28 Film Discussion Threads Later [Archive] - Page 129

Boner M

07-22-2009, 01:31 PM

I haven't seen In Between Days yet.
It's not bad; a little too reticent even for my tastes, but quietly graceful all the same.

Coincidentally, I watched Rosetta (a clear influence on the above) on the big screen tonight. Even more gruelling and empathetic than I remember, and especially effective considering how utterly resistable the titular character is; as soon as the credits rolled and the guy in front of me muttered "what a piece of crap" to his viewing company, I could only sit still and reel in astonishment at his admission; it's truly a testament to the greatness of a film that its final shot, however unusual and subliminal in its depiction of its subject's catharsis, still generates amazement in itself and that someone could fail to be moved by it. What I guess I'm saying is that this film's awesome.

Grouchy

07-22-2009, 04:25 PM

Going back a bit as I missed the brief discussion, but concerning the ending of Mad Detective:

As I recall, he shoots Bun because he still doesn't completely trust him and thinks he's crazy. It's only after that that the "bad guy" shoots him and reveals his mistake. It ends with him changing the guns around because, like the bad guy, he finds himself in a predicament that could threaten his job/promotion, and like the bad guy, decides to try to cover it up and save his own ass.
Thanks. I was on the right track but not completely on the money.

I don't know what to make of The Game. Take by take, it's an awesome movie. Plot-wise, it only makes sense if you refuse to think logically about it. The ending makes it a safe bet that you'll never feel like watching the film again since it's the kind of plot twist that invalidates most of what has gone on before. But that same ending is intense as all fuck. Technically the film is great, and Fincher the best storyteller of the latest generation of Hollywood directors. I rate it positive because I had a grand time second guessing the movie and letting it trick me, but, like I said, the script being so cute/smart makes it a one-time experience only. Douglas is at the top of his game in a role that seems like it was made for him. It's also always great to see Deborah Kara Unger in anything.

Raiders

07-22-2009, 04:54 PM

I love The Game and still consider it probably my favorite Fincher film (Zodiac clouds up the distinction). I really need to rewatch it and jot down my thoughts so I can re-post them after I lost the review at the old site. I hate the ending, but everything leading up is brilliant.

Grouchy

07-22-2009, 04:59 PM

Sven

07-22-2009, 05:13 PM

In Crystal Skull, is there any shot of Indiana Jones saving his hat at the last minute?

Russ

07-22-2009, 05:24 PM

Yeah, I didn't watch The Mighty River, though from the snippets I have seen it looks beautiful.
It's the one closest in tone to The Man Who Planted Trees. And yeah, it's quite beautiful. Q, Donald Sutherland provides the English narration; you couldn't get a copy with subs or narration?

StanleyK

07-22-2009, 05:34 PM

Well, The Godfather: Part III is okay. I wish it didn't crib so many scenes from the first two movies, and that it wasn't so obvious, but it's still good. At least Pacino isn't yelling at the top of his lungs in every scene.

balmakboor

07-22-2009, 05:50 PM

I'd say...

1. Zodiac
2. Fight Club
3. Se7en
4. The Game
5. Alien3
6. Benjamin Button

No Panic Room yet?

trotchky

07-22-2009, 05:55 PM

The Watchmen Director's Cut is really, really bad and I feel silly for buying it. I saw the flick in theaters one and a half times and liked it well enough, so imagine my chagrin when the thing comes to DVD and reveals itself as a steaming pile. Part of it is that I was reading little snippets of the book as I was watching the movie and, wow, on a page-by-page basis it has more pathos, verve, nuance, and humanity than the entire fucking movie. The film steamrolls flat every single subtlety in the book, which is no small feat because the book has a lot of them. The added footage doesn't do it any favors; there's an evident lack of polish which has a lot to do with how horribly most of it is edited (added scenes of Laurie being interrogated by the gubment are particularly incomprehensible).

Snyder is a really bad director and I'm ashamed to have supported his trainwreck of a vanity project. The final hour of the movie is more a bastardization of the original text than any other Alan Moore adaption I've seen.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 06:23 PM

It's not bad; a little too reticent even for my tastes, but quietly graceful all the same.

Coincidentally, I watched Rosetta (a clear influence on the above) on the big screen tonight. Even more gruelling and empathetic than I remember, and especially effective considering how utterly resistable the titular character is; as soon as the credits rolled and the guy in front of me muttered "what a piece of crap" to his viewing company, I could only sit still and reel in astonishment at his admission; it's truly a testament to the greatness of a film that its final shot, however unusual and subliminal in its depiction of its subject's catharsis, still generates amazement in itself and that someone could fail to be moved by it. What I guess I'm saying is that this film's awesome.

I liked it well enough but I also agree with an Israfel comment on RT when he referred to the Dardennes as somewhat redundant.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 06:25 PM

It's the one closest in tone to The Man Who Planted Trees. And yeah, it's quite beautiful. Q, Donald Sutherland provides the English narration; you couldn't get a copy with subs or narration?

The copy I have only has the french narration and I couldn't find english subs for it anywhere presumably because an english narration version exists.

Dukefrukem

07-22-2009, 06:27 PM

Ugg I thought Zodiac was so boring and bland. Why do people like this movie so much?

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 06:42 PM

Probably Kubrick's most controvertial film, A Clockwork Orange also seems to be his most ferocious attack on the authoritarian establishment which he so clearly distrusted. It was a sudden shift of tone from 2001: A Space Odyssey, shot during the lead up to the US moon landings. Some conspiracy theories claim the moon landings were faked and that Kubrick was hired to film the fake footage for the US government. If this was the case then Kubrick may well have come face to face with political corruption that became weaved into his films from that very point. In The Shining, little Danny sports an "apollo" rocket on his sweater, possibly suggesting that the moon landings are a child's fairy tale ... and the drunk tramp in clockwork also talks of men on the moon and things spinning around the Earth, before taking a severe beating fom the droogs.
An interesting aspect of this is that a french mockumentary was aired in 2002 called Dark Side of the Moon (aka Operation Lune) that discredits the idea of Kubrick having filmed fake footage of moon landings. The bizarre thing is that this mockumentary features interviews with political heavyweights such as Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger, admittedly speaking scripted dialogue. Why would these political heavyweights take time out of their schedules to act in what is essentially a comedy mockumentary?
Kubrick apparently received death threats in Britain for releasing Clockwork Orange. As a result he personally withdrew the film from general release in Britain only for it to be rereleased after his death. The nature of the threats against Kubrick and his family still remain unspecified. The film's controvertial violence could have brought threats from an assortment of social or political groups. But a much more sinister possibility is that if Clockwork is indeed an attempt to expose corrupt social engineering projects then the threats could have come from the very people whose agendas he attempted to expose.

I love Rob Ager (http://collativelearning.com/a clockwork orange review.html).

Sven

07-22-2009, 06:44 PM

baby doll

07-22-2009, 06:45 PM

I love Rob Ager (http://collativelearning.com/a clockwork orange review.html).Wow, this guy is seriously nuts.

On a totally unrelated note, does any one else associate BuffaloWilder's name with Bob Marley? Buffalo Wilder... Stolen from Africa.

Sven

07-22-2009, 06:47 PM

Buffalo Wilder...

... in the heart of America.

So, yes.

StanleyK

07-22-2009, 06:50 PM

Ugg I thought Zodiac was so boring and bland. Why do people like this movie so much?

Agreed. I like the movie, but it's too long for its ultimately simple message.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 06:51 PM

Wow, this guy is seriously nuts.

Further google searching reveals that he actually goes and hunts out critics of his website on distant forums, and gives them what-for (if you've seen his videos, he's from Liverpool)!

He also seems to think The Shining is an allegory for Western imperialism, and that Jack represents the white man, while Wendy represents the Native Americans. Because her hair is tied into a bow.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 06:51 PM

I associate his name with Mamet's American Buffalo and Gene Wilder such that when I read his user ID I picture Wilder saying this:

http://film.widarsson.se/images/gene_wilder.jpg

Only, and I am telling you this, Don. Only, and I am not, i don't think, casting anything on anyone: from the mouth of the Southern bulldyke asshole ingrate of a vicious nowhere cunt can this trash come.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 06:52 PM

... in the heart of America.

So, yes.

Well, Texas.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 06:53 PM

Agreed. I like the movie, but it's too long for its ultimately simple message.

The message being the sense of helplessness and desperation generated in the face of such a long and unsolved mystery?

Sven

07-22-2009, 06:55 PM

baby doll

07-22-2009, 06:55 PM

Further google searching reveals that he actually goes and hunts out critics of his website on distant forums, and gives them what-for (if you've seen his videos, he's from Liverpool)!

He also seems to think The Shining is an allegory for Western imperialism, and that Jack represents the white man, while Wendy represents the Native Americans. Because her hair is tied into a bow.Yikes, what a whackjob! Then again, I maintained until recently the hypothesis that one could find references to every other Kubrick film in Eyes Wide Shut because the dead guy in the bed reminded me of the last sequence from 2001.

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 06:55 PM

BuffaloWilder wears with every post what I think when I read his screenname.

Zodiac was appropriately exhausting and, truthfully, narratively uneventful. In spite of this, it held my interest.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 06:58 PM

The Shining/Native American commentary is the very definition of subjective stress. Yes, King knew that he was using Native American elements, but that doesn't mean it has to be the focus of the damn thing. Get real.

Do not doubt Rob Ager. You might have conspiracy phobia.

I could quite easily diagnose you folks with conspiracy phobia. That is you are compelled to try and character assassinate anybody who even attempts to discuss the possibility that rich and powerful people today are engaged in conspiratorial behaviour of any kind. Conspiracies do happen - Nazi attempts at world domination, falsified evidence of WMDs in Iraq, organ harvesting in China, the Enron scandal, even terrorism can be classified as conspiracy because it involves "secret and evil" agendas. In a court of law you can be found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder / fraud / etc and you can be imprisoned for it. And I'm afraid calling the prosecution "conspiracy theorists" would not get you off the hook. Admit it folks - conspiracies do happen from time to time - and discussing such possibilities openly is much more healthy than living in complete denial of that fact.

Rob

Sven

07-22-2009, 07:01 PM

Do not doubt Rob Ager. You might have conspiracy phobia.

Please. You're talking to an Armond lover.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:05 PM

Please. You're talking to an Armond lover.

Oh, yes. That's right.

:lol:

*runs*

Dukefrukem

07-22-2009, 07:10 PM

Agreed. I like the movie, but it's too long for its ultimately simple message.

Such a great way to put it.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:13 PM

Such a great way to put it.All movies have simple messages.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:14 PM

It's not living in complete denial to realize the moon landings were not staged. What an F tard.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:15 PM

It's not living in complete denial to realize the moon landings were not staged. What an F tard.You show 'em, Buzz. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4)

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:16 PM

:|

:sad:

Dukefrukem

07-22-2009, 07:17 PM

All movies have simple messages.

And are uncomfortably long?

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:18 PM

And are uncomfortably long?The message of The Wizard of Oz is "There's no place like home." They could've said that in like five seconds, so why does the film have to be an hour and forty minutes?

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:19 PM

He also seems to think The Shining is an allegory for Western imperialism, and that Jack represents the white man

This sounds like a fair interpretation, though.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:21 PM

This sounds like a fair interpretation, though.

...if you're bonkers.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:22 PM

This sounds like a fair interpretation, though.No, it's not. I mean, not to get all Armond on you, but how anti-American do you have to be see any and every movie villain as the walking embodiment of US imperialism? I suppose it's a fair interpretation in the sense that all interpretations are valid, and that's why interpretations are like ass-holes: everyone's got one, and they all stink.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:22 PM

...if you're bonkers.Thank you!

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:22 PM

...if you're bonkers.

What's with the rabid mean-spiritedness in this thread all of a sudden? I'm bonkers because I think that's a legitimate interpretation? You realize I cut out the interpretation right before you mentioned Wendy's bow, right? Up to that point, it's a fair and, from what I recall, very unoriginal interpretation.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:23 PM

I prefer... opinions are like assholes... but some are shittier than others.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

By the way, Watchmen is really about grown men who act like adolescents and fear women. The squid is supposed to look like a big vagina.

Film Talk told me so.

Dukefrukem

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

The message of The Wizard of Oz is "There's no place like home." They could've said that in like five seconds, so why does the film have to be an hour and forty minutes?

I feel like Zodiac tries way too hard at accomplishing little to nothing. We know about the unsolved mystery. We know that. It's like expecting the Titanic to sink, except there's barely any drama leading up to it. Jake Gyllenhaal's character is lifeless! The best parts of the movie are the scenes with RDJ, and those are few and far between. I'd never watch this movie ever again in my life, but I'd watch Fight Club 1000 more times.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

What's with the mean-spiritedness? I'm bonkers because I think that's a legitimate interpretation. You realize I cut out the interpretation right before you mentioned Wendy's bow, right? Up to that point, it's a fair and, from what I recall, very unoriginal interpretation.But the movie has nothing to do with American imperialism, real or imagined. It's not like the CIA installed Jack Nicholson as the head of the family, overthrowing the democratically elected father figure.

Mysterious Dude

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Rob Ager is a nutjob for devoting so much attention to minor details, most notably a lump of something-or-other that you can barely see for a few seconds in The Shining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7-GKHM5HZ8

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

What's with the rabid mean-spiritedness in this thread all of a sudden? I'm bonkers because I think that's a legitimate interpretation? You realize I cut out the interpretation right before you mentioned Wendy's bow, right? Up to that point, it's a fair and, from what I recall, very unoriginal interpretation.

Yeah I'm not too vitriolic about that interpretation either but the moon landing stuff... come on.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:26 PM

It's not like the CIA installed Jack Nicholson as the head of the family, overthrowing the democratically elected father figure.

We're talking allegory here. You're using some literal hyperbole. As someone who just went through a whole batch of Kubrick texts in the past few months, I know that this interpretation isn't that unpopular. The movie, at the very least, conjures or evokes, in a very obvious fashion, a charged history of American imperialism.

I can understanding drawing the line somewhere as to where to find meaning in a film (I don't understand doing it via name-calling and arrogant petulance, though) but this one seems perfectly sound given the details present within this decidedly ambiguous film.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:27 PM

To Russia, you go back.

Why is this necessary?

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:28 PM

I feel like Zodiac tries way too hard at accomplishing little to nothing. We know about the unsolved mystery. We know that. It's like expecting the Titanic to sink, except there's barely any drama leading up to it. Jake Gyllenhaal's character is lifeless! The best parts of the movie are the scenes with RDJ, and those are few and far between. I'd never watch this movie ever again in my life, but I'd watch Fight Club 1000 more times.Well, I haven't seen Zodiac, but generally speaking, I watch movies for the experience of watching them, not to get the message and move on. And an unsolved mystery seems to me as valid a subject for a film as any other; that's like criticizing JFK because we know there was a conspiracy.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:28 PM

Yeah I'm not too vitriolic about that interpretation either but the moon landing stuff... come on.

I was not commenting on that one. That is not an interpretation I know of or have read about. It's not as popular or widespread as the imperialism angle, at least.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:29 PM

Why is this necessary?

Because they're all very stony-faced and self-serious, in Russia.

You see what I did there, I suppose.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:31 PM

Because they're all very stony-faced and self-serious, in Russia.

You see what I did there, I suppose.

I'm just not used to that type of response around here. It's usually consistently civil around these parts and that's the way I like it. I suppose I've thereby been conditioned to find any slight hostility jarring.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:31 PM

I was not commenting on that one. That is not an interpretation I know of or have read about. It's not as popular or widespread as the imperialism angle, at least.

There's literally only two references to Indians, in the film. Two. In passing dialogue.

Oh, and a moan on the soundtrack near the beginning that might be part of an Indian motif. Maybe. If you strain really hard.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:32 PM

We're talking allegory here. You're using some literal hyperbole. As someone who just went through a whole batch of Kubrick texts in the past few months, I know that this interpretation isn't that unpopular. The movie, at the very least, conjures or evokes, in a very obvious fashion, a charged history of American imperialism.

I can understanding drawing the line somewhere as to where to find meaning in a film (I don't understand doing it via name-calling and arrogant petulance, though) but this one seems perfectly sound given the details present within this decidedly ambiguous film.Apart from the hotel being built on an Indian burial ground (which strikes me as more Oooo, spooky! than Kill whitey!), what is there in the film that conjures or evokes the history of American imperialism? The fact that he kills a black dude?

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:32 PM

I was not commenting on that one. That is not an interpretation I know of or have read about. It's not as popular or widespread as the imperialism angle, at least.

I was under the impression you responded to the post... 'wow this guy is seriously nuts' (baby doll's reaction to Ager's moon landing thoughts) with 'why?'... but that post appears to have been deleted. Convenient? Or... CONSPIRACY!1!???

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:32 PM

Apart from the hotel being built on an Indian burial ground (which is more Oooo, spooky than Kill whitey!), what is there in the film that conjures or evokes the history of American imperialism? The fact that he kills a black dude?

Rob Ager says that Halloran is supposed to represent Indians too.

Because he is not white, you see.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:34 PM

There's literally only two references to Indians, in the film. Two. In passing dialogue.

Why does there have to be more references to warrant this interpretation? Why would Kubrick make that potential interpretative option so excessively blatant? His is hardly a despotic cinema, but a cinema of uncertainty... he invites myriad meanings by rejecting typical narrative closure. This is one of the many joys that can be gleaned from his films. This is also why there are many interpretations of his films, some of them fair and some of them ridiculous. This one is not ridiculous.

Mysterious Dude

07-22-2009, 07:34 PM

Speaking of Kubrick, I have some doubts that he was the insane perfectionist that Ager and others like to believe. Though it's well known that he was demanding of Shelley Duvall, he allowed considerably freedom to his male actors. He allowed Jack Nicholson to bounce a ball in The Shining, though it was unscripted. He allowed Malcolm McDowell to belch and sing "Singin' in the Rain," again unscripted. And he gave Peter Sellers considerable freedom to improvise in Lolita and Dr. Strangelove, and in fact, the final montage of nuclear explosions in Strangelove was Sellers' idea.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:35 PM

Rob Ager says that Halloran is supposed to represent Indians too.

Because he is not white, you see.And he can read minds.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:37 PM

I was under the impression you responded to the post... 'wow this guy is seriously nuts' (baby doll's reaction to Ager's moon landing thoughts) with 'why?'... but that post appears to have been deleted. Convenient? Or... CONSPIRACY!1!???

No, I did delete it because I didn't realize exactly what we were talking about at that time. I posted it in the first place because I happened to enjoy Rob Ager's Eyes Wide Shut interpretation (the ONLY one of his I've read about) and thought it was a general attack against him... when I realized they were singling out an interpretation of his I had not read, I knew I had to delete my comment. For all I know, the moon landing interpretation is outrageous.

Apart from the hotel being built on an Indian burial ground (which strikes me as more Oooo, spooky! than Kill whitey!)

It didn't strike me as just 'Oooo, spooky!' but that's fine.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:37 PM

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:38 PM

Why does there have to be more references to warrant this interpretation? Why would Kubrick make that potential interpretative option so excessively blatant? His is hardly a despotic cinema, but a cinema of uncertainty... he invites myriad meanings by rejecting typical narrative closure. This is one of the many joys that can be gleaned from his films. This is also why there are many interpretations of his films, some of them fair and some of them ridiculous. This one is not ridiculous.There would have to be more than two brief references to it because the movie is two hours and twenty minutes long. That leaves two hours and nineteen minutes where nobody's talking about Native Americans. If Kubrick wanted to do a history of American imperialism, he would've made a film on the subject.

StanleyK

07-22-2009, 07:40 PM

What I got from Zodiac was basically 'obsession will lead you to madness'. I got it about halfway through the movie and didn't feel much more was added.

About 'The Shining', concerning the American imperialism interpretation, one thing I find interesting is that, when Danny pedals down the corridor, his tricycle goes silent when he passes over the carpets, which have native American style.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:40 PM

Why does there have to be more references to warrant this interpretation?

What I'm saying is, that if this is a valid interpretation, then it would be far more present in the film than those two passing mentions that have little if any bearing on the rest of the film.

Does it have to be blatant to be valid? No. Does it have to be there,? Yes.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:40 PM

There would have to be more than two brief references to it because the movie is two hours and twenty minutes long. That leaves two hours and nineteen minutes where nobody's talking about Native Americans. If Kubrick wanted to do a history of American imperialism, he would've made a film on the subject.

The film's decidedly ambiguous nature allows us to latch on to these seemingly insignificant details in order to make our meaning. That is one of the privileges the film allows. If it were not so decidedly ambiguous, then things would be less broad and open to interpretation. If you believe The Shining is a simpler film that I am making it out to be, fine. This is not my belief. Leaving a subtle comment on American imperialism as a latent allegorical meaning within the film is not beyond Kubrick. Why would he have to make an entire film on the subject? Why would he have to do that instead of leaving it as a subtle, interpretative possibility within his film?

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:41 PM

"If you are skeptical about this, consider the Calumet baking powder cans with their Indian chief logo that Kubrick placed carefully in the two food-locker scenes. (A calumet is a peace pipe.) Consider the Indian motifs that decorate the hotel, and the way they serve as background in many of the key scenes. Consider the insertion of two lines, early in the film, describing how the hotel was built on an Indian burial ground. These are "confirmers" such as puzzle-makers often use to tell you you're on the right track.The Shining is also explicitly about America's general inability to admit to the gravity of the genocide of the Indians - or, more exactly, its ability to "overlook" that genocide. Not only is the site called the Overlook Hotel with its Overlook Maze, but one of the key scenes takes place at the July 4th Ball. That date, too, has particular relevance to American Indians. That's why Kubrick made a movie in which the American audience sees signs of Indians in almost every frame, yet never really sees what the movie's about. The film's very relationship to its audience is thus part of the mirror that this movie full of mirrors holds up to the nature of its audience.

"The site is supposed to be located on an Indian burial ground, and I believe they actually had to repel a few Indian attacks as they were building it." This bit of dialogue does not appear in Stephen King's novel The Shining.

"Overlook Hotel-July 4th Ball-1921." The answer to this puzzle, which is a master key to unlocking the whole movie, is that most Americans overlook the fact that July Fourth was no ball, nor any kind of Independence day, for native Americans; that the weak American villain of the film is the re-embodiment of the American men who massacred the Indians in earlier years; that Kubrick is examining and reflecting on a problem that cuts through the decades and centuries.

The Calumet baking powder can first appears during Hallorann's tour of the dairy goods storage locker. In a moment of cinematic beauty, we are looking up at Hallorann from Danny's point of view. As Hallorann tells Wendy about the riches of that locker, his voice fades as he turns to look down at Danny and, while his lips are still moving with words of the abundant supplies, Danny hears the first telepathic "shining" from Hallorann's head as he says, "How'd you like some ice cream, Doc?" Visible right behind Hallorann's head in that shot, on the shelf, is one can of Calumet baking powder. This approach from the open, honest and charismatic Hallorann to the brilliant young Danny is an honest treaty, and Danny will indeed get his ice cream in the very next scene. The other appearance of the Calumet baking cans is in the scene where Jack, locked in the same dry-goods locker by his terrified wife, is talking through the door to the very British voice of ghost Grady. Grady speaking of behalf of the never identified "we," who seem to be powerful people, is shaming Jack into trying to kill his wife and son. ("I and others have come to believe that your heart is not in this, that you haven't the belly for it." To which Jack replies, "Just give me one more chance to prove it, Mr. Grady.") Visible just behind Jack's head as he talks with Grady is a shelf piled with many Calumet baking powder cans, none of them straight on, none easy to read. These are the many false treaties, revoked in bloody massacre, that the U.S. government gave the Indians, and that are symbolically represented in this movie by Jack's rampage to kill his own family - the act to which Grady is goading Jack in this scene. Nor is the treaty between Grady and Jack any less dishonest. For Jack will get no reward for doing Grady's bidding, but rather will reap insanity and death."

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:43 PM

What I'm saying is, that if this is a valid interpretation, then it would be far more present in the film than those two passing mentions that have little if any bearing on the rest of the film.

I disagree due to the ambiguous nature of the film. I am not saying this film is a tabula rasa upon which any and all interpretations may be comfortably projected but that this interpretation happens to fit in well and may be one of the ways to account for the repressed madness of the hotel that infects an irate and aggressive white man who is madly eager for control and unity and his own conception of 'peace'.

It is also an interpretation that is complimented by, and fits in well alongside, Robin Wood's theory of the return of the repressed in regards to horror films.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:43 PM

About 'The Shining', concerning the American imperialism interpretation, one thing I find interesting is that, when Danny pedals down the corridor, his tricycle goes silent when he passes over the carpets, which have native American style.Really? Are you joking? The tricycle goes silent because wooden floors make a different sound than carpets. When you walk on a carpet in real life, does it sound like a wooden floor? No! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! The carpets have a Native American motif because of where the hotel was built. It's not a code. There's nothing to interpret. There's no buried meaning.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:46 PM

There's nothing to interpret. There's no buried meaning.

Okay, clearly this conversation will go nowhere so why beat a dead horse when your position is so aggressively intransigent? I am not agreeing with StanleyK's discovery here, but speaking generally.

StanleyK

07-22-2009, 07:47 PM

Really? Are you joking? The tricycle goes silent because wooden floors make a different sound than carpets. When you walk on a carpet in real life, does it sound like a wooden floor? No! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! The carpets have a Native American motif because of where the hotel was built. It's not a code. There's nothing to interpret. There's no buried meaning.

Maybe you refuse to see any; I don't think anything in a Kubrick movie is incidental. He could as well have removed the carpets.

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 07:47 PM

What the hell.

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 07:47 PM

I am also not promoting this interpretation in a totalitarian sort of way. It is one intriguing meaning that coexists among others in a film that is interpretively eclectic by nature and almost insatiably intriguing.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:49 PM

Maybe you refuse to see any; I don't think anything in a Kubrick movie is incidental. He could as well have removed the carpets.

Well he probably wanted that contrast primarily for atmospheric effect but he could also have had them be a different style, so yeah I'm inclined to agree with you.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:50 PM

I disagree due to the ambiguous nature of the film.

It's ambiguous concerning the character's states of mind - there are mirrors in every scene where Jack is talking to the ghosts, and they aren't visible to the rest of the family until the very end, so what does that mean? That sort of thing.

There's literally nothing - at. all. - about Indian genocide, in the film. Like, at all.

StanleyK

07-22-2009, 07:51 PM

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:51 PM

The film's decidedly ambiguous nature allows us to latch on to these seemingly insignificant details in order to make our meaning. That is one of the privileges the film allows. If it were not so decidedly ambiguous, then things would be less broad and open to interpretation. If you believe The Shining is a simpler film that I am making it out to be, fine. This is not my belief. Leaving a subtle comment on American imperialism as a latent allegorical meaning within the film is not beyond Kubrick. Why would he have to make an entire film on the subject? Why would he have to do that instead of leaving it as a subtle, interpretative possibility within his film?But let's go back to a rational agent model, which assumes that Kubrick was a rational human being. If he wanted to make a comment on American imperialism, wouldn't the most effective thing to do be to show it in a film, since film is the best medium ever invented for showing things?

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:52 PM

But let's go back to a rational agent model, which assumes that Kubrick was a rational human being. If he wanted to make a comment on American imperialism, wouldn't the most effective thing to do be to show it in a film, since film is the best medium ever invented for showing things?

Yes.

:pritch::pritch::pritch::pritc h:

baby doll

07-22-2009, 07:54 PM

Okay, clearly this conversation will go nowhere so why beat a dead horse when your position is so aggressively intransigent? I am not agreeing with StanleyK's discovery here, but speaking generally.But what he's saying is so silly. The tricycle goes quiet on the Indian carpet... Aha! Deep profound meaning! No! A tricycle will make a different sound on a carpet than on wood floors--period! It's no more mysterious than that. Let's stick to what's actually in the film, and not what we'd like to imagine is there.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 07:58 PM

But what he's saying is so silly. The tricycle goes quiet on the Indian carpet... Aha! Deep profound meaning! No! A tricycle will make a different sound on a carpet than on wood floors--period! It's no more mysterious than that. Let's stick to what's actually in the film, and not what we'd like to imagine is there.

It is actually in the film that he rides on the rug and then on the wood. It's also in the film that the rug has a Native American design. It seems fairly obvious to me that that Kubrick was aware of the difference in sound between the wood and the rug. I think he included this largely for atmospheric effect. The question is then can that silence also be read into the fact that the rugs have Native American patterning? It seems that it can be. Intentional? Perhaps or perhaps not. The items in the kitchen at least seem likely intentional.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 07:59 PM

I do not believe the film has to excessively spell it out for you. Kubrick was never one to be so ridiculously blatant.

Yes, but here's the thing - those two lines, those two references, have no bearing at all on the rest of the film. None. They're never referenced again, vocally, visually, or allegorically. More than that, these two lines do not deal with Native American genocide, in any form.

You have chosen not to latch on to this one. That is your right. You should have done so in the first place without petulant name-calling and sardonic arrogance but I suppose that is also your right as well.

You're stone-cold, Amnesiac. Stone cold.

Furthermore, and most importantly, the ambiguity extends to the hotel and the history of the hotel. To say that the ambiguity revolves entirely and only around Jack seems like willful ignorance.

But the film never brings into question the history of the hotel, beyond those two lines in the beginning.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:00 PM

I do not believe the film has to excessively spell it out for you. Kubrick was never one to be so ridiculously blatant. And Kubrick likely didn't have a deliberate, fixed, overarching meaning for the film. It has a plethora of latent meanings that coexist amongst each other. You have chosen not to latch on to this one. That is your right. You should have done so in the first place without petulant name-calling and sardonic arrogance but I suppose that is also your right as well.Clear this up for me: Did Kubrick consciously intend for the film to be read as, among other things, a critique of American imperialism? Or are you saying that people can interpret the film however they like, and this is simply one way of doing that?

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:01 PM

Yes, but here's the thing - those two lines, those two references, have no bearing at all on the rest of the film. None. They're never referenced again, vocally, visually, or allegorically.

Did people just not read the block of text I posted?

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:01 PM

Clear this up for me: Did Kubrick consciously intend for the film to be read as, among other things, a critique of American imperialism? Or are you saying that people can interpret the film however they like, and this is simply one way of doing that?

He is saying the former.

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 08:02 PM

But the film never brings into question the history of the hotel, beyond those two lines in the beginning.

If there are other references to Native Americans or Native American Cutlure (this rug thing?), though, it seems like it's not a bad angle to approach it from, especially if there are things that support it on some kind of allegorical level or something. Maybe it's a stretch, maybe it's not. Haven't seen the film myself. But the attempt to shut down this reading is kind of hysterical. Both definitions.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:05 PM

Those two lines can be used to account for a repressed history of violence and imperialism that the hotel, allegorically speaking, stands in for. Vocally, no. Visually, no. Allegorically, yes.

Perhaps Kubrick expects his viewers to take an interest in glaring ambiguities like that.

Visually, yes.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:05 PM

It is actually in the film that he rides on the rug and then on the wood. It's also in the film that the rug has a Native American design. It seems fairly obvious to me that that Kubrick was aware of the difference in sound between the wood and the rug. I think he included this largely for atmospheric effect. The question is then can that silence also be read into the fact that the rugs have Native American patterning? It seems that it can be. Intentional? Perhaps or perhaps not. The items in the kitchen at least seem likely intentional.The fact that the carpets have a Native American pattern is not inherently significant. It could be any pattern: Asian, Persian, whatever. Okay, but he chose a Native American motif. Yes, because the story is set in Colorado. Having a certain pattern on the rugs doesn't make the film a critique of American imperialism. You can seriously go nuts trying to explain every little thing in a movie. More important to me is the sensual experience of actually watching and listening to what's on screen, and following the story.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:05 PM

Those two lines can be used to account for a repressed history of violence and imperialism that the hotel, allegorically speaking, stands in for. Vocally, no. Visually, no. Allegorically, yes.

I'm actually going to go with babydoll on this one: do you believe Kubrick consciously crafted this film as a critique of American imperialism?

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:07 PM

The fact that the carpets have a Native American pattern is not inherently significant. It could be any pattern: Asian, Persian, whatever. Okay, but he chose a Native American motif. Yes, because the story is set in Colorado. Having a certain pattern on the rugs doesn't make the film a critique of American imperialism. You can seriously go nuts trying to explain every little thing in a movie. More important to me is the sensual experience of actually watching and listening to what's on screen, and following the story.

But, you see, Danny is the white son of Jack, who is the representation of imperialism. Him riding over the rugs on his tricycle is obviously a visual reference to the white man 'stepping on the Indian's backs,' as it were.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:07 PM

He is saying the former.And that's crazy talk. The idea that Kubrick has inserted these meanings into the film, and it's up to the viewer to tease them out, is pure paranoiac thinking, like that movie where Russell Crowe is looking for patterns in the newspaper.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:10 PM

The fact that the carpets have a Native American pattern is not inherently significant. It could be any pattern: Asian, Persian, whatever. Okay, but he chose a Native American motif. Yes, because the story is set in Colorado. Having a certain pattern on the rugs doesn't make the film a critique of American imperialism. You can seriously go nuts trying to explain every little thing in a movie. More important to me is the sensual experience of actually watching and listening to what's on screen, and following the story.

The film is not at it's core a critique on American Imperialism, but there is in my eyes sufficient evidence on display that Kubrick meant to include some subtext about the history of America in relation to the Native Americans.

OK so the story is set in Colorado... could this not also be for a reason?

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:11 PM

OK so the story is set in Colorado... could this not also be for a reason?

The book is set in Colorado?

:frustrated:

Melville

07-22-2009, 08:11 PM

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:11 PM

Both. Kubrick may have consciously intended the film to be read as, among other things, a critique of American imperialism. Seems entirely plausible, especially given what we know about Kubrick's character and working habits. His interests were immense and the idea that they did not surface in his films, in however a marginalized allegorical position, seems a little hard to believe. I don't think he was that narrow minded. People can, of course, interpret the film however they like... and anyone is free to disagree, agree, etc. This is one interpretation that Kubrick may or may not have intended for. I believe this interpretation is not beyond authorial intention.

We cannot ask the man himself. He likely would not clear this issue up for us but instead smile coyly at the fruits of his decidedly mysterious labour.I made a film in university, where the jokey premise was that a psychiatrist was hypnotizing her patients into being nocturnal jewel thieves. Now, one of the jokes in this very silly, stupid film was that the heroines got into an argument about whether the evil psychiatrist was a Freudian or a Jungian, because if she was a latter, she believed in the collective unconscious, and therefore, was already aware of the heroines plans to foil her. I know, stupid. Well, according to my mom, at my graduation ceremony, sitting behind her were these two intellectual art school types talking very solemnly about how Freudian the movie was--I guess because the evil psychiatrist had a beard, and Jung was beardless. This is how silly people who go in for interpretations are.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:13 PM

And that's crazy talk. The idea that Kubrick has inserted these meanings into the film, and it's up to the viewer to tease them out, is pure paranoiac thinking, like that movie where Russell Crowe is looking for patterns in the newspaper.

Erm... no? There are plenty of subtextual readings to be gleaned from plenty of films. This one doesn't have the heaviest textual backing but subtext is very much a real thing.

You're essentially calling subtext paranoiac thinking.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:14 PM

I find the whole Indian thing a bit ridiculous, at least when the entire film is interpreted in terms of it. However, baby doll's whole stance on art—his insistence that meaning can only ever exist in explicitly spoken or written language—is more than a bit ridiculous.Who cares about meaning? Does it make a bad film more interesting to watch if we can tease out some buried allegorical meaning?

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:15 PM

The book is set in Colorado?

:frustrated:

And perhaps Kubrick took that element and expanded upon it for his film (Native American subtext... the dialogue which isn't in the book... the cans in the fridge... the tapestries, etc)... he is known to change and reinterpret many things from his source material.

I agree with you that this reading is not at all in the book.

Wryan

07-22-2009, 08:18 PM

Never really bought this interpretation myself. As subtext it can be argued to be present, but at quite a minor level. Saying that it's there at such a small level because we have culturally repressed and "overlooked" the genocide's importance seems specious to me.

EDIT: Perhaps we can agree that it's a minor thing that some blow up unnecessarily? Or do some still feel that it's a very critical element of the film?

Melville

07-22-2009, 08:19 PM

Who cares about meaning?
Most people? Certainly a lot of people that you argue with on this message board.

Does it make a bad film more interesting to watch if we can tease out some buried allegorical meaning?
What do you mean by "bad"? The allegorical meaning is part of the film. If it's interesting, then yes, it will make the film more interesting. Usually I don't care for allegory—I think it's usually a boring way of getting across meanings—but you dismiss meaning of all varieties, not just allegorical (buried or otherwise).

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:19 PM

As subtext it can be argued to be present, but at quite a minor level. Saying that it's there at such a small level because we have culturally repressed and "overlooked" the genocide's importance seems specious to me.

Agree with this.

Melville

07-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Yes, but as one ostensible meaning... it only enriches a deliberately complex text that is as maddening as it is wonderful in terms of the absolute answers it denies its audience.
Sure. As subtext, it can add to the texture of the film, add resonance to the story and the other ideas and in it, or whatever. But reading the whole story as a critique of American imperialism seems like a huge stretch.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Most people? Certainly a lot of people that you argue with on this message board.Maybe in an after the fact sort of way, but while you're watching a film, what is your brain actually doing? You follow the story and respond to what's happening emotionally. All these symbolic interpretations just take us further and further away from the film itself, and eventually into Crazyland, where every little detail has layers and layers of buried meanings.

What do you mean by "bad"? The allegorical meaning is part of the film. If it's interesting, then yes, it will make the film more interesting. Usually I don't care for allegory—I think it's usually a boring way of getting across meanings—but you dismiss meaning of all varieties, not just allegorical (buried or otherwise).I meant bad in the sense of a boring film. A film doesn't have to be good--interesting, challenging, beautiful--to inspire interpretations.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:24 PM

Erm... no? There are plenty of subtextual readings to be gleaned from plenty of films. This one doesn't have the heaviest textual backing but subtext is very much a real thing.

You're essentially calling subtext paranoiac thinking.

No, he's calling interpretations like this that are built primarily off of various unrelated (or tenuously related) bits and pieces silly. And, they are.

And perhaps Kubrick took that element and expanded upon it for his film (Native American subtext... the dialogue which isn't in the book... the cans in the fridge... the tapestries, etc)...

I would like you to think about that, for a second. One of the bolsters this guy uses for this aforementioned subtext is a row of out of focus cans, behind someone's head, and how they're turned.

That. Is. Silly.

he is known to change and reinterpret many things from his source material.

And, he did. King will tell you all about it.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:24 PM

Sure. As subtext, it can add to the texture of the film, add resonance to the story and the other ideas and in it, or whatever. But reading the whole story as a critique of American imperialism seems like a huge stretch.

Yeah, none of us are doing it though... except maybe Ager and maybe the guy from the website I pulled that info. from.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:26 PM

No, he's calling interpretations like this that are built primarily off of various unrelated (or tenuously related) bits and pieces silly. And, they are.

I would like you to think about that, for a second. One of the bolsters this guy uses for this aforementioned subtext is a row of out of focus cans, behind someone's head, and how they're turned.

That. Is. Silly.

And, he did. King will tell you all about it.

Whatever.

Melville

07-22-2009, 08:26 PM

Maybe in an after the fact sort of way, but while you're watching a film, what is your brain actually doing? You follow the story and respond to what's happening emotionally. All these symbolic interpretations just take us further and further away from the film itself, and eventually into Crazyland, where every little detail has layers and layers of buried meanings.
While I'm watching the film, I am thinking about its meanings, about what it's communicating to me. I'm also responding to it emotionally and getting caught up in the story. These things are not separate. They coexist and enhance each other while I watch the movie.

I meant bad in the sense of a boring film. A film doesn't have to be good--interesting, challenging, beautiful--to inspire interpretations.
I've never understood what you mean by challenging.

Melville

07-22-2009, 08:28 PM

Yeah, none of us are doing it though... except maybe Ager and maybe the guy from the website I pulled that info. from.
Yeah, I wasn't criticizing you or Amnesiac.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:30 PM

Here's something else I found.

"When Jack is talking to Lloyd the barman he refers to white man's burden, (which seems fairy non sequitur at the time, although the line also appears in King's novel). "White Man's Burden" is the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling (1), written in 1889 at the height of the British Empire; at the time, the title became a well-known expression.

Take up the White Man's burden
Send forth the best ye breed
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

The expression was the British equivalent of the American term "Manifest Destiny," a concept used by (mostly) European settlers to justify their occupation of what is now the United States of America. To define both concepts briefly: they assert the God given duty of the "civilised" Christian men of Europe to civilise and baptise the heathen aboriginal peoples of the world.

History has shown, however, that in the carrying out this 'sacred duty,' settlers invariably made a mockery of the Christian values they were trying to teach. (2)

Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the human cost of colonialism, anti-imperialists in the United States latched onto the phrase "white man's burden" as a euphemism for imperialism, and Kipling was accused of justifying the policy as a noble enterprise."

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:30 PM

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:30 PM

Yeah, I wasn't criticizing you or Amnesiac.

Fair.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:31 PM

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:34 PM

Most significantly...

"13/ What aspect ratio was The Shining filmed in?
The entire negative was exposed, meaning that there was no in-camera hard matting so the film was effectively shot in Academy 1.37 but it wasn't intended to be shown in cinemas that way. The film was shot and conceived for 1:1.85 ratio screening (and the camera viewfinders had the 1.85 framelines marked on them) This is the standard ratio that widescreen films in the US are projected in. The 1:185 crop was achieved when the film was projected onto cinemas screens."

Obviously Kubrick meant this crop to communicate the Native Americans being cut out of the metaphoric picture.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:35 PM

While I'm watching the film, I am thinking about its meanings, about what it's communicating to me. I'm also responding to it emotionally and getting caught up in the story. These things are not separate. They coexist and enhance each other while I watch the movie.It's definitely a human impulse to look for meaning in things, but keep in mind: Are these meanings really there, or am I projecting my own ideas on to the film?

I've never understood what you mean by challenging.When you're a kid, you read children's books because that's the level you're at. But as you get older, hopefully, you want to read more demanding material (or you're that weird person on the bus who's forty and reading Harry Potter). The same with films. As much as I still love Chuck Jones, the narratives are exceedingly simple: Wile E. Coyote wants to eat the Road Runner, and is continually frustrated in this desire. Now that I'm a grownup, I can appreciate a film like I'm Not There., which I probably wouldn't have liked as a toddler.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:37 PM

Also you know how it is the case that all the pages of Jack's 'novel' were typed? As a metatextual stroke of genius Kubrick decided to indict himself by having Native Americans type the pages.

Mara

07-22-2009, 08:39 PM

When you're a kid, you read children's books because that's the level you're at. But as you get older, hopefully, you want to read more demanding material (or you're that weird person on the bus who's forty and reading Harry Potter).

I think as long as a consumer regularly challenges themselves in film and literature, there's nothing wrong with enjoying things that are created on a simpler level. I reglarly read new children's books and watch family films that I've heard are of a high quality.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:40 PM

Also you know how it is the case that all the pages of Jack's 'novel' were typed? As a metatextual stroke of genius Kubrick decided to indict himself by having Native Americans type the pages.And clearly "All work and no play" is a reference to the conditions of slavery.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:41 PM

And clearly "All work and no play" is a reference to the conditions of slavery.

By George I think he's got it!

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:41 PM

I think as long as a consumer regularly challenges themselves in film and literature, there's nothing wrong with enjoying things that are created on a simpler level. I reglarly read new children's books and watch family films that I've heard are of a high quality.But how many people do regularly challenge themselves? I think for most moviegoers, their idea of a challenging movie is something like Juno or Slumdog Millionaire. Now there's a scary thought.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:42 PM

When you're a kid, you read children's books because that's the level you're at. But as you get older, hopefully, you want to read more demanding material (or you're that weird person on the bus who's forty and reading Harry Potter). The same with films. As much as I still love Chuck Jones, the narratives are exceedingly simple: Wile E. Coyote wants to eat the Road Runner, and is continually frustrated in this desire. Now that I'm a grownup, I can appreciate a film like I'm Not There., which I probably wouldn't have liked as a toddler.

When a work enters the common cultural osmosis, it's far game, I think - within reason, as this goes to show. Watership Down, for example, was originally meant as a children's novel. But, it's often repeatedly read in a number of ways, from a Homeric odyssey to a World War II parable.

It's a classic of literature. It's well deserved, I think.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:42 PM

But how many people do regularly challenge themselves? I think for most moviegoers, their idea of a challenging movie is something like Juno or Slumdog Millionaire. Now there's a scary thought.

Slumdog Millionaire changed the way I think about poor people.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:42 PM

By George I think he's got it!Using an English expression--nice allusion to the "white man's burden" line.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 08:44 PM

Slumdog Millionaire changed the way I think about poor people.You mean, you now think of poverty in India as something in the past since all the poor people got outsourcing jobs or became flashy gangsters? Jai ho!

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:44 PM

When a work enters the common cultural osmosis, it's far game, I think - within reason, as this goes to show. Watership Down, for example, was originally meant as a children's novel. But, it's often repeatedly read in a number of ways, from a Homeric odyssey to a World War II parable.

It's a classic of literature. It's well deserved, I think.

Man I wouldn't let my kid read that until they were at least 12 years old. That shit is fucked.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:44 PM

Also -

When Jack and Grady chat in the lavatory, during the ballroom party, a song by Ray Noble and Al Bowlly plays in the background. It includes the following lyrics, “It's all forgotten now, the trouble and the pain, forgot in every word I say, forgot in every tear you shed ... our troubles are beyond recall ...”. These lyrics parallel Jack’s repression of genocidal history.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:45 PM

Man I wouldn't let my kid read that until they were at least 12 years old. That shit is fucked.

British kids are made of tougher stuff, tosser.

;)

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:46 PM

You mean, you now think of poverty in India as something in the past since all the poor people got outsourcing jobs or became flashy gangsters? Jai ho!

I think that if it was written they'll be OK so it's none of my concern, and if it wasn't written I guess they can just fuck off and die and too bad for them.

Mara

07-22-2009, 08:46 PM

But how many people do regularly challenge themselves?

I'm not saying many do. I just think that as long as consumers DO challenge themselves, there's nothing wrong with waching/reading things that are created on a simpler level. (Simpler, not stupider.)

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:47 PM

British kids are made of tougher stuff, tosser.

;)

Birthed in the trenches I guess.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 08:48 PM

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly has a simple story.

Take from that what you will.

Bosco B Thug

07-22-2009, 08:49 PM

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:50 PM

Oh also, alcoholism plays a prominent role in the film and lord knows those Natives love their liquor, Amirite!?

origami_mustache

07-22-2009, 08:53 PM

Yes, the perfectionist angle is obviously overblown. There is a lot of truth to it, but it is not as extreme as some make it out to be.

watch Kubrick's Boxes...he was pretty nuts, but perhaps not uncompromising.

megladon8

07-22-2009, 08:54 PM

All poor people are just lazy.

It's a fact.

Qrazy

07-22-2009, 08:55 PM

All poor people are just lazy.

It's a fact.

Lazy and with criminal aspirations.

NickGlass

07-22-2009, 08:56 PM

All poor people are just lazy.

It's a fact.

They're not lazy--they run all the time in India! It's exciting!

megladon8

07-22-2009, 08:59 PM

In a Lonely Place (Ray, 1950) Tonally adept, devastating.

Awesome.

Wonderful film. I kind of feel like watching it again now...

Amnesiac

07-22-2009, 09:02 PM

watch Kubrick's Boxes...he was pretty nuts, but perhaps not uncompromising.

I'm really looking forward to watching this soon.

BuffaloWilder

07-22-2009, 09:04 PM

Ager also thinks that the making-of documentary was "was not a genuine documentary at all, but a symbolic parallel of the feature film content."

I must meet this man.

Stay Puft

07-22-2009, 09:15 PM

trans, thoughts on Mother!

I'm going to try to see it in Toronto, very excited for it.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 09:17 PM

My .2: Kubrick is very intentionally evoking Native American legacy, with the context of the film's general displays of human cruelty. Of course, he is being the opposite of didactic, which accounts with people's frustrations over the film being regarded some high-minded indictment of American history.My frustration isn't with Kubrick, since I don't think he had any particular interpretation in mind while he was making the film, but with the people insisting that you can build an entire understanding of the film out of a few stray details. If you think of Kubrick as a rational agent, what he's doing is telling a story set in a hotel--not any hotel, but a specific (albeit fictional) hotel, the Overlook, which happens to be located in a specific part of the United States (chosen because it's isolated and it snows there a lot, thereby necessitating a caretaker during the winter). Part of the history of this specific hotel (explained in an early sequence by the hotel manager) is that it was built on a Native American burial ground, which makes one think that it's a cursed hotel, effectively laying the groundwork for the later scenes in which we find that the hotel is haunted. (Alternately, the ghosts are hallucinations brought on by extreme isolation, but it still adds to the hotel's spooky vibe).

Kubrick is a storyteller, so he doesn't make documentaries nor does he want to lecture in his films. He wants to embed meaning in a story, and here, he takes a particularly subliminal approach.First of all, since when are documentary filmmakers not storytellers? (In any event, one could always make a fictional film about America's treatment of the Native Americans, especially since I don't think there are too many images around of what happened.)

Secondly, what's the point of doing anything on a subliminal level? Subliminal messages don't have an effect, because people don't register them. Similarly, for symbolism to work, it has to be obviously symbolic.

Contrary to what baby_doll thinks, I don't think recurring visual motifs and the alarming emotional sting of the more loaded pieces of dialogue in the film are that removed from the "sensual experience" of the film.It gets removed from the sensual experience when you start talking about the Jack Nicholson character as the walking embodiment of American genocide. A recurring visual motif that's a recurring visual motif is one thing, but a recurring visual motif that means this and that is something else entirely.

Stay Puft

07-22-2009, 09:22 PM

trans, thoughts on Mother!

I'm going to try to see it in Toronto, very excited for it.

Wait, Boner has seen it, too! Thoughts!

(Sorry if you guys have already been over this, I wasn't online last week and search isn't turning anything up.)

transmogrifier

07-22-2009, 09:24 PM

In 50 years time, Kubrick is going to be mentioned in hushed tones by the entire human population as the deity blessed with conferring spiritual worth and rigorous, inarguable intelligence in newborn babies. Legend will have it of his metamorphosis in the womb of worthy newly pregnant females carrying his Perfect Camera of Eternal Meaning. After the 9 months required to map the exquisite contours of the internal reproductive system and confer metaphorical heft to every fold of uterine lining, Kubrick then takes a single snapshot of the almost fully-formed foetus. Only then can it then take the luge ride to the Great White Light.

transmogrifier

07-22-2009, 09:30 PM

trans, thoughts on Mother!

I'm going to try to see it in Toronto, very excited for it.

Better than The Host (which I liked, but the ending is kind of a let down) and not quite as good as Memories of Murder, it's one of those typically Korean films that have a base genre, but then stitches in a whole raft of other genres on a scene basis. Here, the prevailing mood is a Hitchcockian thriller of sorts driven by a strong central character and sense of place (though the procedural scenes about halfway through start to drag a bit - the film finds itself having to rush through a tonne of material, and sacrifices a bit of the atmosphere it had created). The last act is kind of dizzying, but the final handful of scenes carry heft and stick with you. Great lead performance.

trotchky

07-22-2009, 09:32 PM

I guess the logical question is why you liked it in the theaters in the first place. I haven't seen a lot in the theaters this year, but Watchmen is easily my least favorite so far.

Part of it was the sheer fanboyish thrill of seeing this story I'm so familiar with played out on the big screen, part of it was the drugs.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 09:32 PM

Better than The Host (which I liked, but the ending is kind of a let down) and not quite as good as Memories of Murder, it's one of those typically Korean films that have a base genre, but then stitches in a whole raft of other genres on a scene basis. Here, the prevailing mood is a Hitchcockian thriller of sorts driven by a strong central character and sense of place (though the procedural scenes about halfway through start to drag a bit - the film finds itself having to rush through a tonne of material, and sacrifices a bit of the atmosphere it had created). The last act is kind of dizzying, but the final handful of scenes carry heft and stick with you. Great lead performance.But what is it saying about the Japanese occupation of Korea? Are its shifts in tone related to the upheavals caused by colonialism?

Melville

07-22-2009, 09:34 PM

It's definitely a human impulse to look for meaning in things, but keep in mind: Are these meanings really there, or am I projecting my own ideas on to the film?
It's also a human capacity to communicate and determine meanings, and not just in the form of written and spoken languages. Certainly some meanings are more readily apparent, and sometimes people may be mistaken or unreasonable. But those pitfalls are present even when you extract meaning from explicit statements in speech or writing; they're no reason to disparage all meaning.

And even if you are projecting your own ideas on to the film, so what? If the film is receptive to those ideas, if it supports them, then all the better. The "film" itself exists in our experience of it, anyway—it's just a bunch of lights and noises until we give it meaning.

When you're a kid, you read children's books because that's the level you're at. But as you get older, hopefully, you want to read more demanding material (or you're that weird person on the bus who's forty and reading Harry Potter). The same with films. As much as I still love Chuck Jones, the narratives are exceedingly simple: Wile E. Coyote wants to eat the Road Runner, and is continually frustrated in this desire. Now that I'm a grownup, I can appreciate a film like I'm Not There., which I probably wouldn't have liked as a toddler.
So is it just a matter of complex narratives? What about films or art that present complex meanings in complex narratives and forms? What about films that use simple narratives to subtly present their meanings? Aren't they challenging? I don't understand how you simultaneously champion "pure entertainment" and "challenging" movies, or how you criticize a movie for having transparent meanings and then criticize people for finding meanings in less transparent films.

Bosco B Thug

07-22-2009, 09:54 PM

My frustration isn't with Kubrick, since I don't think he had any particular interpretation in mind while he was making the film but with the people insisting that you can build an entire understanding of the film out of a few stray details. An irresolvable disagreement we have here, with both your points, it seems.

First of all, since when are documentary filmmakers not storytellers? And since when is there no valid distinction between the two? I wasn't trying to knock documentaries or anything.

Secondly, what's the point of doing anything on a subliminal level? Subliminal messages don't have an effect, because people don't register them. Similarly, for symbolism to work, it has to be obviously symbolic. There's the purpose of emotional evocation. I'm very affected by a sense of extreme malice exuded by the film and it's why I value the film as much as I do, even if I'm not being lectured at about historical injustice.

I don't really care if "people in general" register it, but I myself analytically register it, I feel it's intentionally placed, and I think it's moving artistically because I see an ultimate - if buried - humanistic point in the film's subliminal message.

And what's not obviously symbolic about using Native American decor in a film that also makes one or two references to Native Americans?

It gets removed from the sensual experience when you start talking about the Jack Nicholson character as the walking embodiment of American genocide. A recurring visual motif that's a recurring visual motif is one thing, but a recurring visual motif that means this and that is something else entirely. Sure, and I don't think anyone here defending this subtext wants to do this - that is, overly "didacticize" the film with extraneous verbosity and exposition, like throwing in the word "genocide" in there. No, you're right, The Shining doesn't want to say anything about "genocide." It does want to express something about callous white people.

Rob Ager wants to make the film didactic, though. I agree. I don't like that guy. I should buy his DVD analysis of The Birds if I ever want to ruin it for me.

Wryan

07-22-2009, 09:59 PM

But what is it saying about the Japanese occupation of Korea? Are its shifts in tone related to the upheavals caused by colonialism?

Walter Chaw will let you know.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 10:06 PM

It's also a human capacity to communicate and determine meanings, and not just in the form of written and spoken languages. Certainly some meanings are more readily apparent, and sometimes people may be mistaken or unreasonable. But those pitfalls are present even when you extract meaning from explicit statements in speech or writing; they're no reason to disparage all meaning.

And even if you are projecting your own ideas on to the film, so what? If the film is receptive to those ideas, if it supports them, then all the better. The "film" itself exists in our experience of it, anyway—it's just a bunch of lights and noises until we give it meaning.There's a difference between an inference (i.e., Jack Nicholson is hacking at the locked door with an axe because he wants to murder Shelly Duvall, who's in the next room) and an interpretation (Jack Nicholson's character represents American imperialism).

So is it just a matter of complex narratives? What about films or art that present complex meanings in complex narratives and forms? What about films that use simple narratives to subtly present their meanings? Aren't they challenging? I don't understand how you simultaneously champion "pure entertainment" and "challenging" movies, or how you criticize a movie for having transparent meanings and then criticize people for finding meanings in less transparent films.Well, I never criticized a film for having transparent meanings, because when you get down to it, any film reduced purely to its message is going to be totally obvious. The message of Citizen Kane is that you can't buy me love, but it's still a great movie for the style and humor and storytelling. So this whole idea of reading deep, profound meanings into films (whether it's on the web or in academia) strikes me as mental masturbation, and it has very little to do with the films themselves.

And I do like slow, meditative filmmakers like Garrel, Hou, Jia, Tarkovsky, Tarr, and Kubrick. But there's a difference between a film like Silent Light, which is contemplative, and a film like Snow White, which is just painfully slow.

Skitch

07-22-2009, 10:06 PM

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 10:14 PM

Do you like anything?

This question seems weird/out of place.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 10:17 PM

And since when is there no valid distinction between the two? I wasn't trying to knock documentaries or anything.Well, you said Kubrick doesn't make documentaries, as if that's the only way to represent history on film. The Battle of Algiers isn't a documentary, but it's undoubtedly the best film we have on the Algerian war.

There's the purpose of emotional evocation. I'm very affected by a sense of extreme malice exuded by the film and it's why I value the film as much as I do, even if I'm not being lectured at about historical injustice.But it's not subliminal. The sense of malice exuded by the film (by having Jack Nicholson run around like a madman with an axe) is extremely liminal.

Also, why would a film that represents the genocide of the Native Americans necessarily be a "lecture" about historical injustice? (Incidentally, one thing that makes Dead Man not a lecture is that it presumes the existence of Native American and Canadian moviegoers; it's not just a movie to make white people feel guilty.)

I don't really care if "people in general" register it, but I myself analytically register it, I feel it's intentionally placed, and I think it's moving artistically because I see an ultimate - if buried - humanistic point in the film's subliminal message.Even if you register something, there's always the possibility that you're projecting. You might take an innocent detail, like the Native American rugs, and assign it a greater importance than it can possibly justify.

And what's not obviously symbolic about using Native American decor in a film that also makes one or two references to Native Americans?For one thing, there are no Native American people in the film.

Sure, and I don't think anyone here defending this subtext wants to do this - that is, overly "didacticize" the film with extraneous verbosity and exposition, like throwing in the word "genocide" in there. No, you're right, The Shining doesn't want to say anything about "genocide." It does want to express something about callous white people.What does it matter if they're white? They're from Colorado, right? What are they going to be, Chinese?

baby doll

07-22-2009, 10:25 PM

:confused:If Kubrick wanted to say something about the treatment of Native Americans, he might've cast one or two of them in the film. So saying that the movie is specifically about callous white people, as opposed to callous people in general, seems like a stretch.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 10:35 PM

It's not that obtuse to the point where it's mystifyingly subliminal. But it's not a blatant treatise, either. Of course it isn't. You just have to engage with the film, which is exactly what Kubrick would have wanted. If you engaged and did not find this meaning savory, then fine. That's not absolutely and utterly wrong. You are clearly looking for different things in your cinema intake. His raison d'etre was to challenge old, stagnant, unchallenging forms and encourage the audience to work for meaning. As Kubrick once said to Michel Ciment, "In matters of mystery, never explain". Thank God for this philosophy for it has engendered a rich array of compelling interpretations and has not patronized the audience with simple, unequivocal, digestible answers. You may claim we have put our work to no avail but that's certainly not my belief. Linking Jack Torrance to an undercurrent of repressed American sin and imperialism is hardly a stretch, especially in a film that thematically deals (however ambiguously) with a history of violence and an enraged quest for order and eradication. The non-facetious blurbs Qrazy has posted and the one I posted point toward the ways in which this meaning, however latent, is there and waiting to be plucked... not upheld as a dominant, end-all-be-all key to the film but as one meaning among many in a schizophrenic and complicated text. This is not a thorough criticism of these American sins or an admittedly nebulous American baggage, but one layer of a complex cinematic palimpsest that betrays, at the very least, Kubrick's interest in this idea and his invitation to his audience to think about it.

To deny that this idea may have interested Kubrick seems willfully hardheaded. To claim he needs to dedicate an entire feature film to the myriad complex interests that captivated him through out his life is silly. Now, to claim those preoccupations surfaced in his films seems less silly. He wanted to do a lot in his life time, and he thought a great deal about a variety of subjects, but being one man bound to the contingencies of reality, he could not possibly have given every interest the privilege of a fleshed out feature. So, what to do then? Exorcise any marginal thoughts or subtextual facets from his films in the interest of some Jack Torrance-esque order and stability? Of course not.So basically what you're saying is that Kubrick had a lot of interests, and rather than producing a more concentrated script, he decided to intentionally place every passing whim and fancy in the story without pursuing any of them very rigorously? Like one day he said to his co-writer, "Man, it really sucks about the Native Americans. Maybe the hotel could have a Native American motif, so that way in the future, academics will tease out some general post-colonial subtext from the film with Jack as the embodiment of white oppression and control."

Here's an interpretation I will allow: Jack sold his soul for a drink, and so he has to keep returning to the hotel and murdering his family again and again, like a nightmare he can't wake up from--indeed, if memory serves, he does recall having that nightmare at one point in the film before he goes totally whacko.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 10:40 PM

This isn't necessary at all. This seems like your weakest point thus far. Why would he have to? How would the lack of Native Americans in the film preclude him from making a statement related to them? Especially in a film where this issue is not necessarily the central issue? Lack of Native Americans = no way, no how, was Kubrick even slightly trying to evoke that ugly aspect of American history? What? This recalls your earlier statement wherein you implied that he would have to dedicate an entire feature film to this idea instead of allowing his peripheral interests a place in a complex and eclectic text.Well, films are about representation, so the simplest, most effective way to deal with anything is to represent it in a film. If Kubrick decided not to represent Native Americans in this film, maybe it's because it didn't belong in this particular film--regardless of whether the history of Native American suffering interested him. (Indeed, I've yet to see any autobiographical evidence that it did, which would support your claim.)

soitgoes...

07-22-2009, 10:50 PM

Agree to disagree?

baby doll

07-22-2009, 10:53 PM

No, but what you are doing is extrapolating my point to serve your weary argument. Please do not do this again. Every passing whim and fancy? The film speaks to what it speaks to. It is not an entry way into Kubrick's mind. That would have been cool, though.

Yes, I see. You're trying to make this sound absurd. But, no. You have a problem with an interpretation that you may just be beginning to realize is less far fetched than you initially signaled with your first knee-jerk response and now you're peddling around in hyperbole and exaggeration. It's tiring but interesting at the same time. But, your complete disavowal/refusal of the Native American motif and any significance that could be applied to it is mystifying.I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Yes, good. What do you expect me to say here?You don't have to say anything at all.

Bosco B Thug

07-22-2009, 10:55 PM

If Kubrick wanted to say something about the treatment of Native Americans, he might've cast one or two of them in the film. So saying that the movie is specifically about callous white people, as opposed to callous people in general, seems like a stretch.

It does not do an ostentatious song and dance but the bait is there Sure my statement was an inference, but "the bait is there." IMO, IMO.

Alright, enough of that, abotu time I say something about Denis' Friday Night. Very good, and more technically, formally impressive than Beau travail. I too prefer it now, although both are 8/10s.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 11:09 PM

Yes, Kubrick liked to make things nice and simple. And he liked to centralize his subtext and make it all ostentatious. He wasn't one to make the viewer do the heavy lifting. Nope, not all. ...By the way, have you been reading this thread?A Clockwork Orange makes its points about free will in a very centralized way. If memory serves, some one even says, "They've robbed him of his humanity!" or something along those lines. Maybe I'm just not getting the film's underlying allegory for the civil rights movement, but that strikes me as being a pretty ostentatious way to make your point.

Maybe it's related to a point people have been bringing up ad infinitum, that A) this was not his central thesis B) it's related to the nature of the film which is particularly responsive to an interpretation like this and, C) You obviously do not need actual Native Americans in a film when you're talking about subtext and a marginal, ostensible interpretative avenue that you are not only not traversing but spitting on. Which is your right. But you will run out of saliva eventually.I've got some left. A few thoughts: A) If this isn't his central thesis (which I think is: Isolation will drive you nuts), and has nothing to do with it, whatsofuckingever, it doesn't really belong in the film. B) The ambiguity of certain plot points (for instance, whether or not the ghosts are real) gives the viewer a certain freedom of inference, but I don't think one film is more open to interpretation than any other. C) It's kind of a big subject, so if Kubrick only wanted to handle it in a marginal, ostensible, interpretive way, I don't see how he could possibly do justice to it.

Yes, but do read my posts. The Michel Ciment quote indicates that such autobiographical evidence likely does not exist. It would go against Kubrick's entire philosophy. He and Clarke wanted aliens in 2001 and even had them designed up to a certain point. But he took them out because giving form to extraterrestrial life would be just, well, silly and cheap. Whenever he can, he avoids making things simple. So, do you want a confession from Kubrick? You will not get one. You are doomed to deal with the tenacious purveyors of this interpretation.I was just asking for evidence that he was interested in the plight of Native Americans--not some interview where he said the film had to be read in that way. With regards to 2001, I'm not sure how not showing the aliens makes the film less simple (ambiguous, yes, because since we don't see the aliens, we might infer something else).

Dead & Messed Up

07-22-2009, 11:22 PM

soitgoes...

07-22-2009, 11:23 PM

I hate it when watching a foreign language film, a few lines go untranslated, especially silent films where entire blocks of text go untranslated.

megladon8

07-22-2009, 11:25 PM

Whenever I see discussions of The Shining, this is always brought up, and no one hardly ever talks about stuff that's right there, like the disintegration of the nuclear family, the dangers of alcoholism, and the fantastic/uncanny narrative.

I don't much care for the film, but I think there are many interesting things to talk about, and the Indian shit makes up approximately .2% of the picture.

I agree with what you've written here.

I don't think that one film having "deeper", more labyrinthian subtext than another automatically makes the first one a better film.

Melville

07-22-2009, 11:28 PM

There's a difference between an inference (i.e., Jack Nicholson is hacking at the locked door with an axe because he wants to murder Shelly Duvall, who's in the next room) and an interpretation (Jack Nicholson's character represents American imperialism).

They're both inferences and they're both interpretations. In the first case, you see a bunch of light and hear a bunch of sounds. You interpret some of them as a man hacking at a locked door; you interpret some others as a woman in the next room. Based on those premises, you then infer that the man wants to murder the woman. Or you could say that even the two premises are inferred from a whole bunch of prior knowledge about the visual and auditory appearance of people, doors, and so on; similarly, the inference could instead be construed as an interpretation of the depicted events.

In the latter case, you interpret some sounds and images as statements about a hotel and Indian burial grounds, or a tricycle becoming quiet as it passes over an Indian carpet. You take these interpretations as premises and infer from them, along with a host of other premises, that Jack Nicholson's character represents American imperialism. It's not necessarily a valid inference, but it is nevertheless an inference drawn from particular things taken from the film. If you limit the inference to a weaker statement, such as "the historical death of Indians is being associated in some way with the violence enacted by Jack Nicholson's character," then it becomes a more valid inference, or a more plausible interpretation.

Well, I never criticized a film for having transparent meanings, because when you get down to it, any film reduced purely to its message is going to be totally obvious.
In the past, you've criticized Cries and Whispers, and probably some other films that I'm forgetting, for being too transparent.

I don't understand what you mean in the italicized statement. Are you saying that it is always easy to discern the "message" of a film? Or are you saying that the message itself, once you've discerned it, is always an obvious one? Either way, that's a ridiculous statement, made true for you only by the fact that you over-simplify every meaning and don't think anything is profound.

The message of Citizen Kane is that you can't buy me love, but it's still a great movie for the style and humor and storytelling.
Citizen Kane has many meanings beyond the one you've stated, even if it's not a deep or profound film: the way it presents its story from various perspectives is itself a meaningful representation of people, their relationships, and their memories.

So this whole idea of reading deep, profound meanings into films (whether it's on the web or in academia) strikes me as mental masturbation, and it has very little to do with the films themselves.
Does this "so" follow from your thinking that every film's message is obvious? If so, that's pretty absurd. You don't see any deep or profound meanings in a film—and, as you've said before, you don't find any deep or profound meanings in anything at all—so you think it's mental masturbation for other people to find those meanings? The meanings I find in films don't just arise in my mind to give me fleeting pleasure: they inform my entire view of the world, just as do the meanings that I find in literature, philosophy, or anything else. Art has very meaningful things to say to many people.

But even if it is mental masturbation, even if people do it just to please themselves, then what's the problem with that? You're always championing film-as-entertainment, so why is the pleasure brought by interpreting a film any less valid than pleasure brought by the film's story?

And I do like slow, meditative filmmakers like Garrel, Hou, Jia, Tarkovsky, Tarr, and Kubrick. But there's a difference between a film like Silent Light, which is contemplative, and a film like Snow White, which is just painfully slow.
I'm not sure what this means. What does slowness have to do with anything?

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 11:29 PM

I cannot and will not allow what I see to be a viable interpretative possibility be outrightly dismissed as absolutely 'bonkers'. Disagree with it, fine, but deny even the possibility of its viability? Ridiculous.

Yeah. This is what's being talked about. And it's not about "automatically better" or anything like that either.

megladon8

07-22-2009, 11:30 PM

These serve as the more central concerns of the film that add to its complexity. This is likely the stuff that is right up babydoll's alley. It's more comfortably overt. I find this stuff interesting as well, and I would love to have a discussion about it (a more benign one than this one) but I cannot and will not allow what I see to be a viable interpretative possibility be outrightly dismissed as absolutely 'bonkers'. Disagree with it, fine, but deny even the possibility of its viability? Ridiculous.

I agree, because what you've stated has thought and reason behind it.

Sometimes, though (and most often in professional, published reviews) writers will make connections that make no sense and have nothing behind them at all, and in those cases I feel justified in dismissing them as "bonkers".

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 11:30 PM

Citizen Kane has many meanings beyond the one you've stated, even if it's not a deep or profound film: the way it presents its story from various perspectives is itself a meaningful representation of people, their relationships, and their memories.

Lol. "Doodling in the margins."

Melville

07-22-2009, 11:34 PM

Lol. "Doodling in the margins."
?

Dead & Messed Up

07-22-2009, 11:36 PM

These serve as the more central concerns of the film that add to its complexity. This is likely the stuff that is right up babydoll's alley. It's more comfortably overt. I find this stuff interesting as well, and I would love to have a discussion about it (a more benign one than this one) but I cannot and will not allow what I see to be a viable interpretative possibility be outrightly dismissed as absolutely 'bonkers'. Disagree with it, fine, but deny even the possibility of its viability? Ridiculous.

Viability? I have no doubt the subtext is viable (capable of existing). Whether or not it makes for a more fruitful reading of the picture is another discussion.

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 11:37 PM

?

http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=186759#post18 6759

baby doll

07-22-2009, 11:39 PM

It doesn't have nothing to do with it, though. That's what you think and want, aggressively so. But that's not the case for many. It's a meaning that many people have registered in a film that is not guided by a central thesis as crystal clear as the one in A Clockwork Orange. But alas, you seem to despise subtext. You seek different things from cinema than I do.Yeah, I seek cinema: you know, sounds and images that represent definite things (or don't, as in Stan Brakhage's films). This whole idea that there's some postcolonial subtext to the film, because of the Native American motif in the furniture, is simply free-association.

Going back to something you said earlier, why should originality be the criterion by which we judge interpretations? Slavoj Žižek has made a name for himself by producing free wheeling interpretations of popular movies (some he admits, based on story outlines rather than watching the actual films), but they don't tell us anything useful about the films. (David Bordwell has a really good take-down of Žižek here (http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/zizek.php).)

I'm sorry but I feel this is nonsense. Of course a more ambiguous movie that is decidedly ambiguous and ties into a philosophy of uncertainty that the filmmaker himself subscribes to invites interpretation. Of course some movies are more open to interpretation than any other.Inferences aren't interpretations. It's left open whether the ghosts are real or imaginary, so different viewers might make different inferences. But in terms of interpretations, anything can represent anything you want it to. The ghosts might represent base, animal urges (the dogsuit guy giving somebody a blowjob) or the return of the repressed (see above) or anything else that happens to pop into your mind.

Who said he wanted to do exhaustive justice to it?So you think he wanted to do a half-assed job of it?

You answered your own question with the bold. Beyond the Clockwork Orange observation, your points are getting less strong and interesting with each post. Please improve.Ambiguity isn't complexity.

Melville

07-22-2009, 11:43 PM

http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=186759#post18 6759
Ah. I didn't realize Baby Doll was dismissing nuance in two threads on the same day.

MacGuffin

07-22-2009, 11:54 PM

Yeah, I seek cinema: you know, sounds and images that represent definite things (or don't, as in Stan Brakhage's films).

Not true.

baby doll

07-22-2009, 11:55 PM

They're both inferences and they're both interpretations. In the first case, you see a bunch of light and hear a bunch of sounds. You interpret some of them as a man hacking at a locked door; you interpret some others as a woman in the next room. Based on those premises, you then infer that the man wants to murder the woman. Or you could say that even the two premises are inferred from a whole bunch of prior knowledge about the visual and auditory appearance of people, doors, and so on; similarly, the inference could instead be construed as an interpretation of the depicted events.

In the latter case, you interpret some sounds and images as statements about a hotel and Indian burial grounds, or a tricycle becoming quiet as it passes over an Indian carpet. You take these interpretations as premises and infer from them, along with a host of other premises, that Jack Nicholson's character represents American imperialism. It's not necessarily a valid inference, but it is nevertheless an inference drawn from particular things taken from the film. If you limit the inference to a weaker statement, such as "the historical death of Indians is being associated in some way with the violence enacted by Jack Nicholson's character," then it becomes a more valid inference, or a more plausible interpretation.I think this is a bit of a stretch. To say there's no difference between an inference about the story and an interpretation about what it represents is non-sense.

In the past, you've criticized Cries and Whispers, and probably some other films that I'm forgetting, for being too transparent.In Bergman's films, the drama is merely an illustration of some predetermined conclusion (The Seventh Seal is especially bad in this regard). Incidentally, on Jonathan Rosenbaum's website, there's an interesting comparison of the deer hunting sequence in The Deer Hunter (which I haven't seen) and Richard Pryor's impersonation of a deer in his stand-up routine. According to Rosenbaum, Cimino can only see the deer as a static concept, while Pryor actively tries to empathize with it as a living thing. The characters in Bergman's film are dead pieces of meat that pontificate at the camera.

I don't understand what you mean in the italicized statement. Are you saying that it is always easy to discern the "message" of a film? Or are you saying that the message itself, once you've discerned it, is always an obvious one? Either way, that's a ridiculous statement, made true for you only by the fact that you over-simplify every meaning and don't think anything is profound.What would be a profound statement? All statements, like Cimino's deer in the example above, are static, dead things.

I'm not sure what this means. What does slowness have to do with anything?Well, we were talking about complex narratives, and complex narratives tend to move a bit faster to get it all in. Silent Light has a very simple story, but it doesn't repeat itself like an early Disney film does (over and over).

Sven

07-22-2009, 11:58 PM

baby doll

07-23-2009, 12:00 AM

Guys, I will say one thing:

If by this point you still think that the choices that set decorators and sound designers make "mean nothing" or "don't communicate anything," you are studying the wrong field and should pursue a hobby better suited to your capabilities.There's a difference between an image's literal meaning and an interpretative free-association.

Dead & Messed Up

07-23-2009, 12:06 AM

Guys, I will say one thing:

If by this point you still think that the choices that set decorators and sound designers make "mean nothing" or "don't communicate anything," you are studying the wrong field and should pursue a hobby better suited to your capabilities.

Studying the wrong field? Some of us just fuckin' love movies. You make it sound like this forum is a college seminar.

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2009, 12:30 AM

hahahahaha

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 12:44 AM

Whenever I see discussions of The Shining, this is always brought up, and no one hardly ever talks about stuff that's right there, like the disintegration of the nuclear family, the dangers of alcoholism, and the fantastic/uncanny narrative.

I don't much care for the film, but I think there are many interesting things to talk about, and the Indian shit makes up approximately .2% of the picture.

Also some interesting stuff with media... 'Here's Johnny!'

Melville

07-23-2009, 12:52 AM

I think this is a bit of a stretch. To say there's no difference between an inference about the story and an interpretation about what it represents is non-sense.
I'm not saying there's no difference, but that the distinction is sometimes blurred. In this particular case, I was saying that an interpretation of what something represents can be inferred from the film, and that an inference about the story is based on an interpretation of sensory data.

In Bergman's films, the drama is merely an illustration of some predetermined conclusion (The Seventh Seal is especially bad in this regard)....The characters in Bergman's film are dead pieces of meat that pontificate at the camera.
That wasn't quite what you said when you criticized the film before (you said something about it being "overdetermined", or something like that). In any case, I don't know what you mean by "predetermined conclusion". Bergman had something to say, some aspects of humanity he wanted to explore, and he did so with suitable types of characters. I vehemently disagree with the notion that those characters are anything less than robustly developed and thoroughly human.

What would be a profound statement? All statements, like Cimino's deer in the example above, are static, dead things.
Again, I don't know what this means. Here's an example of a profound statement, paraphrased from Kant: the experienced world is objectively real but transcendentally ideal.

baby doll

07-23-2009, 12:53 AM

The film upholds this interpretation, it is not a case of picking whatever and applying it, whether it sticks or not.Well, that's the big question, isn't it? I don't think the film does uphold this interpretation. It requires taking a specific character in the drama, and elevating him into static generalization: namely, the embodiment of white oppression. And based on what? A couple lines of dialogue and a motif in the furniture (nobody so far has mentioned the 1920s ballroom, which could inspire a totally different interpretation, especially in light of the ending--did Kubrick see America heading for a second Depression in the late 1970s?).

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 01:00 AM

Guys, I will say one thing:

If by this point you still think that the choices that set decorators and sound designers make "mean nothing" or "don't communicate anything," you are studying the wrong field and should pursue a hobby better suited to your capabilities.

I wonder if the set decorator/production manager/something related to the rug/prop placement is still alive. We could try e-mailing him about this stuff.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 01:05 AM

And these are intriguing points if you're not being facetious. Luckily, I don't think anyone here, except maybe babydoll, is trying to get totally and willfully despotic in regards the various meanings this film carries. Ah, I would love to engage in a conversation that is more of a survey of the various ways in which one might view The Shining and what kind of issues it raises. But since match-cut seems to have found its very own subtext police, we'd all soon be arrested by the kind arguments and name-calling that have already been presented here.

I'm not being facetious.

baby doll

07-23-2009, 01:05 AM

That wasn't quite what you said when you criticized the film before (you said something about it being "overdetermined", or something like that). In any case, I don't know what you mean by "predetermined conclusion". Bergman had something to say, some aspects of humanity he wanted to explore, and he did so with suitable types of characters. I vehemently disagree with the notion that those characters are anything less than robustly developed and thoroughly human.By "predetermined conclusion," I mean that Bergman's got a thesis (for instance, God might not exist, and in any event, he's really fucking quiet), and he pounds away at it for ninety minutes, giving no quarter to drama or style. There's nothing robust about the gloomy mouthpieces pontificating at each other in Through a Glass Darkly and Winter Light. The spider isn't a spider but God, and the crazy bitch is Crazy Bitch.

Again, I don't know what this means. Here's an example of a profound statement, paraphrased from Kant: the experienced world is objectively real but transcendentally ideal.Yeah, I don't know what that means.

trotchky

07-23-2009, 01:10 AM

Well, that's the big question, isn't it? I don't think the film does uphold this interpretation. It requires taking a specific character in the drama, and elevating him into static generalization: namely, the embodiment of white oppression. And based on what? A couple lines of dialogue and a motif in the furniture (nobody so far has mentioned the 1920s ballroom, which could inspire a totally different interpretation, especially in light of the ending--did Kubrick see America heading for a second Depression in the late 1970s?).

I think the reason you piss so many people off is your flagrant rejection of the possibility of meaning that doesn't make itself immediately clear, not just this particular interpretation. As Amnesiac asked, why didn't you just say this to begin with?

trotchky

07-23-2009, 01:19 AM

We live in a world that automatically equates surface with reality. This is sick! This is weird! Kubrick's movies regularly addressed this sick weirdness! Hey, man, some movies do employ symbolism! Deal! If you insistently conflate the symbol with the signified, don't be surprised when people find your analysis closed-minded or frankly wrong!

Dead & Messed Up

07-23-2009, 01:21 AM

Ah, I would love to engage in a conversation that is more of a survey of the various ways in which one might view The Shining and what kind of issues it raises. But since match-cut seems to have found its very own subtext police...

http://poplicks.com/images/police-sirens.jpg

You know how fast you were theorizin' back there?

baby doll

07-23-2009, 01:21 AM

Why didn't you leave it at this a long time ago, though? You are incapable of acknowledging the fact that some may take this interpretation and its a valid one but not one that does anything for you. The clues are there. The evidence is there. The interpretation is plausible and it works. Yet you deny even the very possibility. Interesting.

You're pointing towards a confluence of meanings and once again bolstering points I have already brought up. I thank you for this and will now address your meager consideration of what is in the film. I cannot accept your point that Kubrick did not intend to evoke America's charged history. The very existence of these aspects is surely pointing us toward an ostensible meaning without strapping us down to a definite meaning. The interpretive possibility is, of course, a viable interpretive possibility in a film that does not commit to any particular key. You seem to have trouble admitting this point. This seems like willful ignorance. You choose to downplay "a couple lines of dialogue and a motif in the furniture" but you cannot deny their existence, can you? Did Kubrick just insert these elements arbitrarily? Combined with the ambiguity of the history of the hotel, a violent white history that has been repressed and yet visibly affects the present, this interpretation obviously holds some hypothetical weight but is not central.I can't deny that they exist, but just because something is there doesn't mean it means something. The fact that Shelly Duvall defends herself with a bat isn't an allusion to baseball as America's favorite sport unless you really want it to be. It's pure paranoiac thinking to assign meanings to things in this way when the film doesn't even highlight them as significant.

I'm not pointing to any confluence of meaning. You know why there's a 1920s motif? So we know that all those people in the ballroom are ghosts, and everybody knows that ghosts don't keep track of trends. The only history Kubrick is talking about is the history of the Overlook Hotel itself: the fact that it was built on a Native American burial ground, its heyday in the 1920s, and the fact that all the previous caretakers murdered their families--all of which feed into the idea of a haunted hotel. He didn't insert these things arbitrarily, but it's not Shrek's onion; there aren't any additional layers beyond what's plainly obvious. The film is not a history of America.

Sven

07-23-2009, 01:26 AM

There's a difference between an image's literal meaning and an interpretative free-association.

There's also a difference between what Amnesiac is defending and free-associative interpretation.

Is this valid?: the hotel is built on an Indian burial ground. The hotel is clearly haunted and has possessing capabilities. I can conclude, then, with everything given to me on the film itself, that the entirety of the hotel's supernatural force is being fueled by Indian forces, thus making a historically loaded reading not only a practically textual dilemma, but it also legitimizes beyond argument the position that it exists as at least a subtext. And by "it," I mean a historically loaded perspective that considers things like White-Indian skirmishes.

Sven

07-23-2009, 01:31 AM

It's pure paranoiac thinking to assign meanings to things in this way when the film doesn't even highlight them as significant.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Do you think that no consideration goes into the choice of a prop? Do you not credit any motivation beyond "We need it for the scene?" This stress on "stress" that you're stressing is stressing me out. YOU NEGLECT CONSIDERING CHOICE. Your functionalist position is riddled with logical flubs.

baby doll

07-23-2009, 01:33 AM

There's also a difference between what Amnesiac is defending and free-associative interpretation.

Is this valid?: the hotel is built on an Indian burial ground. The hotel is clearly haunted and has possessing capabilities. I can conclude, then, with everything given to me on the film itself, that the entirety of the hotel's supernatural force is being fueled by Indian forces, thus making a historically loaded reading not only a practically textual dilemma, but it also legitimizes beyond argument the position that it exists as at least a subtext. And by "it," I mean a historically loaded perspective that considers things like White-Indian skirmishes.Well, it depends on how far you go with it. It's one thing to say that the film references the history of American colonialism, but to say that the main story is an allegorical representation of the genocide of the Native Americans is plainly bonkers.

transmogrifier

07-23-2009, 01:33 AM

Can we abandon this thread to the current headache-inducing discussion and start a new Film Discussion thread, pls?

K, thx.

Dead & Messed Up

07-23-2009, 01:35 AM

...you know what I haven't had in a while?

Big League Chew.

baby doll

07-23-2009, 01:37 AM

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Do you think that no consideration goes into the choice of a prop? Do you not credit any motivation beyond "We need it for the scene?" This stress on "stress" that you're stressing is stressing me out. YOU NEGLECT CONSIDERING CHOICE. Your functionalist position is riddled with logical flubs.In all likelihood, I think the script went to the set decorators, and they thought, since there's a reference in the dialogue to the hotel being built on a Native American burial ground, that justifies (or even demands) there be a Native American motif in the furniture. Similarly, when a gaffer is setting up lights, there's no symbolic intent; it's just wherever light would be in that environment.

Sven

07-23-2009, 01:37 AM

Well, it depends on how far you go with it. It's one thing to say that the film references the history of American colonialism, but to say that the main story is an allegorical representation of the genocide of the Native Americans is plainly bonkers.

Clearly I agree, as my first post about this whole thing states. But by admitting me even this inch, it is not preposterous at all to say that the consideration of the Indian pattern on the rug goes beyond mere functionalism. It is there to bolster the cultural subtext. IT IS IMPORTANT. Your denial of this, or failure to consider it is, what I think, the root of frustration here.

Winston*

07-23-2009, 01:40 AM

Can we abandon this thread to the current headache-inducing discussion and start a new Film Discussion thread, pls?

K, thx.

Hey transmogrifier. I'd like to hear your thoughts on every film in your signature. Can you give me them.

EDIT: Oh, you've been going to the Auckland film festival, haven't you?

Sven

07-23-2009, 01:41 AM

In all likelihood, I think the script went to the set decorators, and they thought, since there's a reference in the dialogue to the hotel being built on a Native American burial ground, that justifies (or even demands) there be a Native American motif in the furniture. Similarly, when a gaffer is setting up lights, there's no symbolic intent; it's just wherever light would be coming from (or could be coming from) in that location.

You are basing your entire position on a grade-C assumption. Not even a grade-A one, dude. You fail to consider AAAAALLLLLL kinds of things, such as what any set decorator (or at least, THIS one) thinks their job entails (many, I'm sure--anecdotally--think it is their duty to tell the story through their designs, in which case inanimate objects are frequently intended as symbols), and what lighting designs the cinematographer has in mind (your insistence on the illusion of a light source is grade-D).

Spun Lepton

07-23-2009, 01:41 AM

Uh oh, the argument is losing steam.

Looks like it's time to stir the pot a little bit.

*ahem*

*cracks fingers*

KUBRICK WAS A GREAT BIG DOO-DOO-HEAD WHOSE FILMS SERVED NO ARTISTIC MERIT. UWE BOLL HAS MORE ARTISTIC MERIT IN HIS PINKY FINGER THAN KURBICK HAd IN HIS WHOLE, LONG, AND BRILLIANT CRAPTACULAR CAREER.

That ought'a do it.

I'm so sorry, Stanley! You know I don't mean it! Please don't haunt my dreams!

baby doll

07-23-2009, 01:42 AM

Clearly I agree, as my first post about this whole thing states. But by admitting me even this inch, it is not preposterous at all to say that the consideration of the Indian pattern on the rug goes beyond mere functionalism. It is there to bolster the cultural subtext. IT IS IMPORTANT. Your denial of this, or failure to consider it is, what I think, the root of frustration here.What I was specifically denying wasn't that it was important, but that it could be used to bolster a particular symbolic reading of the film that I think is simply bonkers.

balmakboor

07-23-2009, 01:43 AM

Ah Mr. Ager. I like the guy if for no other reason than that he is so passionate about what he's doing. It's odd though that you guys spent something like six pages discussing mostly his Shining analysis which is far and away his least original. I think his Full Metal Jacket analysis is filled with terrific observations.

I also love Leonard Wheat's stuff on 2001: A Space Odyssey. He takes the details too far at times, but I still can't believe that so many people have noticed the sexual symbolism of the space shuttle and space station and yet missed how it is only one piece in an elaborate sequence of sexual reproduction culminating in birth.

Wheat also wrote an intriguing book on AI Artificial Intelligence, but, alas, hasn't found a publisher. He emailed me a copy about two years ago.

baby doll

07-23-2009, 01:44 AM

You are basing your entire position on a grade-C assumption. Not even a grade-A one, dude. You fail to consider AAAAALLLLLL kinds of things, such as what any set decorator (or at least, THIS one) thinks their job entails (many, I'm sure--anecdotally--think it is their duty to tell the story through their designs, in which case inanimate objects are frequently intended as symbols), and what lighting designs the cinematographer has in mind (your insistence on the illusion of a light source is grade-D).Wait, are you a set decorator?

transmogrifier

07-23-2009, 01:45 AM

Hey transmogrifier. I'd like to hear your thoughts on every film in your signature. Can you give me them.

Daytime Drinking - funny, low-budget Korean road movie, an acerbic look at Korean drinking culture

Mother - see post made about three pages and 20 minutes back that got swamped with stuff about symbols and meaning

Thirst - kitchen sink cinema at it's finest. A tightrope.

Gran Torino - silly, sloppy, occasionally interesting

Ditto - Korean mystical rom-com/time travel movie with no discernable reason to exist

Knowing - great set-pieces but kind of dumb

transmogrifier

07-23-2009, 01:47 AM

It's moments like these I wish I had Kubrick hidden behind a floorstand availiable for comment.

Dead & Messed Up

07-23-2009, 01:48 AM

Here's a legitimate question unrelated the conversation. Why the hell didn't Darrin Morgan ever make the leap from writing television into feature films?

I mean, his writing resume doesn't have a spot on it. War of the Coprophages, Humbug, Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose, and Jose Chung's From Outer Space. They're all insanely enjoyable, intricate, a fantastic mixture of horror and humor. Since his X-Files days, he's been consulting producer for new television series like Fringe and Kolchak.

I picked up one of the discs of Millenium today, which hopefully should have "Somehow Satan Got Behind Me" on it, which is why I bring this up.

Seriously, though. What the H?

Spun Lepton

07-23-2009, 01:50 AM

Seriously, though. What the H?

Maybe he likes working in television?

Sven

07-23-2009, 01:51 AM

Wait, are you a set decorator?

I don't know if my answer to this is something you want to use for a point, but no I am not, but yes, I have decorated sets.

Edit: noticed the stress. I meant "THIS" in reference to the one that worked on The Shining.

Winston*

07-23-2009, 01:51 AM

Daytime Drinking - funny, low-budget Korean road movie, an acerbic look at Korean drinking culture

Mother - see post made about three pages and 20 minutes back that got swamped with stuff about symbols and meaning

Thirst - kitchen sink cinema at it's finest. A tightrope.

Gran Torino - silly, sloppy, occasionally interesting

Ditto - Korean mystical rom-com/time travel movie with no discernable reason to exist

Knowing - great set-pieces but kind of dumb

Are you downloading these Korean movies or is the Auckland film festival on? I might see Mother on Tuesday.

transmogrifier

07-23-2009, 02:16 AM

Are you downloading these Korean movies or is the Auckland film festival on? I might see Mother on Tuesday.

Auckland Film Festival. I would recommend Mother, especially if you liked the director's other films.

Melville

07-23-2009, 02:25 AM

By "predetermined conclusion," I mean that Bergman's got a thesis (for instance, God might not exist, and in any event, he's really fucking quiet), and he pounds away at it for ninety minutes, giving no quarter to drama or style. There's nothing robust about the gloomy mouthpieces pontificating at each other in Through a Glass Darkly and Winter Light. The spider isn't a spider but God, and the crazy bitch is Crazy Bitch.
Yeah, I don't see any of that in his movies. The focus of The Seventh Seal isn't on God's nonexistence and/or silence, but on how the characters live their lives in light of those facts. The centerpiece of the film is a knight talking about the beauty of eating strawberries and milk.

I find his movies intensely dramatic and stylistically rich. They're some of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen, and the stories are frequently gut-wrenching, frequently uplifting, and usually profound. When two characters castigate each other in Winter Light, they're not just pontificating: they're exposing their insecurities, their malice, their longings and failings.

Yeah, I don't know what that means.
Basically, the form of all our perceptions is subjective: our perceptions don't reveal to us the "things in themselves". But since the form is universal, shared by all people at all times, the perceived world is nevertheless objectively real.

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2009, 04:32 AM

I don't get all the comparisons to Buster Keaton, with WALL-E - particularly among those Frenchies that I do so love, when it comes to film criticism. I mean sure, there's the use of pantomime and physical humor, I get that. But, Keaton was a stoic in a frenzied context. WALL-E, the character, is not.

Just a thought.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 04:41 AM

Similarly, when a gaffer is setting up lights, there's no symbolic intent; it's just wherever light would be in that environment.

WTF? Watch Visions of Light and stop.

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2009, 04:45 AM

WTF? Watch Visions of Light and stop being a twat.

This is true.

I have to wonder how this debate got all the way to it's present state - I mean, it started out saying that such an interpretation (that Jack was, in fact, the symbol of American imperialism) was bonkers, because it really was pure subjective conjecture, and a far-reaching one at that. How did it come to: 'the elements of a scene really don't mean anything?'

trotchky

07-23-2009, 05:17 AM

This is true.

I have to wonder how this debate got all the way to it's present state - I mean, it started out saying that such an interpretation (that Jack was, in fact, the symbol of American imperialism) was bonkers, because it really was pure subjective conjecture, and a far-reaching one at that. How did it come to: 'the elements of a scene really don't mean anything?'

Because baby doll took your equation of interpretation of the meaning of a piece of art to conspiracy theory and ran with it.

trotchky

07-23-2009, 05:20 AM

Or it could have been baby doll taking your use of the word "bonkers" and running with it, and everyone (myself included) being dumb enough to respond to him.

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2009, 05:34 AM

Because baby doll took your equation of interpretation of the meaning of a piece of art to conspiracy theory and ran with it.

A-whaaaaat

You mean, with A Clockwork Orange?

Spinal

07-23-2009, 05:35 AM

I don't know how you guys have the stamina for the extended debate thing. I write a full paragraph and I feel like taking the rest of the day off.

trotchky

07-23-2009, 05:39 AM

A-whaaaaat

You mean, with A Clockwork Orange?

Wait, reading through the thread again, it wasn't you. My b. Baby doll was just being intellectually dishonest (shocker!).

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2009, 05:46 AM

Wait, reading through the thread again, it wasn't you. My b. Baby doll was just being intellectually dishonest (shocker!).

That's kind of harsh.

Sure, I can't help but imagine him dressed in black and wearing a beret while replying and smoking a cigarette, but still.

trotchky

07-23-2009, 05:54 AM

That's kind of harsh.

Sure, I can't help but imagine him dressed in black and wearing a beret while replying and smoking a cigarette, but still.

It's not really harsh, because the only other explanation is that he's genuinely dense. I'm going to stop talking shit about the guy, though. He at least deserves the chance to defend himself or, alternately, take some shots at me.

B-side

07-23-2009, 05:58 AM

I'm contemplating running over this debate so I can be in the know.

B-side

07-23-2009, 06:45 AM

There are far better ways to fill up your time.

A likely case, I'm sure. But being out of the loop makes me recall the horrors of high school. Mr. Jones never laughed so hard....

Boner M

07-23-2009, 06:57 AM

Weekend:

Jeanne Fucking Dielman
Pather Panchali
Pierrot le fou (rpt)
It Came From Kuchar

Still Walking ***
Moon ***1/2
See? Not masterpieces. I suggest you sell your remaining tickets before committing suicide shortly after.

B-side

07-23-2009, 07:03 AM

I'm still not sure what to make of Still Walking. Sometimes I think I really liked it, others not so much.

Winston*

07-23-2009, 07:32 AM

Weekend:

Jeanne Fucking Dielman
Pather Panchali
Pierrot le fou (rpt)
It Came From Kuchar

See? Not masterpieces. I suggest you sell your remaining tickets before committing suicide shortly after.
Can I save my suicide until halfway through Antichrist?

Weekend

The Secret of Kells
Mary and Max
Flame and Citron
Departures

B-side

07-23-2009, 07:44 AM

It's a distinct possibility that none of these will actually get watched, but what the hell, I'll list some I wanna see by the end of the weekend:

Arabian Nights (Pasolini, 1974)
Inn of Evil (Kobayashi, 1971)
A Man Escaped (Bresson, 1956)

Winston*

07-23-2009, 08:07 AM

Looks like I'm seeing The Chaser as well on the same day as Mary and Max and Departures. Shit.

Boner M

07-23-2009, 08:31 AM

Looks like I'm seeing The Chaser as well on the same day as Mary and Max and Departures. Shit.
Departures looks fucking terrible and it won the Best Foreign Film Oscar. Nevermind that one. I've heard some good things about M&M.

transmogrifier

07-23-2009, 08:38 AM

This big long discussion about Kubrick's The Shining, and all the while this forum is sitting on 2001 threads. Coincidence?

Boner M

07-23-2009, 08:42 AM

This big long discussion about Kubrick's The Shining, and all the while this forum is sitting on 2001 threads. Coincidence?
No coincidence; Kubrick was just that exacting and prescient.

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2009, 08:46 AM

No coincidence; Kubrick was just that exacting and prescient.

Fucker.

:|

Winston*

07-23-2009, 10:06 AM

Departures looks fucking terrible and it won the Best Foreign Film Oscar. Nevermind that one. I've heard some good things about M&M.

I think it's going to be good. I have not seen any footage from it and barely no what it's about but I have faith, not in the Academy but in myself.

Very excited about Mary and Max. Harvey Krumpet is one of the best things.

Skitch

07-23-2009, 10:56 AM

This question seems weird/out of place.

Read some of his recent posts.

B-side

07-23-2009, 01:26 PM

Because I can, I'm gonna whore out something a friend of mine wrote (http://thebrightsideoftheempire.wordp ress.com/2009/07/22/mann-mood-and-the-moment/) for our blog on Michael Mann. Specifically, his last 2 films.

kuehnepips

07-23-2009, 01:38 PM

Weekend: Junebug

..I write a full paragraph and I feel like taking the rest of the day off.

*passes bottle*

Robby P

07-23-2009, 01:41 PM

Watchmen was, predictably, rather disappointing. Visionary director, indeed.

Sven

07-23-2009, 01:57 PM

Oh, man. I feel like a 50 year old woman. Brigadoon thrilled me beyond belief. I love it when films I was initially less than thrilled by surprise me on rewatching them. Graceful long takes, amusing asides, almost crazy surreal, particularly in the last half hour. Beautiful in its visual simplicity and shocking in its psychological complexity.

Dukefrukem

07-23-2009, 02:07 PM

Watchmen was, predictably, rather disappointing. Visionary director, indeed.

I think people were expecting nonstop action. Did you read the comic?

Mara

07-23-2009, 02:17 PM

Oh, man. I feel like a 50 year old woman. Brigadoon thrilled me beyond belief.

I found it somewhat unmemorable. Nice dancing, forgettable songs.

But, then again, it was in a innerstudio rivalry with Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, which is a sentimental favorite, so maybe I'm biased.

Sven

07-23-2009, 02:24 PM

I found it somewhat unmemorable. Nice dancing, forgettable songs.

But, then again, it was in a innerstudio rivalry with Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, which is a sentimental favorite, so maybe I'm biased.

It makes sense that I find Seven Brides practically unwatchable.

But then, perhaps I should watch it again. I really can't see any reason why I shouldn't like it.

B-side

07-23-2009, 02:30 PM

Sven, your avatar has had a sort of subliminal advertising effect on me. Next time I get Netflix, that'll almost assuredly be one of my rentals. Might have to remind me, though. ;)

Sven

07-23-2009, 02:45 PM

Sven, your avatar has had a sort of subliminal advertising effect on me. Next time I get Netflix, that'll almost assuredly be one of my rentals. Might have to remind me, though. ;)

Eeeeeeexcellent.

Grouchy

07-23-2009, 02:45 PM

I'd just like to add that, while definitively not explicit, the Indian background of the Hotel is coherent with King's novel. In the book, the Hotel is an accumulation of ghosts from many episodes (the Indian massacre, the caretaker, the party, the suicide) and not only Jack's previous life as a murderer like in the movie. It's implied that all these ghosts are trying to kill Danny so they can use his "shining" ability to increase their power.

That would make sense with the "Overlook" of the Indian massacre and how silent voices (those of the Native casualties) are looking for a way to make themselves heard. Like many have said, it doesn't necessarily need to become the main subject of the movie to be there.

Mara

07-23-2009, 02:45 PM

Sven, your avatar has had a sort of subliminal advertising effect on me. Next time I get Netflix, that'll almost assuredly be one of my rentals. Might have to remind me, though. ;)

What's it from?

And Seven Brides is a heckuvalotta fun. It's quite dated (especially in some of the sentiments regarding women) and the special effects are cheesy and the background is painted, but I love it anyway.

I've been humming songs from it ever since I posted, actually.

B-side

07-23-2009, 02:49 PM

Eeeeeeexcellent.

:)

Related to Altman, I just scoured KG, checking out some of his work, and saw some early stuff that looks interesting that I've not seen anyone mention. Stuff like The Delinquents (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050302/), Countdown (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062827/) and Quintet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079770/).

What's it from?

Nashville.

Grouchy

07-23-2009, 02:53 PM

I saw this great samurai film - Harakiri. During the opening scenes I thought it was going to bore me because of its very Japanese pace and focus on dialogue to explain situations, but the movie accumulates power and pospones the action until a devastating finale. The story stands out, about two samurais who go to a temple to request a place for harakiri at different times and with opposite results. They are related to each other, but we don't know this at first and we learn all their story through flashbacks. Although a samurai movie, this reminded me strongly of a Greek tragedy, as every new revelation was one step closer to hubris and disaster. The swordfights are tremendous, a triumph of movie editing. Tatsuya Nakadai is a wonderful leading man, and his sardonic fits of laughter were a lot of fun. It took me a while to recognize him as the king from Ran, and when I did I was floored.

I haven't seen many classic samurai films apart from those by Kurosawa, and this is the first one I've seen from director Kobayashi.