque and indie. It really isn't. Aside from the central love story and the guy getting the girl and the money the film also consists of a series of chase sequences scored to MIA. Yeah I'm sure it will be hard to find an audience for that. :rolleyes:

For one thing, a studio didn't fund Slumdog. It was independantly financed. Anything independantly financed is always a risk. Always. In fact, on the first page of your production package when seeking investing, you have to throw in a disclaimer illustrating that risk. If such risk is not illustrated in that package, your investor can sue you if the film fails financially.

For two, Slumdog was archetypal and derivative, but also a slightly different riff on a story that's been told many times, and in many different ways. It's the type of crowd pleaser people love, and my friend, for you to attempt to stand above the people that enjoy a film like Slumdog, that contributed to its millions or its Oscars, as if you were better than them, well, you've got some really lame and unjustifiable delusion of superiority. I don't think the film is great, or bad, but I would not for a second write off those who made it and those who loved it. For a guy who just claimed he was going to be working on a film, I'd love to see you do better. In fact, I fuckin dare ya to do better. You may think you have some kind of intellectual superiority over Slumdog's material (material I think we underrate as, say what you will, the film was well-written and well-structured from the standpoint of a screenwriter), but money speaks far louder than message board posts.

The thing that really blows my mind is how you think this material was all cooked up to be the mega-grossing, award-winning film it ended up being, to which I can only say . . . jesus, what can I say? -- how old are you? -- twelve? It wasn't until the Toronto Film Fest that anyone had heard or cared about Slumdog, and before that it was looking as if Slumdog may not even play in theaters. Boyle himself has said that when finding distribution was looking its grimmest, there was a chance it would go straight to video. Not because it sucked, but because studios don't usually opt to pick up Bollywood-inspired films shot in India comprised fully of native actors and no stars. And lastly, MIA wasn't popular or particularly well-known until that Pineapple Express trailer, which was a fluke. There is no way that was built into the sellability of the marketing.

I suggest you do a wikipedia search before you go fish. And don't bother even responding to this post if you're going to dismiss Slumdog's material/success/audience as if you think for a minute you have much more than a hair's chance of doing better.

[jamaul]

Also, I saw the film Up, and I think I liked it, but before I can get my head around what I thought of the film as a whole, I would like to clarify if anyone knows whether child labor and safety laws were adhered to for the boy who played Russell. I mean, they were filming in South America, and the actors were required to haul a house, with only balloons to support it, from one side of a cliff to the other. I just wanted to make sure the child was not exploited nor forced to work longer than the alotted time children are allowed to work on a shooting day.

[Ezee E]

I doubt anyone would've thought that during production, that Slumdog Millionaire would be Danny Boyle's biggest movie, a worldwide success at over $100 million, and so on. No way.

[Grouchy]

Actually, I'm liking this -- there's really nothing left to disagree on, except you don't like that more funds were not offered to the little slumdoggies post-success, and I honestly don't really care. Is it because I'm an apathetic American, spoiled brat living in a bubble? -- probably.
Yes, that's probably the reason why you're being such a flaccid dick. I thought so myself.

Forgive me for thinking it's hypocritical to make a movie denouncing poverty in India and on the side take advantage of the different money rates to basically screw the actors involved. I think it's pretty cruel to fly a six-year-old girl to Hollywood, have her all dressed up and in a five-star hotel bed, and then get her back to the slums until she turns 18. Even if it's well-intentioned, it's well-intentioned patronizing nonsense.

The family of the girl trying to sell her should tell you something about the levels of misery these people are used to.

[Grouchy]

So, on other news, I saw Frost/Nixon. Frank Langella is incredible - awesome actor. The movie is probably the best I'll ever see from Ron Howard, and that's probably only because it's such a smartly written play.

The Reader I liked a lot less. I think the story is contrived and melodramatic beyond any reasonable expectation, and that it's probably better suited for a novel for that same reason. Kate Winslet was good, sure, but I'm not seeing the huge praise. I've seen equally good or better by her.

[baby doll]

That's about the worst review I've ever read for a 3 and a half star film. I mean comparing The Graduate to Wayne's World II? Some of what you said is spot on, but that last line makes me want to vomit on you.With the rating, maybe I was over-compensating to avoid the same trap Ebert and Rosenbaum fell into, where they gave it passing grades, but give the overall impression that the film isn't really worth seeing.

Also, I'm not good at conclusion paragraphs.

[soitgoes...]

oh c'mon :lol:
Have you seen both? The Toxic Avenger is one of the funniest films I've seen in awhile, whether or not it was intentional doesn't matter. Street of Shame was sometimes a chore to sit through, even if it is the better crafted film (by miles).

[origami_mustache]

Have you seen both? The Toxic Avenger is one of the funniest films I've seen in awhile, whether or not it was intentional doesn't matter. Street of Shame was sometimes a chore to sit through, even if it is the better crafted film (by miles).

The Toxic Avenger is funny, but I've seen much more hilarious exploitation films. Those movies always frustrate me in retrospect despite their hilarity, knowing that someone out there put up money to make such garbage. I thought Street of Shame was great, but I suppose I can see your point that one may be more engaging than the other, but I don't value the unintentional humor response as highly .

[balmakboor]

Just watched Tokyo Gore Police. I don't know if I think it is a particularly good movie or not, but lots of spraying blood, severed limbs and heads and dicks, bright cartoony colors, weird prosthetics, cool faux commercials, and tons of hot Japanese girls sure made the time go by quickly.

It has the same problems that I've found most extreme Japanese movies -- like some Miike movies and Versus -- to have. Lack of clear storyline and directing/editing that oddly lacks finesse and feels chopped together.

I assume this and Ichi the Killer were popular in Japan. Have their comics and graphic novels and anime come together to condition the younger generations toward a rather loose sort of anti-story?

[balmakboor]

I thought the humor in Toxic Avenger was intentional. I also thought it was a terrific movie full of an odd sort of charm. I've started watching two other Tromas -- Citizen Toxie and Tromeo & Juliet -- and turned them both off.

[megladon8]

I really do find Pixar amazing.

I watched A Bug's Life last night - for the first time in many years - and was completely taken with it.

Probably going to watch Monsters, Inc. next.

[number8]

Ichi the Killer, anti-story? I beg to differ. It's really quite clever.

I will never lump that movie in with simple fun gorefests like Tokyo Gore Police.

[balmakboor]

Ichi the Killer, anti-story? I beg to differ. It's really quite clever.

I will never lump that movie in with simple fun gorefests like Tokyo Gore Police.

Well, to be honest, I watched Ichi long ago when I felt that way. I've been meaning to try it again though. At the time, I watched Ichi, Fudoh, and Happiness of the K the same weekend and only really liked Fudoh. I've since seen and loved Audition and The Great Yokai War and seen and felt very mixed about Sukiyaki Western Django.

[number8]

Huh. I would think that Fudoh would fit your previous description better. Admittedly, the violence isn't as extreme as Ichi, but it's a deliberately nonsensical, juvenile and cartoony yakuza story. Ichi, on the other hand, has a ton of great subtexts to it.

[number8]

:lol:

How a Back to the Future remake would be like. (http://www.examiner.com/x-11229-Newark-Film-Examiner%7Ey2009m5d16-Originality--Where-were-going-we-dont-need-originality)


Hypothetically, for Marty to be in high school with his parents, he would have to travel back around 30 years, landing him in 1979. The time machine would have to be made out of a ridiculous, soon to be obsolete car, probably a Hummer. Upon arriving in 1979, Marty would be shocked to find everyone wearing shirts with huge collars and bell bottom pants. He would find his old friend Doc and try to convince him he's from the future by stating that in 2009 Barack Obama is president. Doc would then reply, "Barack Obama? The African-American?" Then no one would laugh.


After convincing Doc he is from the future, they'll concoct some sort of scheme to harness the power of a nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island to send the necessary 1.21 jigawatts worth of voltage to the flux capacitor in the Hummer to get Marty back to 2009. The only problem being Marty has inadvertently made his cocaine addicted, disco dancing mother fall in love with him and is taking her to the Saturday Night Fever Dance on the same night as said meltdown.


So, in the end, Marty will attend the dance and convince his mother that she should be dating his father, a dorky Jimmy Carter wannabe. He'll also invent break dancing, new wave alternative music, and Nintendo along the way.

[Raiders]

They would know who Barack Obama is in 1979?

[Ezee E]

I'd say Jesse Ventura as Governor would work.

[number8]

They would know who Barack Obama is in 1979?

That's the point. The joke doesn't work.

[The Mike]

It would have to become an O.J. joke.

[number8]

If it was the 80's they could make a joke about Afghanistan being our ally.

LOL it's funny cuz they flew planes into us (at least according to everyone but Milky Joe).

[Raiders]

That's the point. The joke doesn't work.

Oh. I didn't actually read the whole article. I thought he was pitching an idea he found amusing.

[jamaul]

Yes, that's probably the reason why you're being such a flaccid dick. I thought so myself.



First of all, you should be neg repped for either being an ass for this comment, or the following stupidity that comes afterward (just more of the same politikal dumbassity that Qrazy's been spooging over the last two pages).

Second of all, I'm not going any further with this (unless Qrazy decides to spooge some more politikal dumbassity in subsequent posts regarding this subject). I said everything I needed to say in my previous two posts, and every single one before that. I think you, Qrazy and Baby Doll are spitting a bunch of anti-capitalist mumbo-jumbo that soundz so bloody great on paper: a harmonious brotherhood of man where everyone iz equal and no child goes unfed, who could oppose that?!?! Welcome to reality: it's not going to ever happen. You wanna use Danny Boyle as your poster child for what's wrong with the world, the class system, or any other falacy in our modern world economic structure: grow. the. fuck. up.

And last, to all that questioned the ethics of Herzog and his film Fitzcarraldo: watch Burden of Dreams, and the forty minute interview on the Criterion disc conducted in 2005. If you still wanna accuse Herzog of manipulation and egomaniacal hubris-stroking, you're buying into the same kinda sensationalism you'd find in the latest issue of the National Enquirer. I won't even comment on what transpires in the film (because you kids should have the sense to back up your arguements by actually watching it), but I will say that Qrazy was wrong in his supposition.

[Milky Joe]

Wow, so let's see here: pro-human rights sentiment = "anti-capitalist mumbo jumbo" which basically means = anti-American-dominance = deal with it, "grow. the. fuck. up. (and stop worrying about silly things like human rights)," plus "politikal dumbassity" x2, "you kids...", hmm, sounds like all the makings of a delusional asswipe to me.

[Spinal]

Hey, let's all chill out, ok?

[number8]

All this hostility over a movie that's not even that good to begin with...

[Winston*]

Fitzcarraldo > Slumdog Millionaire

WHAT?! YEAH I WENT THERE!!

[Milky Joe]

I should probably watch Fitzcarraldo. And Slumdog Millionaire.

[number8]

Fitzcarraldo > Slumdog Millionaire

WHAT?! YEAH I WENT THERE!!

BOYYYY YOU ARE CRAZYYYYYY.

[Qrazy]

For one thing, a studio didn't fund Slumdog. It was independantly financed. Anything independantly financed is always a risk. Always. In fact, on the first page of your production package when seeking investing, you have to throw in a disclaimer illustrating that risk. If such risk is not illustrated in that package, your investor can sue you if the film fails financially.

There's risk and then there's risk. Resnais' Last Year at Marienbad for example was a substantial risk. I see nothing in Slumdog which is particularly difficult or inaccessible. It's a slick piece of entertainment. If your definition of risk is simply all independent films I"m not sure what to tell you.


For two, Slumdog was archetypal and derivative, but also a slightly different riff on a story that's been told many times, and in many different ways. It's the type of crowd pleaser people love, and my friend, for you to attempt to stand above the people that enjoy a film like Slumdog, that contributed to its millions or its Oscars, as if you were better than them, well, you've got some really lame and unjustifiable delusion of superiority. I don't think the film is great, or bad, but I would not for a second write off those who made it and those who loved it. For a guy who just claimed he was going to be working on a film, I'd love to see you do better. In fact, I fuckin dare ya to do better. You may think you have some kind of intellectual superiority over Slumdog's material (material I think we underrate as, say what you will, the film was well-written and well-structured from the standpoint of a screenwriter), but money speaks far louder than message board posts.

The thing that really blows my mind is how you think this material was all cooked up to be the mega-grossing, award-winning film it ended up being, to which I can only say . . . jesus, what can I say? -- how old are you? -- twelve? It wasn't until the Toronto Film Fest that anyone had heard or cared about Slumdog, and before that it was looking as if Slumdog may not even play in theaters. Boyle himself has said that when finding distribution was looking its grimmest, there was a chance it would go straight to video. Not because it sucked, but because studios don't usually opt to pick up Bollywood-inspired films shot in India comprised fully of native actors and no stars. And lastly, MIA wasn't popular or particularly well-known until that Pineapple Express trailer, which was a fluke. There is no way that was built into the sellability of the marketing.

I suggest you do a wikipedia search before you go fish. And don't bother even responding to this post if you're going to dismiss Slumdog's material/success/audience as if you think for a minute you have much more than a hair's chance of doing better.

The film was based on a wildly successful book. You're right in so far as it's barely worth responding to this post. Everything bolded above is either untrue or irrelevant.

[Rowland]

Umm... Kabluey is last year's most under-rated/seen comedy? Yeah, I went there! And Sita Sings the Blues is fucking amazing.

[transmogrifier]

Slumdog could have been good if it had any sense of pace, tone or atmosphere. It is a ragged, piecemeal mess. It feels as if it has been directed by 50 different directors and edited together with cellotape.

Complaints about the "hyprocrisy" of Hollywoodizing poverty are ridiculous however. It's a cheap stick to beat the film with when it has myriad other problems you can snipe at it with.

[Qrazy]

First of all, you should be neg repped for either being an ass for this comment, or the following stupidity that comes afterward (just more of the same politikal dumbassity that Qrazy's been spooging over the last two pages).

Second of all, I'm not going any further with this (unless Qrazy decides to spooge some more politikal dumbassity in subsequent posts regarding this subject). I said everything I needed to say in my previous two posts, and every single one before that. I think you, Qrazy and Baby Doll are spitting a bunch of anti-capitalist mumbo-jumbo that soundz so bloody great on paper: a harmonious brotherhood of man where everyone iz equal and no child goes unfed, who could oppose that?!?! Welcome to reality: it's not going to ever happen. You wanna use Danny Boyle as your poster child for what's wrong with the world, the class system, or any other falacy in our modern world economic structure: grow. the. fuck. up.


It's ironic that you are telling people to grow up with such a narrow grasp on the scope of morality and justice. So anyone who does not embrace contract based morality is an anti-capitalist? And if they were (which I'm not) how is this inherently a bad thing? And how exactly are you tying anti-capitalism to childishness? Good god. And just to be clear I'm not even saying Boyle is culpable. I think the company and Boyle by association is at fault.


And last, to all that questioned the ethics of Herzog and his film Fitzcarraldo: watch Burden of Dreams, and the forty minute interview on the Criterion disc conducted in 2005. If you still wanna accuse Herzog of manipulation and egomaniacal hubris-stroking, you're buying into the same kinda sensationalism you'd find in the latest issue of the National Enquirer. I won't even comment on what transpires in the film (because you kids should have the sense to back up your arguements by actually watching it), but I will say that Qrazy was wrong in his supposition.

It wasn't a supposition. Welcome to literacy 101. I clearly laid out from my initial posts that I was not sure what Herzog had or had not done. And frankly I'm still going to do my own research before I endorse your presumptive position.

[MacGuffin]

Second viewing, and Claire Denis' Beau travail is not only a triumph of a movie, but proves she is not only the best working female director, but one of the greatest working directors today. The movie is shot by cinematographical genius Agnès Godard, who captures moments of a single French Foreign Legion squad at their post in Africa. The dust that flies around, the mountains that loom in the distance, and the sun that beats down on the glistening water evokes a setting of dread and nausea; perfect for a psychological game between the squad's Commander and the new recruit that he is jealous of.

Denis tells the story slowly and poetically, letting each moment sink in. She eventually crafts the legacy of a man overcome with jealousy. A man who, like the new recruit, only wants recognition in this harsh environment. The movie closes with perhaps the greatest, most poignant ending in cinema history, which shows a man forgetting about the past and the future, and liberating himself in the present.

[The Mike]

Umm... Kabluey is last year's most under-rated/seen comedy? Yeah, I went there!I'll go there too.

[MadMan]

I liked Slumdog Millionaire. I thought it was a good movie. Best Picture worthy? No, but then again the best movie I've seen from every year this decade has failed to either be nominated as such or win, with the exception of two years:

2000: Memento
2001: Spirited Away
2002: Adaptation
2003: Return of the King
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005: The Proposition
2006: Children of Men
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Wrestler

And keep in mind that I still have much to see from this decade. Especially when it comes to the past two years.

[Russ]

Hey, let's all chill out, ok?
This.

I had the good sense to drop out two pages back. I've been out of commission for a couple of days, tho. My doctor told me to stay off message boards while I'm recovering from my hip replacement surgery.

[Winston*]

Thank you Brian Singer for going to such tremendous effort to explain to me that not all Nazis were bad. I was under the impression that all Nazis were bad, but it turns out I was mistaken.

What a weird theme to base a film around.

[lovejuice]

Umm... Kabluey is last year's most under-rated/seen comedy? Yeah, I went there! And Sita Sings the Blues is fucking amazing.

you call a 77 movie fucking amazing? i don't want you for a TA.

anyway, i watched kabluey two years ago, and i like it. not like like it, but i can't see a reason why it didn't become the next....juno...little miss sunshine...or some other annoying indies that we hate so.

[lovejuice]

What a weird theme to base a film around.
and a weird premise too. (if you are talking about the valkyries.)

singer seems to have this knack for coming up with a worst idea for a project. he probably likes fighting uphill battle.

[jamaul]

Hey, let's all chill out, ok?

Yeah, I'm agreeing with this.

By trying to point out that a handful of posters have dubious views, at best, on the moral practices of films such as Fitzcarraldo and Slumdog and that the flaws of those practices are more the fault of a flawed capitalist society, and not the troupe trying to make their film, I've opened myself up to being attacked for my heritage, lack or morals and human empathy. Oh, and Qrazy, who just tried to compare the risks of a 1960's French New Wave film to that a late-'00's independant one, also just tried to school me in literacy 101. Instead of trying to bite back, I'd like to point out, one more time, that none of my arguements were driven by any kind of fanatical love for Slumdog, at all. At best, I feel, and have felt since I saw it, that it's merely a good film.

So, moving on then -- I watched Burden of Dreams this weekend, and The White Diamond, which I was inspired to watch because of Up . . . the Herzog documentaries are great, to anyone who hasn't seen them. To those who have, can anyone attest to how visually and thematically arresting these docs are?

[megladon8]

Why did Arnie's eyebrows disappear about 1/3 of the way through The Terminator?

I found that really weird.

Anyone have an explanation?

[MadMan]

Why did Arnie's eyebrows disappear about 1/3 of the way through The Terminator?

I found that really weird.

Anyone have an explanation?Machines don't really have eyebrows? :P

Haha, I have no idea. But I remember the part in that movie where Arnuld removes part of his eye covering and you see his glowing red mechanical eye as being really awesome and freaky. Love that movie, by the way. I haven't seen the new one because while I'll probably like it, there's no way it will remotely touch the original two. Or be as fun as the third one.

[Raiders]

Weren't part of his hair and his eyebrows singed off when he went through the fire chasing Reese and Sarah Connor? It's why he from there on out has a crew cut as opposed to the lengthier hair he has at the start.

[megladon8]

Weren't part of his hair and his eyebrows singed off when he went through the fire chasing Reese and Sarah Connor? It's why he from there on out has a crew cut as opposed to the lengthier hair he has at the start.


I suppose that works as an explanation, but that's not really shown.

He just goes from having eyebrows to not having eyebrows, without showing them burned off or removed or anything.

[Milky Joe]

Somebody explain to me why The Player could be considered a bad film. I just don't see it.

[Spinal]

Somebody explain to me why The Player could be considered a bad film. I just don't see it.

I think baby doll is the only person who feels this way. You're going to have to ask him.

[Milky Joe]

Oh, for some reason I thought it was you that didn't like it. Very well, baby doll, explain yourself if you so desire. I'm writing a short essay on it and am in need of dissenting opinions.

[Spinal]

Oh, for some reason I thought it was you that didn't like it.

Definitely not. Altman's best film.

[Milky Joe]

Man, I guess I was way off. Don't think I can get behind that sentiment, though it's top 5-10 for sure. It's pretty ironic though that it was the film that reinvigorated Altman's career in Hollywood. They have no shame whatsoever.

[jamaul]

The Player is probably Altman's most self-aware, self-referential work, as well as his most shamelessly entertaining and funny. I really don't understand how or why someone wouldn't like it, because even when the film is at its most contrived, it still manages to give off the sense that it's being contrived just to mock itself, its characters-as-archetypes, or genre filmmaking.

Really, the only thing that would have made The Player even better would have been if Altman were the person calling Tim Robbins at the end of the film when he's driving in his car. But then, that's not something to necessarily fault the film for.

[Milky Joe]

Really, the only thing that would have made The Player even better would have been if Altman were the person calling Tim Robbins at the end of the film when he's driving in his car. But then, that's not something to necessarily fault the film for.

Funny, I was just wondering earlier today whether that might have been Altman's voice, and how great it would have been if it was. Guess not.

[Grouchy]

The Player is excellent, sure, but compared with stuff like 3 Women and McCabe and Mrs. Miller, I think it's a little bit on the shallow side. The satire of Hollywood is more apparent than real, methinks.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I don't think The Player is a bad film, but it's probably my least favourite of all his films I've seen.

[Watashi]

17 Again better than Tokyo Story? Oh rouge... you so crazy.

[Ezee E]

The Reader might be one of the most boring films I've ever seen.

[Raiders]

The Reader might be one of the most boring films I've ever seen.

Makes sense. Daldry's The Hours probably *is* the most boring film I have ever seen.

[balmakboor]

Huh. I would think that Fudoh would fit your previous description better. Admittedly, the violence isn't as extreme as Ichi, but it's a deliberately nonsensical, juvenile and cartoony yakuza story. Ichi, on the other hand, has a ton of great subtexts to it.

You've convinced me to take another look at Ichi. I'll post my revised thoughts here.

I saw Irreversible today. That's probably the best film I've ever seen that I have absolutely no interest in ever seeing again.

Saw Up today. It may be my favorite Pixar so far.

[[ETM]]

I saw Irreversible today. That's probably the best film I've ever seen that I have absolutely no interest in ever seeing again.

Seems to be the consensus.

[Winston*]

When I went to see Irreversible at the cinema, there was this guy there that was telling everyone within earshot that this was his second time seeing it. He seemed really proud of that fact. I thought it was odd.

[baby doll]

2000: Memento
2001: Spirited Away
2002: Adaptation
2003: Return of the King
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005: The Proposition
2006: Children of Men
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The WrestlerJust for ha-ha's...

2000: Platform (Jia Zhang-ke)
2001: La Pianiste (Michael Haneke)
2002: demonlover (Olivier Assayas)
2003: Dogville (Lars von Trier)
2004: The World (Jia Zhang-ke)
2005: Manderlay (Lars von Trier)
2006: Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola)
2007: I'm Not There. (Todd Haynes)
2008: Too early to tell, but some early front-runners are Adoration (Atom Egoyan), Entre les murs (Laurent Cantet), Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood), Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh), and Tony Manero (Pablo Larrain).

[Spinal]

I went from hating Irreversible early on to really appreciating what it had accomplished by the time the film was over. I think by the end it justifies its excesses. Been kind of wanting to revisit it recently.

[balmakboor]

I went from hating Irreversible early on to really appreciating what it had accomplished by the time the film was over. I think by the end it justifies its excesses. Been kind of wanting to revisit it recently.

I felt the same way, except for the part about wanting to revisit it.

[Ezee E]

I don't even think I thought about hating it, I was just completely shocked by what was goign on in the first few scenes. Didn't even think of critiquing it, it was something I hadn't seen before.

[Ezee E]

Makes sense. Daldry's The Hours probably *is* the most boring film I have ever seen.
Good call.

A great list idea.

[Grouchy]

2000: In the Mood for Love
2001: Mulholland Dr.
2002: Talk to Her
2003: Oldboy
2004: The Incredibles
2005: Caché
2006: Children of Men
2007: I'm Not There
2008: The Dark Knight

Completely agreed on The Reader. Boring stuff.

[MadMan]

On sites like RT I've encountered people who argue that calling a film "Boring" was not good criticism, or the proper sort or whatever. To me it describes any movie I've viewed that managed to be the essence of "Meh," or piss poor yet not in the realm of completely terrible. I'd say that a movie like Swimming Pool, which gets a 50 from me, falls in this category. Very little of importance happens, and the movie just wanders around. Yet there is some competence and skill at work, so it doesn't completely suck. Not sure what my Top 5 Most Boring Movies would look like, though.

[Ezee E]

On sites like RT I've encountered people who argue that calling a film "Boring" was not good criticism, or the proper sort or whatever. To me it describes any movie I've viewed that managed to be the essence of "Meh," or piss poor yet not in the realm of completely terrible. I'd say that a movie like Swimming Pool, which gets a 50 from me, falls in this category. Very little of importance happens, and the movie just wanders around. Yet there is some competence and skill at work, so it doesn't completely suck. Not sure what my Top 5 Most Boring Movies would look like, though.
Swimming Pool has something top-notch going for it though, and I don't need to even say what it is.

[MadMan]

E, I must confess that the thing you are mentioning is indeed quite nice. But not enough to bring up the movie's score, heh.

[Winston*]

Swimming Pool has something top-notch going for it though, and I don't need to even say what it is.

I had a thread about it a while back. It was very popular.

[jamaul]

The Player is excellent, sure, but compared with stuff like 3 Women and McCabe and Mrs. Miller, I think it's a little bit on the shallow side. The satire of Hollywood is more apparent than real, methinks.

Those two films, along with Nashville, The Long Goodbye, Short Cuts and Gosford Park are all easily better than The Player. But for me, the reason why The Player stands out is because it's almost antithetical of Altman's signature style. He's sold out in a way, but he's done it completely on his terms, and for that, the film is something special. And I've always seen it as Altman's Goodfellas -- it's probably the one Altman film I'd risk throwing on at a party, and not be affraid of loosing too many guests.

Oh, and I wanna do this:

00: In the Mood for Love
01: Mulholland Dr.
02: Adaptation.
03: Gerry
04: Dogville
05: The New World
06: Inland Empire
07: There Will Be Blood
08: Synecdoche, New York

[Dead & Messed Up]

2000: Requiem for a Dream
2001: Waking Life
2002: Minority Report
2003: Finding Nemo
2004: Collateral
2005: Good Night and Good Luck
2006: United 93
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: In Bruges

I should see more foreign films.

[Philosophe_rouge]

17 Again better than Tokyo Story? Oh rouge... you so crazy.
I do what I can.

[megladon8]

2000 - American Psycho (Runner up: Unbreakable)
2001 - The Royal Tenenbaums (Runner up: LOTR:FOTR)
2002 - Solaris (Runner up: Minority Report)
2003 - Oldboy (Runner up: Memories of Murder)
2004 - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Runner up: The Bourne Supremacy)
2005 - Batman Begins (Runner up: Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit)
2006 - The Fountain (Runner up: The Departed)
2007 - Sunshine (Runner-up: The Mist)
2008 - The Dark Knight (Runner up: Gran Torino)

[The Mike]

Oooh, a list!

2000: Wonder Boys
2001: Lantana (but The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is clooooose behind)
2002: Spider-Man (and this was the best year of the decade, easily)
2003: Big Fish
2004: Spartan
2005: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
2006: Stranger Than Fiction
2007: Zodiac
2008: Iron Man

Downey x 4!

[Sycophant]

2000: Dead or Alive 2: Birds
2001: The Royal Tenenbaums
2002: Punch-Drunk Love
2003: Doppelganger
2004: Citizen Dog
2005: Mind Game
2006: Paprika
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Fall

[soitgoes...]

2000: Dancer in the Dark
2001: Mulholland Dr.
2002: Punch-Drunk Love
2003: Elephant
2004: Mind Game
2005: A History of Violence
2006: Once
2007: You, the Living
2008: Let the Right One In

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I'm agreeing with this.

By trying to point out that a handful of posters have dubious views, at best, on the moral practices of films such as Fitzcarraldo and Slumdog and that the flaws of those practices are more the fault of a flawed capitalist society, and not the troupe trying to make their film, I've opened myself up to being attacked for my heritage, lack or morals and human empathy. Oh, and Qrazy, who just tried to compare the risks of a 1960's French New Wave film to that a late-'00's independant one, also just tried to school me in literacy 101. Instead of trying to bite back, I'd like to point out, one more time, that none of my arguements were driven by any kind of fanatical love for Slumdog, at all. At best, I feel, and have felt since I saw it, that it's merely a good film.

Not sure why Resnais film being French or from the 60s has anything to do with the definition of risk I was trying to clarify for you. But if you prefer I'll substitute Gallo's film The Brown Bunny as an example of a risky film. A risk which didn't pay off but a substantial risk nonetheless. If that can get a limited release I'm not too worried about Slumdog going DTV.

[B-side]

2000: Dancer in the Dark
2001: Mulholland Dr.
2002: Adaptation.?
2003: Twentynine Palms
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005: The Wayward Cloud
2006: INLAND EMPIRE
2007: I'm Not There
2008: Wall-E

[chrisnu]

I'll play, too:

2000: Requiem For A Dream
2001: Mulholland Dr.
2002: Solaris
2003: The Shape of Things
2004: Before Sunset
2005: A History of Violence
2006: Pan's Labyrinth
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: Rachel Getting Married *

* May be replaced by Synecdoche, New York, pending a re-watch.

[Philosophe_rouge]

2000- In the Mood for Love
2001- Trouble Every Day
2002- Far From Heaven
2003- Memories of Murder
2004- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005- The New World
2006- Marie Antoinette
2007- No Country for Old Men
2008- Let the Right One In

[Watashi]

2000- Dancer in the Dark
2001- Mulholland Dr.
2002- Gangs of New York
2003- In America
2004- The Incredibles
2005- Good Night and Good Luck
2006- Stranger than Fiction
2007- Ratatouille
2008- Speed Racer

[Raiders]

Hm. Alright.

2000: Werckmeister Harmonies
2001: Pulse
2002: The Tracker
2003: Elephant
2004: Tropical Malady
2005: The Squid and the Whale
2006: Pan's Labyrinth
2007: There Will Be Blood
2008: WALL·E

[Dukefrukem]

My list of best pictures.... I rightfully guessed Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind and Million Dollar Baby before they were even nominated. I had proof of this on my personal website before I took it down.

2000: Gladiator
2001: A Beautiful Mind
2002: Two Towers
2003: Mystic River
2004: Million Dollar Baby
2005: King Kong
2006: hated everything
2007: 3:10 to Yuma
2008: The Wrestler

What can I say? I like Crowe.

[Sycophant]

My list of best pictures.... I rightfully guessed Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind and Million Dollar Baby before they were even nominated. I had proof of this on my personal website before I took it down.

Does the Academy send you a gift basket for this?

[Ivan Drago]

2000: In The Mood For Love (runner-up: Memento)
2001: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (runner-up: Donnie Darko)
2002: Irreversible (runner-up: Punch-Drunk Love)
2003: Lost In Translation (runner-up: LOTR: ROTK)
2004: The Phantom of the Opera (runner-up: The Aviator)
2005: Match Point (runner-up: Batman Begins)
2006: Children of Men (runner-up: Crank)
2007: Grindhouse (runner-up: Superbad)
2008: The Dark Knight (runner-up: Synecdoche, New York)

[Grouchy]

Bertolucci's La Luna was a little too weird and dense for me. Movie looks beautiful, sounds even better and has Jill Clayburgh (who looks exactly like an actress I know and have made short films with) in a very demanding performance as a widowed mother who gets a little Oedipical about her junkie son. The parts are beautiful, but the sum of them, while operatic and even epic in a way, doesn't really make any sense. There's a whole subplot about the kid's real father, for example, that gets unintentionally funny near the end. Overall, La Luna is worth a watch, and certainly not as bad as Stealing Beauty, but yet another disappointment with Bertolucci.

http://nogoodforme.filmstills.org/images/midnight%2Bcowboy.jpg

On the other hand, Midnight Cowboy is everything it's hyped up to be. Amazing film, and one that I'd think is pretty hard to dislike. Although still a '60s movie, it foreshadows most of what's good and exciting about '70s American cinema. I have a bit of Hoffman phobia, don't like the guy, even on his heyday, but he's wonderful here and makes excellent chemistry with Voight as the clueless cowboy. The only part I thought was a little clichéd was the Andy Warhol party, but even in that there are wonderful little moments like when Voight starts smoking the joint. That mix of situation comedy and the pathetic is what really makes the film stand out among similar buddy dramas like Scarecrow - another good movie, though. It's hard to believe this was the DP's first work, since his treatment of images is another winning factor on this one. I'm pretty sure I'll be watching this again in a few days.

By the way, I remember walking out of the subway in the middle of Times Square when I visited NY and feeling exactly like Midnight Cowboy.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This comment on action flicks was long overdue.

Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cool-guys-dont-look-at-ex_n_209798.html)

[Robby P]

I imagine most folks here didn't bother with 'Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day' but it's actually a pretty decent Preston Sturges/Howard Hawks knockoff. I liked it.

[Sycophant]

I imagine most folks here didn't bother with 'Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day' but it's actually a pretty decent Preston Sturges/Howard Hawks knockoff. I liked it.

You have my attention, sir. How "pretty decent" was it?

[Mara]

I imagine most folks here didn't bother with 'Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day' but it's actually a pretty decent Preston Sturges/Howard Hawks knockoff. I liked it.

I liked it quite a bit. Charming.

I'm also fond of the four main actors, but it annoyed me that two of them were Americans playing Brits. Especially Lee Pace, who I love to distraction, wasn't pulling it off too well.

Amy Adams and Frances McDormand had excellent chemistry and played off each other beautifully.

[Mara]

And I know this has been discussed in this thread before, but Cirian Hinds has a ridiculous amount of magnetism.

[[ETM]]

And I know this has been discussed in this thread before, but Ciarán Hinds has a ridiculous amount of magnetism.

Fixed.

Is there such a thing as "DILF"?

[Robby P]

You have my attention, sir. How "pretty decent" was it?

It's certainly worth a rental, particularly if you're fond of 30s screwball comedies.

[Sycophant]

It's certainly worth a rental, particularly if you're fond of 30s screwball comedies.

Gonna, then. Thanks!

[Yxklyx]

2000: Songs from the Second Floor
2001: Amelie
2002: Hukkle
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: 3-Iron
2005: Brick
2006: United 93
2007: Planet Terror

[The Mike]

This comment on action flicks was long overdue.

Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cool-guys-dont-look-at-ex_n_209798.html)
This was thisclose to being the awesomest thing I've ever seen....but the fact that they used a shot from Hell Ride killed my soul.

Fuck you, Hell Ride. :evil:

[ledfloyd]

i can do this.

2000 Almost Famous (Wonder Boys)
2001 Mulholland Drive (Amelie)
2002 Adaptation. (Talk to Her)
2003 Kill Bill (Lost in Translation)
2004 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Before Sunset)
2005 Junebug (Brick)
2006 Children of Men (A Prairie Home Companion)
2007 Zodiac (I'm Not There)
2008 A Christmas Tale (Wall-E)

[lovejuice]

I imagine most folks here didn't bother with 'Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day' but it's actually a pretty decent Preston Sturges/Howard Hawks knockoff. I liked it.
sir, are you talking to a guy whose most anticipated film of 2009 is this (http://www.julieandjulia.com/)?

[MacGuffin]

Sátántangó (Béla Tarr, 1994) / **1/2

Worst. Rating. Ever. Seriously.

[lovejuice]

Worst. Rating. Ever. Seriously.
i agree though. the first half -- first 3 or 4 hours -- are fantastic. not so the rest.

[MacGuffin]

i agree though. the first half -- first 3 or 4 hours -- are fantastic. not so the rest.

I was compelled from start to finish. The town just had an otherwordly sort of feeling that left me completely enthralled. The night cinematography is amazing. I also think a lot of the stuff in the second half is pretty unforgettable (the migration, the drunk wandering around; stumbling into the barn, linking the first sequence to the things that the drunk sees out his window, the last shot in the movie).

[Watashi]

I rewatched Aladdin today. It's not really that awesome as I remembered. A fun flick, but it just grows tiresome with all the antics and no plot.

The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and now Aladdin... am I losing my touch or is this what we call "growing up"?

Oh well, at least I will always have A Goofy Movie.

[Rowland]

2000: Yi Yi (Requiem for a Dream)
2001: Memento (Mulholland Drive)
2002: Punch-Drunk Love (Femme Fatale)
2003: Gerry (Kill Bill Vol. 1)
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (House of Flying Daggers)
2005: Caché (Pulse)
2006: Children of Men (The Death of Mr. Lazarescu)
2007: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Offside)
2008: Wendy and Lucy (Flight of the Red Balloon)

[Rowland]

I rewatched Aladdin today. It's not really that awesome as I remembered. A fun flick, but it just grows tiresome with all the antics and no plot.Yeah, I watched this a few months back for the first time since I was a kid and found it merely passable, and in some respects an unfortunate precursor to the obnoxious hyperactivity of much modern animation. It's certainly nowhere near as artful as classic Disney at the peak of its powers.

[Raiders]

I've been saying Aladdin is pretty mediocre for years now. So there.

[baby doll]

Worst. Rating. Ever. Seriously.It's a first impression, and I'll probably see the film again. (I've got it from the library for three weeks.) That said, it doesn't help matters that the Facets DVD is terrible quality (not actually 16:9 compatible; they just put the subtitles higher so you can zoom in and not have them cropped). If I were to write a capsule review based on a first viewing, it would look like this:

I suppose, after hearing about it for so long, this seven-hour feature by Béla Tarr (1994) was never going to live up all to the hype. Divided into twelve chapters, this begins in the noirish mode of Tarr's Damnation (1988) and The Man From London (2007) with a scheme to swindle some money, but the remaining six and a half hours consist mainly of non-narrative drift, as when Tarr juxtaposes the solitary drunkeness of a country doctor in chapter three (a tour de force) with the collective drunkeness of the townspeople in chapter five (simply interminable). Tarr, normally a master of choreographing and sustaining very long takes, here doesn't seem to know when to say when; to cite just one example, one sequence ends with a frontal shot of a truck driving in the rain that goes on and on without anything happening. At times, the film feels more like a rough cut than a finished work. Also, whether because of inadequate translation or the Hungarian dialogue itself, I only caught about a third of what was said. And the score by Tarr's regular composer, Mihály Vig, is surprisingly lackluster. If you've never seen one of Tarr's films, start with Werckmeister Harmonies (2000), not here.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think it's fair to label any of the shots as interminable. It's as much a mood piece as Werckmeister Harmonies (or Damnation for that matter) and Tarr uses long shots to generate such a mood. As I said earlier, and perhaps a second viewing would help for you, it may be more of a subjective thing, but I was never bored with any of the shots just because everything was so engrossing. There was so much to look at in every frame, and I think Tarr may even be treading structuralist ground here in how he examine natural changes between frames and how they affect the overall mood. The most obvious example of this is the walking scene earlier on with the winds blowing the papers everywhere, but obviously there are far more subtle examples, too. As for the score, well, I'm not sure how you expected it to be. Very little tops Vig's score for Werckmeister Harmonies and to be honest, the score didn't really stick with me, nor do I think I paid much attention to it.

[baby doll]

I don't think it's fair to label any of the shots as interminable. It's as much a mood piece as Werckmeister Harmonies (or Damnation for that matter) and Tarr uses long shots to generate such a mood. As I said earlier, and perhaps a second viewing would help for you, it may be more of a subjective thing, but I was never bored with any of the shots just because everything was so engrossing. There was so much to look at in every frame, and I think Tarr may even be treading structuralist ground here in how he examine natural changes between frames and how they affect the overall mood. The most obvious example of this is the walking scene earlier on with the winds blowing the papers everywhere, but obviously there are far more subtle examples, too. As for the score, well, I'm not sure how you expected it to be. Very little tops Vig's score for Werckmeister Harmonies and to be honest, the score didn't really stick with me, nor do I think I paid much attention to it.Well, the shot of the townspeople dancing did go on forever. It was kind of funny the first time we see it, but the second time it just got on my nerves. Compared with the pub dancing sequence in Damnation, which is truly extraordinary, here it seemed like he just threw a bunch of actors in a room with an accordion and filmed them from a high angle until the camera ran out of film.

As for the score, it was just one more thing that was way better in Tarr's other films.

[Duncan]

Haven't seen Satantango, but Tarr's The Man from London definitely has a lot of structuralist elements. Somewhere (on the old site maybe?) I wrote about it, but now I can't seem to find it.

[balmakboor]

Malibu High - I knew I was in for a good time when we first see the heroine, a high school girl who looks about 26, rolling out of bed topless. I knew exactly what sort of movie it was when the shelves of the school library are lined with Readers Digest Condensed Books.

B+ for fun (docked a few points because I yawned once or thrice).
D+ if I was to compare it to most movies I watch.

Next up: Trip with Teacher

[Boner M]

I still think WH somewhat peters out after one of the most commanding opening scenes of all time, whereas Satantango steadily accrues power or the course of its running time. I need to see the former again though, as I watched it from 4:AM to sunrise in a deserted farmhouse in the midst of the Canadian wilderness, which I though would be an ideal viewing environment, but alas.

[MacGuffin]

II need to see the former again though, as I watched it from 4:AM to sunrise in a deserted farmhouse in the midst of the Canadian wilderness, which I though would be an ideal viewing environment, but alas.

Projected, or something like that?

[Boner M]

Projected, or something like that?
Watched the Facets DVD on my Laptop.

[balmakboor]

Wow. Trip with Teacher stars Zalman King. I thought he was just some guy who directed softcore porn.

[EyesWideOpen]

I rewatched Aladdin today. It's not really that awesome as I remembered. A fun flick, but it just grows tiresome with all the antics and no plot.

The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and now Aladdin... am I losing my touch or is this what we call "growing up"?

Oh well, at least I will always have A Goofy Movie.

I should negative rep you.

[Qrazy]

Haven't seen Satantango, but Tarr's The Man from London definitely has a lot of structuralist elements. Somewhere (on the old site maybe?) I wrote about it, but now I can't seem to find it.

It's quite excellent. I think you would like it.

[MacGuffin]

It's quite excellent. I think you would like it.

I myself need to see Damnation again, and probably some of his older works (heard Almanac of Fall is pretty good and much more confined to a single setting and talkier than his later movies).

[Qrazy]

I myself need to see Damnation again, and probably some of his older works (heard Almanac of Fall is pretty good and much more confined to a single setting and talkier than his later movies).

Same for me actually. I saw Damnation when I was really tired so I'd like to see it again. I've seen everything post-Damnation. But I'd like to see his early stuff too. I have the Prefab People but that's all right now.

[B-side]

I gave Tarr 2 shots. I tried watching both Werckmeister Harmonies and Damnation and turned both off after about 20-30 mins. I'll give the former another shot soon.

[Qrazy]

I gave Tarr 2 shots. I tried watching both Werckmeister Harmonies and Damnation and turned both off after about 20-30 mins. I'll give the former another shot soon.

Satantango will not be up your alley. Do give WH another shot though. The Man from London I suppose you could like. I find it interesting although I feel it's the least interesting of his four feature late period works.

[B-side]

Satantango will not be up your alley. Do give WH another shot though. The Man from London I suppose you could like. I find it interesting although I feel it's the least interesting of his four feature late period works.

Yeah, I don't have any plans of attempting Satantango unless I find myself in love with his work.

[balmakboor]

...unless I find myself in love with his work.

Based on your stated history, I don't find that very likely. Or are you prone to huge turnarounds? (Nothing wrong with doing a 180 though. I've done it a few times.)

[B-side]

Based on your stated history, I don't find that very likely. Or are you prone to huge turnarounds? (Nothing wrong with doing a 180 though. I've done it a few times.)

I don't know that I've had much experience in the field of reevaluation. Back at the beginning of my cinephilia, I did a 180 on Mulholland Dr., but admittedly I was a bit of a mental defective back then.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think there's really any point in giving his movies another try if you didn't like them the first time. Werckmeister Harmonies, maybe.

[B-side]

I don't think there's really any point in giving his movies another try if you didn't like them the first time. Werckmeister Harmonies, maybe.

Well, I seem to fall into the trap of expectations sometimes, and that was likely the case with this film. Expectations regarding narrative, character identification -- whatever. Something detrimental to my enjoyment and appreciation of the film. It could've been a mood thing, too. We'll see what happens.

[Robby P]

I Love You, Man was a surprisingly enjoyable comedy. Love the premise of the movie and the execution only occasionally falters. Big fan of both this one and Role Models, two movies that cleverly toy with masculinity archetypes.

[Bosco B Thug]

Irreversible - Utterly wretched for about half its running time, it's amazing how fast it improves with some good ol' non-sensationalism.

It's not even the whirly-gig camera of the first half that bugged me. I actually kind of liked that . It was the lax verite stylings and, ultimately, those two most talked-about scenes, which didn't communicate to me an unflinching look at the reality, but almost the opposite: a contrived, exploitative theatricality.

Thank god the 2nd half has Noe stumbling upon how verisimilitude in cinema is really meant to work: as the displaced eye of the viewer - a viewer presumably not an unflinching robot... nor - hopefully anyway - an unflinching sadist who wants to take in graphic violence and rape the same way a surveillance takes in a convenience store robbery.

The displaced eye is much more naturally predisposed to take in and fascinate itself with human interaction and the movement of humans in space, instead of sitting put for whatever reason (which, yes, includes Noe taking body horror to a blockheaded, barbarous extreme).

Thus, the 2nd half - with the discursively pointed subway scene, the far-more-revealing-about-sexual-gratification-than-anything-in-the-first-half party scene, and the poignant and truly naturalistic bedroom scene - infused into the film the artistry it was previously sorely lacking, and successfully, retroactively commented on what we are forced to witness in the first half.

Little having to do with homophobia or the surface theme of purity-turned-perversity at the turn of a screw, I thought. The film clicks during the train scene, where we finally figure out the dynamic between the three compadres: Cassel as the simple primitive but not-a-bad-guy, the other guy as the evolved and inadequate, and Belucci is the woman. The film is about sex, sex as a primitive urge that is eternally inseparable from violence. "There are no bad deeds," as that one man says in the beginning, because everyone is guilty of pursuing those urges towards biological self-gratification, and in so many different ways. I don't think the film makes any judgments, it being such a narrow and enclosed presentation of the most hedonistic and primal of lifestyles, but it shows the spectrum through its allusions to or depictions of sodomy, transsexualism, incest, racial dominance, intellectual superiority, and the thin lines between sex and rape. In retrospect, one can say the film's most appalling moment is not its rape scene or murder scene. It's when Monica Bellucci says something to this effect in response to the intellectual friends' insistence on excavating particular truths about her sexual practices: you can't learn about sex from gathering data and analyzing it, you yourself have just got to get out there [- feel something -] and experience it. Little does she grasp that this includes the most appalling, cruel, and immoral of "feeling somethings."

Beyond Therapy - Yeah, Altman lyricism is just too irresistible for me, even if the film makes very little in the way of concluding, transcendent statements and this film probably shows off the worst of Altman's tendency for puerile caricature. There's too much silliness here to make the film work dramatically, but if that final scene (starting with the hilarious "shoot em up") doesn't tie things up nicer than I'd expected, and Glenda Jackson is fantastic and hilarious.

[MacGuffin]

Irreversible - Utterly wretched for about half its running time, it's amazing how fast it opens up with some good ol' non-sensationalism. It's not even the whirly-gig camera that bugged me. It was the lax verite stylings and, ultimately, those two most talked-about scenes, which didn't communicate to me an unflinching look at the reality, but almost the opposite: a contrived, exploitative theatricality.

Lax? Really? Let me get this straight: you're saying you found the camera work to be not bouncy enough in relation to the content? I don't think I've ever heard that complaint, but to each their own, man. This is not even something I'm going to defend, since the camerawork on top of the high frequency sine wave Noé inputs into the soundtrack are intentionally there to create a sense of nausea and dread, and considering what I have heard about the festival screenings back in 03, Noé seems to have been successful in doing so.

Spoilers herein. I think especially in the two scenes you refer to as "exploitive": where the camera lingers instead of jumping all over the place; once, for a brief moment to capture the fire extinguisher beat-down, and twice in what appears to be Noé giving us a break, except not when we found out just the reason for the previous thirty or so minutes. It's all very tense, no matter how jumpy or static the camerawork and stylings are; be it from the camerawork itself or the abrasive content. I think Ebert said it best in his review when he was talking about how the movie is not exploitive unlike films like Elephant and United 93, which are structured like human pornography where the "climax" of the movie appears first, rather than last. This allows us to approach the material on a basis of curiosity, rather than act all-knowing. We can't judge the characters (which is something Van Sant asks us not to do in Elephant) because we don't have anything to judge them on.


Thank god the 2nd half has Noe stumbling upon how verisimilitude in cinema is really meant to work: as the displaced eye of the viewer - a viewer presumably not an unflinching robot... nor - hopefully anyway - an unflinching sadist who wants to take in graphic violence and rape the same way a surveillance takes in a convenience store robbery

The displaced eye is much more naturally predisposed to take in and fascinate itself with human interaction and the movement of humans in space, instead of sitting put for whatever reason (which, yes, includes Noe taking body horror to a blockheaded, barbarous extreme).

Thus, the 2nd half - with the discursively pointed subway scene, the far-more-revealing-about-sexual-gratification-than-anything-in-the-first-half party scene, and the poignant and truly naturalistic bedroom scene - infused into the film the artistry it was previously sorely lacking, and successfully, retroactively commented on what we are forced to witness in the first half.

And as I have suggested in the first two paragraphs, the reason for this is the backwards approach. We feel more for the characters because of the tragedy we know they will go through.


Little having to do with homophobia or the surface theme of purity-turned-perversity at the turn of a screw, I thought. The film clicks during the train scene, where we finally figure out the dynamic between the three compadres: Cassel as the simple primitive but not-a-bad-guy, the other guy as the evolved and inadequate, and Belucci is the woman. The film is about sex, sex as a primitive urge that is eternally inseparable from violence. "There are no bad deeds," as that one man says in the beginning, because everyone is guilty of pursuing those urges towards biological self-gratification, and in so many different ways. I don't think the film makes any judgments, it being such a narrow and enclosed presentation of the most hedonistic and primal of lifestyles, but it shows the spectrum through its allusions to or depictions of sodomy, transsexualism, incest, racial dominance, intellectual superiority, and the thin lines between sex and rape. In retrospect, one can say the film's most appalling moment is not its rape scene or murder scene. It's when Monica Bellucci says something to this effect in response to the intellectual friends' insistence on excavating particular truths about her sexual practices: you can't learn about sex from gathering data and analyzing it, you yourself have just got to get out there [- feel something -] and experience it. Little does she grasp that this includes the most appalling, cruel, and immoral of "feeling somethings."

And this is where I have to restrain from responding simply because I don't remember the dialogue from the train sequence (which I've read is all improvised), but I will see the movie again soon, so I may get back to you. Thanks for the response, nonetheless — I'm glad the movie seemed to challenge you and make you think, regardless of how much you may have liked it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Lax? Really? Let me get this straight: you're saying you found the camera work to be not bouncy enough in relation to the content? Well, I didn't want to imply I wanted "bouncy," but I did want to imply I found much of the film lazy. Not that I find naturalistic directing a la 'Battle of Algiers' inherently lazy, but when aligned with the crackerjack, high-speed chaos and franticness that Noe's going for with the onscreen drama (where we follow Cassel running amok like an angry dog) the film came off more like an episode of Cops than an engaging film.


I don't think I've ever heard that complaint, but to each their own, man. This is not even something I'm going to defend, since the camerawork on top of the high frequency sine wave Noé inputs into the soundtrack are intentionally there to create a sense of nausea and dread, and considering what I have heard about the festival screenings back in 03, Noé seems to have been successful in doing so. The sound design was definitely impressive, didn't know about the scientific/mathematic manipulating. And, as I sort of suggested by being so easy on it, I did appreciate the innovative gyrating camera stuff he does.


I think Ebert said it best in his review when he was talking about how the movie is not exploitive unlike films like Elephant and United 93, which are structured like human pornography where the "climax" of the movie appears first, rather than last. This allows us to approach the material on a basis of curiosity, rather than act all-knowing. We can't judge the characters (which is something Van Sant asks us not to do in Elephant) because we don't have anything to judge them on. I hardly commented on the film's chronology. It definitely works to that effect. It doesn't make the endurance test aspect of the scenes any more productive for me, though.

I'm trying to think if I'd like the movie better if it was in chronology... I know, even I think that's a hangable thing to think, since it pretty much is what Noe's vision of the film is.

I never mentioned it, but I watched the first ten or twenty minutes of United 93 a while back (given, during an impacted time in my life) and I was not a fan of what I saw. So odds are promising I'm on your side of the fence with this one, at least, presuming you agree with Ebert.

[MacGuffin]

Well, I didn't want to imply I wanted "bouncy," but I did want to imply I found much of the film lazy. Not that I find naturalistic directing a la 'Battle of Algiers' inherently lazy, but when aligned with the crackerjack, high-speed chaos and franticness that Noe's going for with the onscreen drama (where we follow Cassel running amok like an angry dog) the film came off more like an episode of Cops than an engaging film.

I'd probably have to disagree, but reading/talking about the movie is making me want to revisit it more and more. I basically thought the camera gliding was absolutely amazing (if I recall correctly, it glides from inside the apartment, out the window, and to the front of the nightclub; then once inside, through all the nightclubs corridors until we get to the main floor) and was ready to declare it some of the best I've seen in all of cinema. It seems from what I have heard Benoît Debie, the cinematographer, and Noé are nearly directly inspired by Michael Snow's camerawork in La région centrale, where the camera is operated by a robot with no single shot being the same for the entire three hours and no shot being especially selected, yet arbitrary. Although I haven't seen that one, so I couldn't say for sure.


The sound design was definitely impressive. And, as I sort of suggested by being so easy on it, I did appreciate the innovative gyrating camera stuff he does.

Not sure I'm following you. Are you for or against the shakey camera work? Is it just a matter of the work + the content that irks you? If so, I'm curious how you would approach the content as a cinematographer or as a director choosing how he wants the shots to be.


I hardly commented on the film's chronology. It definitely works to that effect. It doesn't make the endurance test aspect of the scenes any more productive for me, though.

I don't think this is very fair to call the shots endurance tests. While some say Noé is using them as a means to shock, I say he's only trying to be honest. What's the point of a fifteen-second rape scene? Do you understand what I am saying? I think the length of the rape scene in particular is Noé trying to create a diversion from how material like this is usually depicting in a way as "safe" as possible to try and not upset audiences (and perhaps this is why he has received the labeling of merely one who is trying to shock.


I'm trying to think if I'd like the movie better if it was in chronology... I know, even I think that's a hangable thing to think, since it pretty much is what Noe's vision of the film is.

I think if it were chronological, the movie would indeed lose much as its mean (although, as you figured earlier, it would still maintain its sexual politics, of course, wouldn't it?), but I would still be able to applaud its technical merits...


I never mentioned it, but I watched the first ten or twenty minutes of United 93 a while back (given, during an impacted time in my life) and I was not a fan of what I saw. So odds are promising I'm on your side of the fence with this one, at least, presuming you agree with Ebert.

... But please don't think that if Elephant and United 93 were backwards I would like them any more. I find them to be completely superficial, especially United 93, which is probably the worst, most offensive, most disgusting and hurtful movie I've ever seen.

[MacGuffin]

Bosco, if you're interested (or if anybody else is), here is United 93 in a nutshell:

Terrorist scenes in hotel room; they pray, so Greengrass figures we'll probably see them as human beings. The airport opens; look, it's full of more normal people! Some in a hurry, some relaxed. Let's give these pilots and stewardesses some humanism, because we're going to kill them off in the movie later! Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Oh shit, a plane's been hijacked, we at the Traffic Control Center can't believe it. Oh my god it just crashed into WTC. Oh shit, a plane's been hijacked, we at the Traffic Control Center can't believe it. Oh my god it just crashed into WTC. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Plane headed for Washington, D.C., people scramble at Traffic Control Centers; rapid Hollywood action film-style editing begins. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Terrorists take over plane, man is randomly stabbed in an attempt to draw in audiences. More rapid cut editing (this is a suspense movie, remember). More people die. Etc. The people on the plane scream. More rapid editing. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. The people on the plane fight back. They fail. More rapid editing. The plane crashes. The end.

[Derek]

Bosco, if you're interested (or if anybody else is), here is United 93 in a nutshell:

Terrorist scenes in hotel room; they pray, so Greengrass figures we'll probably see them as human beings. The airport opens; look, it's full of more normal people! Some in a hurry, some relaxed. Let's give these pilots and stewardesses some humanism, because we're going to kill them off in the movie later! Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Oh shit, a plane's been hijacked, we at the Traffic Control Center can't believe it. Oh my god it just crashed into WTC. Oh shit, a plane's been hijacked, we at the Traffic Control Center can't believe it. Oh my god it just crashed into WTC. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Plane headed for Washington, D.C., people scramble at Traffic Control Centers; rapid Hollywood action film-style editing begins. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. Terrorists take over plane, man is randomly stabbed in an attempt to draw in audiences. More rapid cut editing (this is a suspense movie, remember). More people die. Etc. The people on the plane scream. More rapid editing. Plane sequence. Traffic control sequence. The people on the plane fight back. They fail. More rapid editing. The plane crashes. The end.

I didn't like United 93, but that's about the worst way to take down a film if that was your intention.

[MacGuffin]

I didn't like United 93, but that's about the worst way to take down a film if that was your intention.

No, it wasn't completely my intention. That's just the movie in a nutshell. You can interpret that how you like. The reason I don't like it is because it is a Hollywood movie through and through that has nothing to say about its subject and only exploits it to an ultimately saddening extent and is only concerned about creating suspense and false emotion rather than doing anything worthwhile with the content. The only defense I have heard is that it is a fitting tribute to the people that fought on the plane, but we didn't know what occurred on the plane before the movie was made. It just has nothing to say, and is no more than Hollywood exploitation.

[Spinal]

No, it wasn't completely my intention. That's just the movie in a nutshell. You can interpret that how you like. The reason I don't like it is because it is a Hollywood movie through and through that has nothing to say about its subject and only exploits it to an ultimately saddening extent and is only concerned about the spectacle of the event, rather than doing anything worthwhile with the content. The only defense I have heard is that it is a fitting tribute to the people that fought on the plane, but we didn't know what occurred on the plane before the movie was made. It just has nothing to say, and is no more than Hollywood exploitation.

Well, read another defense then. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=united+93) You are wrong that the film has nothing to say.

[MacGuffin]

Well, read another defense then. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=united+93) You are wrong that the film has nothing to say.

I will certainly take back that the movie has nothing to say after reading your review (which was very well written, if I may), and I hadn't looked at the doubling of the prayers at the beginning and the end, but it is a very good observation. But as much as you reason Greengrass has something to say about religion and its place in society and about how 9/11 is an act of faith and how the film looks at faith semantically, I still find the movie shameful in its technical approach, on top of how difficult it is to watch based on the content. The movie is staged to appeal to audiences in America (people who get bored of foreign movies because they don't like to read) — scenes where passengers are stabbed function not as turning points in any given emotional path the movie never takes, but as mere jump scenes, leading audiences on from one said jump scene to another. And if I hadn't already made it clear, the editing is completely inappropriate, and perhaps not surprising considering Greengrass' other credits to his name. I would have liked to see Haneke handle material like this (keep dreaming, I know) but with the static camera that makes his approach to off-putting content so emotional resonant that it actually makes us think about what we are seeing, rather than having us wait for the next scene to give us an exploitive jolt, as I feel Greengrass does here.

Edit: I find it very difficult to admit to being wrong here after reading your insightful review, Spinal, not because I have a problem with admitting to being wrong, but because I still do find the movie has little to say insomuch that it didn't need to use such material and in such a way to say something of such insignificance, at least compared to the significance of the tragic event. This is largely, apart from the technical problems, why I find the movie so exploitive. I find that a movie could have made a statement about religion and faith and the way these are in society without using such tremendously risky content.

[D_Davis]

United 93 is the only film that has actually made me sweat. I was literally drenched in sweat at the end of the film. It was a totally powerful experience.

[D_Davis]

Here's my review, if you care. (http://www.genrebusters.com/film/review_united93.htm)

[Qrazy]

I find both Irreversible and United 93 somewhat interesting but flawed films.

[MadMan]

Up(2009) was utterly amazing. Not sure how I'll review it, but I'll find a way. Something to work on in my spare time, I suppose.

And I have yet to view United 93, if only because of how short time has passed since Sept. 11. I'm in no rush to revisit an event from that day, but I think I eventually will.

[Dead & Messed Up]

And I have yet to view United 93, if only because of how short time has passed since Sept. 11. I'm in no rush to revisit an event from that day, but I think I eventually will.

It's the closest thing America has to a 9/11 monument. It's tremendous, and I think the advance of nearly eight years should be enough for you to view it. Hopefully.

Because it's so fucking good.

[Ivan Drago]

I just found out that one half of Daft Punk did the score for Irreversible.

As if the film weren't amazing enough, it had to be touched by God...well, 1/2 of the Gods of techno.

[Derek]

Up(2009) was utterly amazing. Not sure how I'll review it, but I'll find a way. Something to work on in my spare time, I suppose.

And I have yet to view United 93, if only because of how short time has passed since Sept. 11. I'm in no rush to revisit an event from that day, but I think I eventually will.

I can't read your posts anymore without hearing the chorus of "Promises Promises" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJP2PH8WKaI). It should be your official theme song.

[Ezee E]

I just found out that one half of Daft Punk did the score for Irreversible.

As if the film weren't amazing enough, it had to be touched by God...well, 1/2 of the Gods of techno.
Listening to the score on its own is pretty good too. Although a few themes will creep people out if they notice it.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'd probably have to disagree, but reading/talking about the movie is making me want to revisit it more and more. I basically thought the camera gliding was absolutely amazing (if I recall correctly, it glides from inside the apartment, out the window, and to the front of the nightclub; then once inside, through all the nightclubs corridors until we get to the main floor) and was ready to declare it some of the best I've seen in all of cinema. It seems from what I have heard Benoît Debie, the cinematographer, and Noé are nearly directly inspired by Michael Snow's camerawork in La région centrale, where the camera is operated by a robot with no single shot being the same for the entire three hours and no shot being especially selected, yet arbitrary. Although I haven't seen that one, so I couldn't say for sure. That's possibly interesting. There is a pronounced mechanical-ness to the gliding camera, and the gyrating/tumbling camera as something robotic in its precision I agree is an experimentalism that works to enhance the film.


Not sure I'm following you. Are you for or against the shakey
camera work? See, I like the experimental camera work he does.

Gliding camera and gyrating/tumbling camera = my approval.

The shakey cam, "follow Cassel around like a camera crew" verite scenes & the still longshots on graphic acts = no approval by me.


I don't think this is very fair to call the shots endurance tests.
While some say Noé is using them as a means to shock, I say he's only trying to be honest. What's the point of a fifteen-second rape scene? Do you understand what I am saying? I think the length of the rape scene in particular is Noé trying to create a diversion from how material like this is usually depicting in a way as "safe" as possible to try and not upset audiences (and perhaps this is why he has received the labeling of merely one who is trying to shock. I do understand the point in enunciation he is trying to make. And I give him all the credit for compassion and empathy in the rape scene (I still see no artistic or edifying use for the fire extinguisher moment), not to mention critique. This (and Fat Girl, for two) is the type of film that should be shown to the unsuspecting sex ed class (for the teacher's kicks, of course, I'm not saying it actually teaches something).

But even then... Well, first of all, I don't want to say the scene is meaningless. I'd personally feel out of line telling Noe, whose film is made with such vision, that the artistic decision he made here does not qualify as artistry. I just feel Noe's artistic decision happens to be both unpleasant and flat-footed.


I think if it were chronological, the movie would indeed lose much as its mean (although, as you figured earlier, it would still maintain its sexual politics, of course, wouldn't it?), but I would still be able to applaud its technical merits... Yes, it would mainly lose its mind-bending meditation on temporal vortex and such, and your point about it undermining the traditional movement towards catharsis and adjudication (which I do find more disposable than the sexual politics). But for what it would gain... it would probably only serve to make me more tolerant of the harsher sequences. And guard it against accusations of gimmickry, which are dismissive. So yes, with some thought, the film does have integrity, even that scene, and should stay as it is.


... But please don't think that if Elephant and United
93 were backwards I would like them any more. I find them to be
completely superficial, especially United 93, which is probably the worst, most offensive, most disgusting and hurtful movie I've ever
seen. I've seen and liked Elephant. Just for the record.

[MadMan]

I can't read your posts anymore without hearing the chorus of "Promises Promises" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJP2PH8WKaI). It should be your official theme song.Decent song. Never seen the video before, though. And hey there's only so much time in the day, and way too many movies to see.


It's the closest thing America has to a 9/11 monument. It's tremendous, and I think the advance of nearly eight years should be enough for you to view it. Hopefully.

Because it's so fucking good.Duly noted, and logged.

[chrisnu]

Someone (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=melx2be23&view=videos) has uploaded Minnie and Moskowitz, Gloria, Love Streams, Opening Night and A Child is Waiting to YouTube. :)

[baby doll]

Lola (1961): Great film, or the greatest film?

[Scar]

United 93 is a very intense and depressing film. Highly recommended.

[Mara]

United 93 is a very intense and depressing film. Highly recommended.

I'm scared of it.

[megladon8]

I was always scared of watching United 93 because I thought it might be kind of exploitative.

I don't want to be entertained by what these people went through.

[MacGuffin]

The shakey cam, "follow Cassel around like a camera crew" verite scenes & the still longshots on graphic acts = no approval by me.

Eh, I don't know whether I could approve or disapprove, it's been too long since I saw the movie.



But even then... Well, first of all, I don't want to say the scene is meaningless. I'd personally feel out of line telling Noe, whose film is made with such vision, that the artistic decision he made here does not qualify as artistry. I just feel Noe's artistic decision happens to be both unpleasant and flat-footed.

Well, I certainly don't think it's supposed to be pleasant! As for as the rape scene being unimaginative, I beg to differ. Many people looked into the staging of a scene in a red tunnel and the fact that it was anal rape as some sort of sign that suggested the movie was offering an analysis of masculinity. Furthermore, I think the stage is very well-designed with it's diminishing wallpaper, flickering lights and so on. I don't think adding stylistic elements beyond that (let us say, with jumpy camerawork) would have added anything to it aside from exploitation.


Yes, it would mainly lose its mind-bending meditation on temporal vortex and such, and your point about it undermining the traditional movement towards catharsis and adjudication (which I do find more disposable than the sexual politics). But for what it would gain... it would probably only serve to make me more tolerant of the harsher sequences. And guard it against accusations of gimmickry, which are dismissive. So yes, with some thought, the film does have integrity, even that scene, and should stay as it is.

I'm glad we see eye to eye here, because the movie is simply not supposed to be tolerated in a thematic sense and I think this is why many dislike it so intensely.

[Mara]

I was always scared of watching United 93 because I thought it might be kind of exploitative.

I don't want to be entertained by what these people went through.

For me, it's too personal. Not that I experienced anything differently than anyone else in the country, and I certainly didn't lose anyone I knew on 9/11, but that sense of violation and horror was so strong. It would be like watching a film based on something that happened in my own family.

I'm probably just too sensitive, but that's how I feel about it.

[D_Davis]

I was always scared of watching United 93 because I thought it might be kind of exploitative.

I don't want to be entertained by what these people went through.

Don't worry. It's not exploitative, and it's not entertaining.

[monolith94]

Lola (1961): Great film, or the greatest film?
Definitely way up there. <3 the cinematography.

[Robby P]

I don't usually quibble over the petty details of a movie but the accents used in Valkyrie were rather annoying. Hitler should not have a British accent.

Not a bad movie by any means but the stylistic choice really took me out of it. I'm guessing Singer wanted to try to universalize the experience or some such - which can be done effectively as in The Grey Zone - but it really just came across as distracting and confusing.