28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[soitgoes...]

Yeah I can't say I'm a particularly big Stevens fan. Shane and A Place in the Sun are both decent but not all that great imo. Gunga Din is just bad.I agree for the most part, though I don't think Gunga Din is necessarily bad, more just mediocre. Swing Time on the other hand, is simply wonderful.

[MacGuffin]

Thanks for reminding me Guy Maddin is a major blind spot. I'll have to rent that triple feature disc next weekend.

[megladon8]

I don't understand why Guy Maddin's films aren't more readily available to me here in Ottawa.

The library doesn't have many of them in circulation, video stores don't rent those kinds of movies, and to buy them is like $25+.

I mean, the guy is one of Canada's leading filmmakers, and the capital city of the country doesn't have his work easily available to its citizens?

Balls.

[soitgoes...]

Tales From the Gimli Hospital (1988) / ***
Careful (1992) / ***
Dracula: Pages From a Virgin's Diary (2001) / **
Cowards Bend the Knee (2002) / ***1/2
The Saddest Music in the World (2003) / ****
Brand Upon the Brain! (2006) / ****
My Winnipeg (2007) / ***1/2

I need to re-see Archangel. My favorite Maddin shorts are The Heart of the World, My Dad Is 100 Years Old, and Night Mayor.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that, of the five commercial features he made over the last decade, from a production standpoint, only The Saddest Music in the World is technically a commercial feature. Dracula was made for local TV; Cowards Bend the Knee started out as a gallery installation; Brand Upon the Brain! was made by a not-for-profit film company; and My Winnipeg was made for an obscure Canadian cable channel. And when you compare Maddin's output over the last decade with official Canadian filmmakers (David Cronenberg's post-Spider downward spiral in particular should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens to talented filmmakers under the brutalities of the marketplace, and even though I liked Where the Truth Lies, despite or rather because it was a big budget Atom Egoyan movie, his subsequent Chloe is even more of a sell-out than Cronenberg's recent films), the advantages of Maddin's independence over Cronenberg and Egoyan's servitude should be apparent to anyone.Responding to this post without mentioning Egoyan or Cronenberg, I'd have to say that the main reason why Maddin remains independent is because of his film style. I don't think many studios are clamoring to sign a filmmaker who films A) almost exclusively in B/W, B) on 8mm film stock, C) almost entirely silent films, and D) subject matter that is often considered taboo.


Best director of the last decade? I see your Maddin, and raise you a Michael Haneke: Code inconnu: Récit incomplet de divers voyages, La Pianiste, Le Temps du loup, Caché, The White Ribbon: A German Children's Story.
Haneke would probably be number two. The Time of the Wolf and his Funny Games remake are weaker than any feature I've seen from Maddin.

[megladon8]

Ugh...Michael Haneke is insufferable.

[Spinal]

Haneke is one of the best, but I will, perhaps unsurprisingly, take Lars von Trier. Even taking into account the stinker, The Boss of it All, it's hard to top Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Manderlay and Antichrist.

[MacGuffin]

Ugh...Michael Haneke is insufferable.

Expand your mind. Funny Games is pandering, but he's one of the most unique contemporary voices in all of cinema. By the way, you should check to see if your public library system has an interlibrary loan so you can get Maddin DVDs from other library systems.

[Sven]

Lurv George Stevens.

[Qrazy]

I agree for the most part, though I don't think Gunga Din is necessarily bad, more just mediocre. Swing Time on the other hand, is simply wonderful.

It's competently made in a formal sense, but every element of the content it expresses catapults it down to crap territory.

[Spinal]

The charges of pandering in Funny Games are grossly inflated. Watch it again. The narrative breaks are very brief and handled with humor. I'm constantly bewildered by why people get so bent out of shape over it.

[Raiders]

I'll go with Kiyoshi Kurosawa.

[soitgoes...]

I don't understand why Guy Maddin's films aren't more readily available to me here in Ottawa.

The library doesn't have many of them in circulation, video stores don't rent those kinds of movies, and to buy them is like $25+.

I mean, the guy is one of Canada's leading filmmakers, and the capital city of the country doesn't have his work easily available to its citizens?

Balls.I don't know what universities are in Ottawa, and I'm not sure how their lending system works, but a lot of college libraries will let you borrow even without being a student. Students obviously get first priority, but that usually isn't a problem.

[Qrazy]

Expand your mind. Funny Games is pandering, but he's one of the most unique contemporary voices in all of cinema. By the way, you should check to see if your public library system has an interlibrary loan so you can get Maddin DVDs from other library systems.

Don't be condescending. Personally I don't like Haneke much either for reasons I've expressed many times in the past. Time of the Wolf is my favorite because it doesn't express what I find to be Haneke's condescension.

[soitgoes...]

It's competently made in a formal sense, but every element of the content it expresses catapults it down to crap territory.
Gunga Din or Swing Time?

[Qrazy]

The charges of pandering in Funny Games are grossly inflated. Watch it again. The narrative breaks are very brief and handled with humor. I'm constantly bewildered by why people get so bent out of shape over it.

I don't think pandering is the problem with the film at all.

[Qrazy]

Gunga Din or Swing Time?

Gunga Din, I haven't seen Swing Time yet.

[Spinal]

I don't think pandering is the problem with the film at all.

Substitute the word 'condescending' and my opinion still stands.

[MacGuffin]

The charges of pandering in Funny Games are grossly inflated. Watch it again. The narrative breaks are very brief and handled with humor. I'm constantly bewildered by why people get so bent out of shape over it.

I might eventually, but it's just such a painful movie. It uses violence against violence; fire against fire. It's not a bad movie by any means—technically, it's basically as competent as a lot of his films, but nowhere near a technical giant like The Time of the Wolf—it's just a wholesomely annoying one.


I'll go with Kiyoshi Kurosawa.

Good call; in my top five contemporary directors.


Don't be condescending.

I've talked with megladon before and he and I share the same opinion on Funny Games. I figured he hadn't ventured too far into Haneke's oeuvre, so I was simply suggesting he do so.

[Spinal]

I'll go with Kiyoshi Kurosawa.

Only seen two of his films, but that seems reasonable to me.

[Spinal]

It uses violence against violence ...


So does Ran.

[MacGuffin]

So does Ran.

I haven't seen it. I just know violence and warfare is deeply rooted in Japanese culture.

[soitgoes...]

Gunga Din, I haven't seen Swing Time yet.Oh, okay. I was worried.

I'm not about to defend a film that I don't care much about one way or the other. It was entertaining enough, but at the same time there was a level of crap there. I would say it is his worst film of his I've seen, but that would be a lie because I've seen The Greatest Story Ever Told whose title is very ironic. If that was the greatest story ever told then there really shouldn't be anymore stories, because all stories must therefore be steaming piles of shit.

[Spinal]

I haven't seen it. I just know violence and warfare is deeply rooted in Japanese culture.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Your accusation is that you can't simultaneously depict violence and stand against it. I'm saying, of course you can.

[soitgoes...]

I just know violence and warfare is deeply rooted in Japanese culture.Substitute Japanese with every.

[MacGuffin]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Your accusation is that you can't simultaneously depict violence and stand against it. I'm saying, of course you can.

It's not really the depiction of violence that bothers me, it's to the effect that Haneke uses the violence in the film to put himself at a higher stature than the audience.

[MacGuffin]

Substitute Japanese with every.

True, but for me, violence has always seemed more "distinctive" in Japanese culture, if that makes sense. I'd like to claim I know a lot about Japanese culture, but the truth is, I don't, so I couldn't use the proper words to rightfully articulate what I am trying to express.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Joon-Ho Bong? Granted, I've only seen two of his films (Host and Memories), but I loved them both dearly.

[Qrazy]

Substitute the word 'condescending' and my opinion still stands.

Yeah, but I wouldn't constrain that surprise to Funny Games alone. I think this is a more general difference we both have in approach/reaction to a certain style of filmmaking (Von Trier, Haneke, Godard maybe?). Where you feel challenged by their content I'm just put off by the form of their social critique (whereas I can get on board with Kieslowski's, German's, Wajda's, Jancso's, Bunuel's, etc)... Von Trier and Haneke on the other hand establish these extremely systematic condemnatory type films. I respect their formal achievements but I don't care for their world view at all.

[Spinal]

It's not really the depiction of violence that bothers me, it's to the effect that Haneke uses the violence in the film to put himself at a higher stature than the audience.

Why is that bothersome to you?

[Qrazy]

I've talked with megladon before and he and I share the same opinion on Funny Games. I figured he hadn't ventured too far into Haneke's oeuvre, so I was simply suggesting he do so.

Oh okay, sorry, I too think Meg might like Time of the Wolf.

[MacGuffin]

Why is that bothersome to you?

Because he's generalizing and stereotyping his audience.

[MacGuffin]

Oh okay, sorry, I too think Meg might like Time of the Wolf.

No worries. The Time of the Wolf is easily Haneke's most accessible.

[Spinal]

Because he's generalizing and stereotyping his audience.

Perhaps I see it differently. If a filmmaker suggests that I enjoy the depiction of violence, I feel that I have the freedom to answer for myself yes or no or maybe. I don't take the charge personally. I recognize and appreciate it as an artistic device employed to stir me in a different way.

[soitgoes...]

True, but for me, violence has always seemed more "distinctive" in Japanese culture, if that makes sense. I'd like to claim I know a lot about Japanese culture, but the truth is, I don't, so I couldn't use the proper words to rightfully articulate what I am trying to express.I don't really see it. If you're going off of film, Hollywood films are every bit as violent as Japanese films. If you're going off of actual history, well every culture has had their share of violence in their past. I'm not sure what makes the violence in Japanese culture "distinctive" to you.

[MacGuffin]

Perhaps I see it differently. If a filmmaker suggests that I enjoy the depiction of violence, I feel that I have the freedom to answer for myself yes or no or maybe. I don't take the charge personally. I recognize and appreciate it as an artistic device employed to stir me in a different way.

I guess my problem is that it doesn't seem like a very significant artistic device, much less one that has me looking to praise its director. Similarly, I feel a movie like Antichrist (or even Saw) subconsciously poses the same "device" simply by using violence in a way that is more over-the-top than most films. The problem should not be a matter of whether violence in a movie is necessary or not, it should be a matter of how it's used. I feel with Funny Games, Haneke refuses to look past violence in movies on a superficial level and merely looks at violence by itself, rather than how it is formally and technically presented within the movie.

But to each his own.


I don't really see it. If you're going off of film, Hollywood films are every bit as violent as Japanese films. If you're going off of actual history, well every culture has had their share of violence in their past. I'm not sure what makes the violence in Japanese culture "distinctive" to you.

I understand that completely. I just see movies like Harakiri and Seven Samurai where the warfare, violence and even suicide are all synonymous with pride.

[Adam]

Director of the last decade was Gondry, for me. Two of the most singular, lovely and honest romances in ESotSM and especially Science of Sleep and then the pure and joyous 21st century Capra visions that are Be Kind Rewind and Dave Chappelle's Block Party. And of course he also put out quite a few of the greatest music videos ever filmed

1cGoDns8wTA

If only Human Nature didn't exist...

[Philosophe_rouge]

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Giant. It is a little long and a little silly, but it is one of the few epics of the era that I can stomach. I really loved the family dynamic, and especially Elizabeth Taylor's character. It's hardly a favourite, but it's good fun.

In my somewhat limited experience with Stevens' work, he's only made one truly spectacular film, The More the Merrier. It is a delicious screwball comedy that is perfectly endearing, hilarious and is probably the best sex comedy Preston Sturges didn't make from the era. In particular the scenes with Joel McCrae and Jean Arthur having conversations through a paper thin wall via a shared window are spectacularly intimate and refreshingly romantic. I am also quite fond of A Place in the Sun, but I don't remember it all that well. Has some beautiful cinematography at least.

Most of his other work that I've seen is either average at best or outright bad. I suppose in the old Hollywood system, the fact you are making so many films, the odds are that eventually you'll make a good one or two.

[megladon8]

Expand your mind. Funny Games is pandering, but he's one of the most unique contemporary voices in all of cinema. By the way, you should check to see if your public library system has an interlibrary loan so you can get Maddin DVDs from other library systems.


I bought the Michael Haneke DVD set a couple of years ago because of the intense praise he got 'round these parts.

I watched four of the films and disliked every one of them.


Philosophe Rouge, I'll be sure to check out The More the Merrier!

[MacGuffin]

I bought the Michael Haneke DVD set a couple of years ago because of the intense praise he got 'round these parts.

I watched four of the films and disliked every one of them.

Too bad.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've seen three Haneke. I'm eh on his Funny Games USA, am mildly captivated by The Time of the Wolf and I adore Cache.

[number8]

My problem with Funny Games has always been that the movie, by being merely a movie, defeats its own conclusion.

[megladon8]

Too bad.


I'll watch Time of the Wolf sometime, as it's one of the ones I didn't bother watching.

But it's not exactly high on my "to watch" list.


The Seventh Continent - 4
The Castle - 5
Funny Games - 5
The Piano Teacher - 5.5

[Philosophe_rouge]

I haven't had a classic Hollywood binge in a while. It would be nice to rediscover some old favourites, maybe delve into some new realms...

[Spinal]

My problem with Funny Games has always been that the movie, by being merely a movie, defeats its own conclusion.

So you're saying that because we know that the situation is staged, there is is really no problem with enjoying whatever content might be there? And that taking pleasure in violent content has no carry-over into the real world?

Just trying to clarify. Not necessarily disagreeing at this point.

[Qrazy]

I'll watch Time of the Wolf sometime, as it's one of the ones I didn't bother watching.

But it's not exactly high on my "to watch" list.


The Seventh Continent - 4
The Castle - 5
Funny Games - 5
The Piano Teacher - 5.5

In an effort to spark your interest I'll just say that aside from Lopushansky's films, Time of the Wolf is one of the most hard hitting representations of a post-apocalyptic world I've seen.

I'd also just like to remind you Match Cutters in general to check out Lopushansky's Letters from a Dead Man and Visitor of a Museum. I'm especially fond of the latter.

[soitgoes...]

I understand that completely. I just see movies like Harakiri and Seven Samurai where the warfare, violence and even suicide are all synonymous with pride.
Understandable. For every Harakiri and Seven Samurai there is a Tokyo Story and Ikiru.

I'm not really wanting to delve into semantics much more, but suicide in Japanese film I think is more because of shame than pride, but I suppose the words are just two sides of the same coin, so whatever.

[soitgoes...]

The Seventh Continent - 4
The Castle - 5
Funny Games - 5
The Piano Teacher - 5.5
Oof.

[MacGuffin]

I haven't even seen The Castle. I think aside from his early Austrian television work, it's the only Haneke feature I haven't watched yet.

[MacGuffin]

And why not. Haneke ranked and rated:

1. Caché - ****
2. Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys - ****
3. The White Ribbon - ***½
4. The Time of the Wolf - ***
5. 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance - ***
6. The Piano Teacher - **½
7. The Seventh Continent - **½
8. Benny's Video - **½
9. Funny Games U.S. - **
10. Funny Games - **

I've been meaning to rewatch The Piano Teacher and I guess I haven't seen Lumiere and Company, which he's submitted a short to.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My issue with Funny Games is that it shoots itself in the foot by creating sympathetic characters, shooting its thriller elements with great care and craft, and then presuming that the audience is watching for violence rather than suspense. To the point that it destroys what good there was in the film in pursuit of some tawdry commentary on titillation.

[endingcredits]

The White Ribbon - 9.5
Hidden - 9
Code Unknown - 9
Funny Games - 7
The Castle - 6
The Piano Teacher - 5.5

[transmogrifier]

Ugh...Michael Haneke is insufferable.

Maybe, maybe not. But he makes awesome movies, and that is all I care about.

[megladon8]

Maybe, maybe not. But he makes awesome movies, and that is all I care about.


I was talking about his movies.

[transmogrifier]

The charges of pandering in Funny Games are grossly inflated. Watch it again. The narrative breaks are very brief and handled with humor. I'm constantly bewildered by why people get so bent out of shape over it.

Viewers like meta, unless it is directed at them. I guess.

But I agree with you. It is a straightforward film with a clear thesis that is well-delivered and gets people talking. Point, Haneke.

[transmogrifier]

I was talking about his movies.

Then you are wrong. No-one could possibly watch Code Unknown and think it insufferable. Sure, you may not like it, and good for you, but there is nothing smug nor condescending about it. Same goes for Cache and Time of the Wolf.

[megladon8]

Then you are wrong. No-one could possibly watch Code Unknown and think it insufferable. Sure, you may not like it, and good for you, but there is nothing smug nor condescending about it. Same goes for Cache and Time of the Wolf.


I didn't say anything about smug or condescending. I said insufferable. Because I don't like his movies.

[transmogrifier]

Though I will say, The Piano Teacher is not a very good movie at all. Mainly because I have never given a shit about movies that focus on the neuroses of a character and treat them like they are automatically interesting. A crazy person doing crazy shit because they are crazy has next to zero dramatic worth to me (in the absence of plot, that is)

[Raiders]

I'm willing to give Haneke another chance. Cache seems like the best bet though I actually want to see The Piano Teacher the most.

EDIT: Heh. My opinion is not related to trans' post... maybe...

[MacGuffin]

Though I will say, The Piano Teacher is not a very good movie at all. Mainly because I have never given a shit about movies that focus on the neuroses of a character and treat them like they are automatically interesting. A crazy person doing crazy shit because they are crazy has next to zero dramatic worth to me.

I think there's a little more to the movie than that. ;)

[transmogrifier]

I didn't say anything about smug or condescending. I said insufferable. Because I don't like his movies.

I've always taken insufferable to mean that you can't stand their opinions, views, way of looking at the world. Hence my post.

I would never call someone like Dennis Dugan insufferable; he's just a crap director.

[transmogrifier]

I think there's a little more to the movie than that. ;)

No, there's not. At least to me. If there is, Haneke fails completely to convey it. I was supremely bored with the tired psychological randomness of the blank-faced, dull title character. No thanks.

[megladon8]

I've always taken insufferable to mean that you can't stand their opinions, views, way of looking at the world. Hence my post.

I would never call someone like Dennis Dugan insufferable; he's just a crap director.



in·suf·fer·a·ble   [in-suhf-er-uh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
not to be endured; intolerable; unbearable

Seems appropriate. I don't like his movie. Find them difficult to sit through and maintain interest.

[MacGuffin]

I won't even bother. Sometimes, I wonder the point of getting involved in debates like these when there's clearly no changing the other persons' mind.

[Qrazy]

Then you are wrong. No-one could possibly watch Code Unknown and think it insufferable. Sure, you may not like it, and good for you, but there is nothing smug nor condescending about it. Same goes for Cache and Time of the Wolf.

Cache is condescending.

[transmogrifier]

Seems appropriate. I don't like his movie. Find them difficult to sit through and maintain interest.

Again, I was just reacting to the word as I see it used. We can drop the subject if it doesn't mesh with your use of the word. But you are right about The Piano Teacher at least.

[transmogrifier]

Cache is condescending.

Explain.

[megladon8]

I won't even bother. Sometimes, I wonder the point of getting involved in debates like these when there's clearly no changing the other persons' mind.


I know how you feel, which is why I sometimes just leave.

Though I never enter a discussion wanting to change someone's opinion - I just want them to understand mine, and me theirs.

[transmogrifier]

I won't even bother. Sometimes, I wonder the point of getting involved in debates like these when there's clearly no changing the other persons' mind.

Prove to me that there is something interesting going on in that movie, and I will read it and react. Going into a discussion about art hoping to change someone's mind is a futile exercise IMO.

[MacGuffin]

I know how you feel, which is why I sometimes just leave.

Though I never enter a discussion wanting to change someone's opinion - I just want them to understand mine, and me theirs.

Yes, but it always seems to turn into a debate for me.


Prove to me that there is something interesting going on in that movie, and I will read it and react. Going into a discussion about art hoping to change someone's mind is a futile exercise IMO.

As I said, I need to rewatch the movie, but to claim that the entire movie is centered on one character is simply wrong. The film is about the effects of Huppert on the other characters, and in turn, how these encounters ultimately affect a character like her. To generalize and merely call her neurotic is to generalize a lifetime of film characters.

[megladon8]

I quite enjoy character studies.

[transmogrifier]

I quite enjoy character studies.

She's not a character.

[baby doll]

Though I will say, The Piano Teacher is not a very good movie at all. Mainly because I have never given a shit about movies that focus on the neuroses of a character and treat them like they are automatically interesting. A crazy person doing crazy shit because they are crazy has next to zero dramatic worth to me (in the absence of plot, that is)The protagonist doing crazy shit is the plot (character is action, as they say), but she's not insane; obviously the film is about sexual repression, almost a remake of Marnie.

[MacGuffin]

She's not a character.

Ugh, you see and this is where I get frustrated.

[transmogrifier]

To generalize and merely call her neurotic is to generalize a lifetime of film characters.

To be fair, I'm talking about one character in one movie. And I stand by my categorization. It has no relation to any other character in any other movie. Sorry.

[transmogrifier]

The protagonist doing crazy shit is the plot....

And hence I don't like the film.

[baby doll]

And hence I don't like the film.Dude, it's about the context in which the crazy shit happens, not the shit itself.

[MacGuffin]

To be fair, I'm talking about one character in one movie. And I stand by my categorization. It has no relation to any other character in any other movie. Sorry.

You: I don't like The Piano Teacher because it has a character doing crazy shit and expects us to find that interesting.
Me: Her encounters ultimately affect others and herself. There's more to it than her being neurotic.
You: Yes, but I'm only talking about the one character. Not any of the others.

So yeah, your argument against the movie makes no sense.

[transmogrifier]

Ugh, you see and this is where I get frustrated.

She's not. She's a psychological diagnosis. She is not ever once interesting because, much like ghost horror, she was likely to do any old shit at any time, draining away all interest in the absence of any other plot.

[transmogrifier]

Dude, it's about the context in which the crazy shit happens, not the shit itself.

Yes. And in this movie, the context is a huge void.

[megladon8]

I found her character and situational interactions with the other characters to be the most interesting part of the film, and of any film I've seen by Haneke.

[MacGuffin]

She's not. She's a psychological diagnosis. She is not ever once interesting because, much like ghost horror, she was likely to do any old shit at any time, draining away all interest in the absence of any other plot.

Firstly, I don't see how she is not a character. I appreciate you attempting to look at the movie on a deeper level, but she is by any technical sense of the word, a character.

Secondly, I don't see how a movie could be dismissed on the basis of a characters' actions. The movie is merely a documentation of what the character is doing and as such, needs to be looked at on a broader level.

[baby doll]

She's not. She's a psychological diagnosis. She is not ever once interesting because, much like ghost horror, she was likely to do any old shit at any time, draining away all interest in the absence of any other plot.I love Robin Wood.


Erika's behavior (which seems to me, given the data with which Haneke provides us, absolutely logical, step-by-step) can in fact only be understood within the context of our sexual history over the past one hundred years, our 'progress' from neurosis-breeding repression to what some have hopefully regarded as sexual liberation, which has proven, in practice, to be simply another form of imprisonment.

[transmogrifier]

You: I don't like The Piano Teacher because it has a character doing crazy shit and expects us to find that interesting.
Me: Her encounters ultimately affect others and herself. There's more to it than her being neurotic.
You: Yes, but I'm only talking about the one character. Not any of the others.

So yeah, your argument against the movie makes no sense.

Um, if the main character is the one ulitmately affecting the other characters, and I don't like that main character, then.....? Where is the logical problem with disliking the movie?

If you have a character apt to do something completely nuts at regular intervals, and I find the motivation and reasoning to be a total contrivance, I couldn't care less about how the other characters react, because they are reacting to a contrivance.

[transmogrifier]

I love Robin Wood.

If you are trying to make me dislike the movie even more, well done.

[baby doll]

Yes. And in this movie, the context is a huge void.Now you're just denying what's actually on screen, right in front of you. Her relationship with her mother, who throws a giant fit when she comes home three hours late, her inability to explore her sexuality outside of Vienna sex shops, in secrecy as if she were doing something dirty, is clearly dictating her behavior, and how she interacts with Benoît Magimel's character.

[megladon8]

You don't have to like the main character of a movie to like the movie.

Isn't this something we've been over and over and over around here?

[MacGuffin]

Um, if the main character is the one ulitmately affecting the other characters, and I don't like that main character, then.....? Where is the logical problem with disliking the movie?

If you have a character apt to do something completely nuts at regular intervals, and I find the motivation and reasoning to be a total contrivance, I couldn't care less about how the other characters react, because they are reacting to a contrivance.

See post 45461. The logical problem is that you are dismissing the movie on the basis of a characters' actions, when the movie is, as baby doll says, about the context in which those actions occur. It's simply not fair to dismiss a movie as a whole because you don't like a character. I don't care which movie you are talking about—there's always going to be more to it than that.

[transmogrifier]

Now you're just denying what's actually on screen, right in front of you. Her relationship with her mother, who throws a giant fit when she comes home three hours late, her inability to explore her sexuality outside of Vienna sex shops, in secrecy as if she were doing something dirty, is clearly dictating her behavior, and how she interacts with Benoît Magimel's character.

Hey, I'm happy you got something out of the movie. But it is still nothing but a series of psychologically disturbed actions that contained nothing of interest for me. The fact that it might have been her mother that fucked her up doesn't deepen the movie. It is still just a series of "Hey, look at how fucked up she is!" scenes minus any type of emotional or dramatic energy. I need more from a film than a historical investigation of sexual liberation - to me, that is something that is only interesting in the context of interesting characters and plot, and emotional engagement. Otherwise it's the world's most banal PowerPoint presentation.

[transmogrifier]

You don't have to like the main character of a movie to like the movie.

Isn't this something we've been over and over and over around here?

If that's what you think I'm arguing, then you are thinking the wrong thing.

[Qrazy]

Explain.

Cache Spoilers

The film is all about culpability. There's lots of general voyeuristic sub-text to the film but the political sub-text to me suggests that Haneke holds the people of any given nation responsible for the unfortunate violent incidents that may occur in relation to a nation's government. That is to say the tone and thrust of the film felt to me as if Haneke wanted to indict the main character Georges for his act of selfishness as a child. That Georges was right to feel crushing guilt for the white lie he told. It seemed to me that Haneke does hold him primarily responsible for what Majid does to himself.

Extrapolated onto a political level this seemed to me an indictment of all of the French (not only those who were directly involved in the violence of the Algerian conflict) but those who didn't make a pro-active effort to help the Algerians or even those who remained silent. Certain snippets of dialogue (I can't recall the specific lines) in the film to me suggested that all of these groups of people are equally guilty.

Then Haneke shows ongoing footage of the Iraq War in the Laurent's apartment (this parallels the French/Algerian conflict) which to me seems like an indictment of all those Americans who aren't pro-actively trying to end the Iraq war. In both circumstances I feel that by doling out responsibility and focusing on guilt Haneke misses the mark that more delicate social commentary could provide (i.e. The Battle of Algiers). On the political level of the film Haneke is in my opinion only acting as a provocateur.

All that being said I enjoy other elements about the film... it's puzzle like nature, it's new approach to the voyeuristic angle, strong formal elements, etc. But I don't respect what I feel to be it's political slant.

[baby doll]

Hey, I'm happy you got something out of the movie. But it is still nothing but a series of psychologically disturbed actions that contained nothing of interest for me. The fact that it might have been her mother that fucked her up doesn't deepen the movie. It is still just a series of "Hey, look at how fucked up she is!" scenes minus any type of emotional or dramatic energy. I need more from a film than a historical investigation of sexual liberation - to me, that is something that is only interesting in the context of interesting characters and plot, and emotional engagement. Otherwise it's the world's most banal PowerPoint presentation.Except the tone of the movie is a little different from, "Hey, look how fucked up she is"; it's more like, "Look how fucked up society is," and Huppert's character is a lot more sympathetic than Magimel, who's supposedly more normal. (There's an implied parallel between Huppert and her mother, and one of her students.) And I can't think of many movie sequences as emotional or dramatic as the opening sequence where her mother's bitching out at her, or the sequence when she brings Magimel back to her mother's place for some S&M roleplay.

[transmogrifier]

See post 45461. The logical problem is that you are dismissing the movie on the basis of a characters' actions, when the movie is, as baby doll says, about the context in which those actions occur. It's simply not fair to dismiss a movie as a whole because you don't like a character. I don't care which movie you are talking about—there's always going to be more to it than that.

The film is based around the psychology of its main character. That IS the context. If I find that psychology, and the actions that stem from it, to be boring, inexplicable and randomly assigned, then I'm not going to like the movie, am I? How could I? And that's why I don't like the movie. The character is a poorly written husk of amateur psychology.

It's like the aliens in Indy IV. If I find them cheap, tacked-on and totally ill-fitting to the Indy universe, I'm not going to give two shits that they provide the motivation for Indy to do heroic shit at the end, or that they end up killing off one of the main characters. They are still a shitty choice for the movie.

[baby doll]

If I find that psychology, and the actions that stem from it, to be boring, inexplicable and randomly assigned, then I'm not going to like the movie, am I? How could I?Except that they're not if you have the slightest empathy for the character, instead of viewing her as a crazy person acting out the symptoms of her illness.

[transmogrifier]

Cache Spoilers

The film is all about culpability. There's lots of general voyeuristic sub-text to the film but the political sub-text to me suggests that Haneke holds the people of any given nation responsible for the unfortunate violent incidents that may occur in relation to a nation's government. That is to say the tone and thrust of the film felt to me as if Haneke wanted to indict the main character Georges for his act of selfishness as a child. That Georges was right to feel crushing guilt for the white lie he told. It seemed to me that Haneke does hold him primarily responsible for what Majid does to himself.

Extrapolated onto a political level this seemed to me an indictment of all of the French (not only those who were directly involved in the violence of the Algerian conflict) but those who didn't make a pro-active effort to help the Algerians or even those who remained silent. Certain snippets of dialogue (I can't recall the specific lines) in the film to me suggested that all of these groups of people are equally guilty.

Then Haneke shows ongoing footage of the Iraq War in the Laurent's apartment (this parallels the French/Algerian conflict) which to me seems like an indictment of all those Americans who aren't pro-actively trying to end the Iraq war. In both circumstances I feel that by doling out responsibility and focusing on guilt Haneke misses the mark that more delicate social commentary could provide (i.e. The Battle of Algiers). On the political level of the film Haneke is in my opinion only acting as a provocateur.

All that being said I enjoy other elements about the film... it's puzzle like nature, it's new approach to the voyeuristic angle, strong formal elements, etc. But I don't respect what I feel to be it's political slant.

I'm still not sure what is particularly condescending about that. If he wants to equate the two wars, isn't that his right as an artist? You could argue any criticism of anything in a film is condescending, because criticism by its nature implys superiority. I'm not aware of any element within the film that expressly contrasts your political reading with a "superior", filmmaker-endorsed alternative.

[number8]

So you're saying that because we know that the situation is staged, there is is really no problem with enjoying whatever content might be there? And that taking pleasure in violent content has no carry-over into the real world?

Just trying to clarify. Not necessarily disagreeing at this point.

Yes, kind of. We observe thrillers not because we want to see characters get hurt; usually we want them to survive the terrible ordeal. We can see this as a reaffirmation of our survival instincts, or we can see it as simply the journey of the hero overcoming obstacles, and violence is a pretty standard component of a quest's hurdles. Violence in fiction is typically a narrative drama issue, one that Haneke himself employs in this movie and others, and I really don't see that as being a propagation of a culture of violence in the media. I see it as a sign of heightened reality, where the violence is much more staged and far less grotesquely ugly than violence in real life, which are not drawn out, clever or planned.

Funny Games fails because, instead of just trusting its own story to reveal the difference or similarity between screen violence and real violence (the lingering shot of the bloody television is actually the most effective "point" for me), it constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a film, a sham, a made-up thing that's for all intents and purposes a cross between mere entertainment and punditry. Haneke makes the distinction more apparent, and therefore the connection groggier. Why should I feel bad about the peril of this family when the film reminds me time and again that it's all make-believe, whereas good straight thrillers do more to relate us to the characters and therefore make the violence a true turn-off?

[MacGuffin]

The film is based around the psychology of its main character. That IS the context.

Nope. I'm through here.

[transmogrifier]

Except that they're not if you have the slightest empathy for the character, instead of viewing her as a crazy person acting out the symptoms of her illness.

Am I right to infer from this that it is my job as a viewer to go into a film with already established empathy for a character I have never met before (or, more precisely, a screenplay I have never seen staged before) in order to forgive them (or more precisely, the screenplay) for acting in ways that irritate me?

Because I'm not prepared to do that.

[baby doll]

Am I right to infer from this that it is my job as a viewer to go into a film with already established empathy for a character I have never met before (or, more precisely, a screenplay I have never seen staged before) in order to forgive them (or more precisely, the screenplay) for acting in ways that irritate me?

Because I'm not prepared to do that.No, you should infer that the character isn't sick, it's her situation that's sick, and the film clearly intends for us to empathize with her. It's not saying, "Look how crazy this woman is" (and if it were, it would be a bad film), it's saying, "Here's her situation, and this is why she behaves this way." You make it sound like she's acting out randomly, as if Haneke sat around trying to think of crazy things for Huppert to do just for his own amusement.

[transmogrifier]

Actually, Qrazy, I think we need to express what we mean by the word condescending, as we might simply be battling semantics here.

To me, being condescending involves treating others as if they were deficient in some way and thus unable to accurately choose the correct (according to the person being condescending) course of action or state of being. It does not involve simply criticizing an equal for a perceived error of judgement.

Correct?

[baby doll]

Yes, kind of. We observe thrillers not because we want to see characters get hurt; usually we want them to survive the terrible ordeal. We can see this as a reaffirmation of our survival instincts, or we can see it as simply the journey of the hero overcoming obstacles, and violence is a pretty standard component of a quest's hurdles. Violence in fiction is typically a narrative drama issue, one that Haneke himself employs in this movie and others, and I really don't see that as being a propagation of a culture of violence in the media. I see it as a sign of heightened reality, where the violence is much more staged and far less grotesquely ugly than violence in real life, which are not drawn out, clever or planned.

Funny Games fails because, instead of just trusting its own story to reveal the difference or similarity between screen violence and real violence (the lingering shot of the bloody television is actually the most effective "point" for me), it constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a film, a sham, a made-up thing that's for all intents and purposes a cross between mere entertainment and punditry. Haneke makes the distinction more apparent, and therefore the connection groggier. Why should I feel bad about the peril of this family when the film reminds me time and again that it's all make-believe, whereas good straight thrillers do more to relate us to the characters and therefore make the violence a true turn-off?There are plenty of good, straight thrillers, and if that's all Haneke wanted to do, he could easily make a film like Winter's Bone; he certainly doesn't lack for craftsmanship. And despite all the Brechtian hijinks, I did empathize with the family's situation as it develops step-by-step, almost logically, and so on the one hand, I did have the Pavlovian response to it that other you get from a good, straight thriller, and in addition to that, the film forced me to think about how I was responding to the material. For instance, I think the key scene in the movie is the one where the wife or somebody gets a gun are shoots one of their tormentors only to have it rewound and undone. At first I was like, "Fuck yeah!" Then I was like, "Fuck!" And then I was like, "I see. Well played, Haneke."

[transmogrifier]

No, you should infer that the character isn't sick, it's her situation that's sick, and the film clearly intends for us to empathize with her. It's not saying, "Look how crazy this woman is" (and if it were, it would be a bad film), it's saying, "Here's her situation, and this is why she behaves this way." You make it sound like she's acting out randomly, as if Haneke sat around trying to think of crazy things for Huppert to do just for his own amusement.

It doesn't really matter what Haneke did or didn't intend; all I can react to is how I perceive the film (which is clearly different to the way you did). But my opinion is, if I can't buy the actions of a character in terms of the context of the film - and I simply can't, because it is a parade of blankfaced self-sabotage, which interests me not a jot - then I'm not going to get anything out of an attempt to explain it, because I can't shake the ponderousness of how her character is presented, and how little I cared about what she was doing.

And that's that.

[baby doll]

It doesn't really matter what Haneke did or didn't intend; all I can react to is how I perceive the film (which is clearly different to the way you did). But my opinion is, if I can't buy the actions of a character in terms of the context of the film - and I simply can't, because it is a parade of blankfaced self-sabotage, which interests me not a jot - then I'm not going to get anything out of an attempt to explain it, because I can't shake the ponderousness of how her character is presented, and how little I cared about what she was doing.

And that's that.But it's not simply blank-faced. Granted, Huppert's character is all about control, and not giving away her emotions, but there are lots of scenes where the facade cracks.

[Qrazy]

Hey, I'm happy you got something out of the movie. But it is still nothing but a series of psychologically disturbed actions that contained nothing of interest for me. The fact that it might have been her mother that fucked her up doesn't deepen the movie. It is still just a series of "Hey, look at how fucked up she is!" scenes minus any type of emotional or dramatic energy. I need more from a film than a historical investigation of sexual liberation - to me, that is something that is only interesting in the context of interesting characters and plot, and emotional engagement. Otherwise it's the world's most banal PowerPoint presentation.

I actually had quite a different but similar problem with the film. I find examinations of disturbed characters very fascinating, but I found the examination in the film simply too facile. The basis for and examination of her neuroses didn't strike me as very revealing. I liked all the dialogue about music though.

[Bosco B Thug]

It doesn't really matter what Haneke did or didn't intend; all I can react to is how I perceive the film (which is clearly different to the way you did). But my opinion is, if I can't buy the actions of a character in terms of the context of the film - and I simply can't, because it is a parade of blankfaced self-sabotage, which interests me not a jot - then I'm not going to get anything out of an attempt to explain it, because I can't shake the ponderousness of how her character is presented, and how little I cared about what she was doing.

And that's that. This is better explained. Throw some blame on the ponderousness of the presentation. And I can see where you're coming from, the film quite a parade of outrageous behavior and Haneke being a director who errs on the side of clinical exercises in shock and dismay. But, in more wish to assist than to presume understanding, or even to debate, your opinion, I do think you will not help your case by pushing the idea that this character only exists to "irritate you."

[Qrazy]

I'm still not sure what is particularly condescending about that. If he wants to equate the two wars, isn't that his right as an artist? You could argue any criticism of anything in a film is condescending, because criticism by its nature implys superiority. I'm not aware of any element within the film that expressly contrasts your political reading with a "superior", filmmaker-endorsed alternative.

It's incredibly condescending and also kind of naive and irritating attitude for Haneke to take to impose responsibility and guilt on a huge mass of people for a conflict which they have little to no control over. It also isn't nearly as cut and dried as the 'imperialists' vs the 'poor oppressed third world'. In the much more nuanced film The Battle of Algiers neither side is in the right or in the wrong, as it is in reality, the film represents the struggle as a much more complicated issue than that. As an American frankly I personally don't feel guilty about the Iraq War and I don't see that I should. I was born in America through no choice of my own, I didn't vote for Bush and I had no control over my country going to war. I don't think it's a just war and I'm glad we're finally withdrawing, but screw Haneke for assuming the moral superiority to dole out guilt and responsibility to an entire populace. I don't see that he has any right to do that. It's akin to a hardcore environmentalist vegan who sneers at you for having bacon and eggs for breakfast and then driving to work.

As a counterpoint to your generalization about criticism, I think there are certainly gradations... The criticism of bureaucracy in Kurosawa's Ikiru is not condescending, the criticism of the arbitrary nature of many social practices in Bunuel's The Phantom of Liberty is not condescending, the criticism of hedonism in La Dolce Vita is not condescending and the criticism of war in Wajda's trilogy is not condescending. But I do find the criticism of huge groups of people for not endorsing the political perspective Haneke embraces to be quite condescending.

[megladon8]

I have to shake my head when people claim that the only reason James Dean is still held in high regard is because of his death. That his dying so young is what made him legendary.

When I watch his films I see an incredibly talented young man with charisma coming out of his pores.

[number8]

There are plenty of good, straight thrillers, and if that's all Haneke wanted to do, he could easily make a film like Winter's Bone; he certainly doesn't lack for craftsmanship. And despite all the Brechtian hijinks, I did empathize with the family's situation as it develops step-by-step, almost logically, and so on the one hand, I did have the Pavlovian response to it that other you get from a good, straight thriller, and in addition to that, the film forced me to think about how I was responding to the material. For instance, I think the key scene in the movie is the one where the wife or somebody gets a gun are shoots one of their tormentors only to have it rewound and undone. At first I was like, "Fuck yeah!" Then I was like, "Fuck!" And then I was like, "I see. Well played, Haneke."

I hated that. Especially when the same point was already made more effectively with the knife red herring. This is what I mean by the film's fourth wall gimmick becoming its message's own undoing.

[endingcredits]

Cache is condescending.

I used to think this. Now, I just find it manipulative. This is a strength in my opinion.

[Derek]

mmm pre-code

Yup, it's the dessert of Classical Hollywood's smorgasbord.


Weekend:
* Perriot le Fou (Godard)

Ah, my favorite Godard. I'd love to heard thoughts once you see it.


Made a second attempt at Flowing, and now feeling glum for not having any compelling defense for my disengagement throughout, aside from "borrrrrring". In fact, I'm even struggling to recall what happened in it aside from some financial troubles and familial conflict amongst a geisha house whose inhabitants I can barely distinguish between outside of their age, so I don't even know if I should be adding a rating to my sig. Still keen for When a Woman Ascends the Stairs; maybe ensemble-piece Naruse just isn't for me (very much liked Repast and Sound of the Mountain).

If it's any consolation, it's my least favorite Naruse. Late Chrysanthemums is a much more successful ensemble piece.


I don't understand why Guy Maddin's films aren't more readily available to me here in Ottawa.

It's because Ottawa is awful. Haven't we been over this? ;)


I would never call someone like Dennis Dugan insufferable; he's just a crap director.

I motion we make Dennis Dugan MC's personal whipping boy. Bay, Sommers, Boll, etc. already get their just deserts, but Dugan's been flying under the crap radar for too many years.

[Dukefrukem]

I would never call someone like Dennis Dugan insufferable; he's just a crap director.

Who consistently knows how to make fun movies that make crap loads of money.

[Duncan]

Meg, you know you can get your library to request DVDs, right? Ottawa is a fine town. You have every single national museum, most bands touring Canada will stop there for a show, it's very pleasant and clean, from what I remember, and the country is, you know, run from there. There are lots of government jobs + all the benefits and pensions that come with those. It's also not exceptionally far from Montreal and Toronto if you want to go to either place for an urban weekend.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Nah. Meg's right. Ottawa sucks.

[Qrazy]

I used to think this. Now, I just find it manipulative. This is a strength in my opinion.

Not sure why it can't be both.

[megladon8]

Meg, you know you can get your library to request DVDs, right? Ottawa is a fine town. You have every single national museum, most bands touring Canada will stop there for a show, it's very pleasant and clean, from what I remember, and the country is, you know, run from there. There are lots of government jobs + all the benefits and pensions that come with those. It's also not exceptionally far from Montreal and Toronto if you want to go to either place for an urban weekend.


Nah, Ottawa is pretty shitty.

The city gave in to complaints from elderly residents who said that BluesFest was "too loud".

Give me a fucking break.

[Duncan]

Nah, Ottawa is pretty shitty.

The city gave in to complaints from elderly residents who said that BluesFest was "too loud".

Give me a fucking break.

From Wikipedia:

"The Cisco Ottawa Bluesfest has become the largest blues festival in Canada, and the second largest in North America.

In 2009, the festival was held between July 8 and 19. Some of the featured acts were The Black Keys, Jeff Beck, Jackson Browne, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sam Roberts Band, Loreena McKennitt, Matisyahu, Stone Temple Pilots, Xavier Rudd, Joe Cocker, Neko Case, Our Lady Peace, Blue Rodeo, Ice Cube, King Sunny Ade & His African Beats, Cake, Ludacris, Drive By Truckers, Live, Paolo Nutini, Jennifer Warnes, Spencer Davis, Estelle, Femi Kuti, Mick Taylor, Ani DiFranco, The National, Kiss, Styx, Busta Rhymes, DeVotchKa, Girl Talk, The Dead Weather, Toots & the Maytals, The Alan Parsons Project, Ornette Coleman, Iron and Wine, Los Lonely Boys, The Zombies, Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings, Metric, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and The Yardbirds.

The 2010 edition included: Carlos Santana, Rush, Iron Maiden, Alexisonfire, Hole, Matthew Good, Marianas Trench, Lights, Arcade Fire, Drake, The Flaming Lips, Keith Urban, Faber Drive,Weezer, Dream Theater, John Hiatt, Down with Webster, Roger Hodgson, Taj Mahal (musician), Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, The B52's, Steve Winwood, The Lost Fingers, Great Big Sea, and Crowded House.[1]"

I mean, I certainly don't like everyone mentioned there, but there are some pretty solid bands and it sounds like a good time to me. For a city of its population, I'd say it's way better than most.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm defending Ottawa.

[megladon8]

Um...how does listing the bands that played refute what I said?

They had to turn the volume down. Because people were complaining that a music festival was too loud.

[Duncan]

Um...how does listing the bands that played refute what I said?

They had to turn the volume down. Because people were complaining that a music festival was too loud.

It doesn't. Just a look-on-the-bright-side comment.

[Sxottlan]

Extreme Movie. A straight to DVD title I caught on Showtime, but it's Robot Chicken approach makes all the skits pretty short and kind of funny.

Best parts, Michael Cera in a rape role play gone wrong: "You can run, but you can't hide from forced sexual intercourse!"

Another part, a guy goes back in time to have sex with Abraham Lincoln and then his girlfriend calls his cell. His response: "I can barely hear you. I'm in 1864. Let me get closer to a window."

[Philosophe_rouge]

Ottawa is nice for a day trip. I wouldn't want to live there. Well, maybe if i was forbidden from living in Montreal maybe. Then i'd only choose Ottawa because it's close enough for me to visit Montreal whenever i wanted.

[MadMan]

All this talk about Haneke reminds me that I haven't seen any of his movies. I've put off Funny Games because I doubt it can live up to the hype, but I'm interested in starting with his earlier movies first and working my way up.

[Rowland]

My reaction to the original Funny Games was mixed at best, whereas I found the remake masterful, fine-tuned in a number of ways that's cumulative effect made for both a more compelling viewing experience and a more thematically sound thesis. It's definitely undervalued, and unfairly dismissed as an exact duplicate of the original. Caché is the best I've seen by him, although I'm open to the argument I've read in some circles that it tends to be overrated by those for whom the film is one of their first exposures to Haneke (as it was for me), while Time of the Wolf has a stunning first act followed by two acts of monotonous doldrums.

[Boner M]

My reaction to the original Funny Games was mixed at best, whereas I found the remake masterful, fine-tuned in a number of ways that's cumulative effect made for both a more compelling viewing experience and a more thematically sound thesis.
Aside from liking the performances more or not having to read subtitles, I find this baffling. 'More thematically sound thesis'? Wha?

[endingcredits]

Ah, my favorite Godard. I'd love to heard thoughts once you see it.


Potential Pierrot le Fou spoilers trickle .

I checked it out last night. Loved it. It was humorous, well acted, and aesthetic. The film is so rich and expansive that it's hard to pin down. That said, here are some of my initial reactions in brief. I thought it blended sociopolitical commentary and criticism of capitalism into the storyline more seamlessly than, say Week End. The indictment is there, it's just not as overt. The sterility of Pierrot's life as a bourgeois husband is brilliantly reflected in the party scene. It's also a very colourful and beautiful film. The scene with him driving Marianne home comes to mind, as does the one with the two of them on the beach gazing at the moon. I also liked how Godard denies the audience full realism in the film. Marrione's look at the camera in the scene with the animals, as if to state the duplicitous nature of all images, is to this effect.

[megladon8]

Lone Star is quite possibly the best film of 1996, and one of the best films of the '90s.

I love John Sayles. I'd give a lot to be able to write like him.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Aside from liking the performances more or not having to read subtitles, I find this baffling. 'More thematically sound thesis'? Wha?

I am also seriously confused. It's the same damn movie Rowly. Shot for shot.

[Rowland]

I have to leave for work in two minutes, so I'll quickly respond with a bit from Alex Jackson that addresses some of the differences in the new Funny Games that I largely agree with:

"(the notion that this family is just a single stop in an ongoing cycle of invasions, connected together like links in a chain, seems to be more clear here. I could also follow the details of the boy‘s escape more closely). The film is also simultaneously hipper and more beatific. The pop art and high art frequencies have both been turned up. Funny Games U.S benefits considerably from being made in our native tongue with actors that we recognize, but the meticulous under-lighting also gives this version a kind of holy glow whereas the original was merely austere. Michael Pitt is more deadpan and less weasely than original cast member Arno Frisch as the head villain Paul. While he is still a post-modern artificially filmic construction, one gets the sense that he is more at peace with himself. You’re less able to condescend to him as a simple sadist. He’s more like a cat absent-mindedly playing with a mouse before he kills it. The infamous static ten-minute shot similarly gets some added life. We’re invited to either ogle Naomi Watts in her underwear or watch the car race behind her. In the original film, the family came off as human beings and we were simply watching them bleed. In this remake, we cannot escape the fact of Watts’ incredible, well, wattage. She becomes virtually as cinematic and artificial as Paul. These minor variations make this remake better than the original, but for the most part this is still a shot-by-shot remake and we are seeing very much the same movie. Haneke hasn’t harmed his film by doing the same thing again in virtually the same way. Funny Games was not really organically made after all. In fact, the film works better than ever. The blood has been drained from it and replaced with embalming fluid, giving it the irresistibly compelling texture of cold plastic."

I also recall it tinkering with the third-wall bursting moments (he cuts out the early wink for instance, I believe).

It runs smoother, it's sexier, it's more refined, polished, and prankish, which makes it less smug, condescending, and ugly, strengthening its thesis as a filmic object to be considered as such merely than just responded to.

[MacGuffin]

I am also seriously confused. It's the same damn movie Rowly. Shot for shot.

To be fair, with different actors and a different setting. If we were using a ten with halves scale, I'd give the remake .5 over the original, but I'd say that should be the extent of the films' differences.

[MacGuffin]

it's sexier

No comprende.

[Qrazy]

In fact, the film works better than ever. The blood has been drained from it and replaced with embalming fluid, giving it the irresistibly compelling texture of cold plastic."


This to me sounds like the absolute least appealing approach to filmmaking ever.

[soitgoes...]

Oh man, I Am Cuba. I'm not exactly sure what I think of it. It's kinda the same feeling I had after watching Kalatozov's The Letter That Was Never Sent. Just an amazing display of technological prowess, but the actual content left me wanting for more. The third short is by far the strongest, but I think if handled by Santiago Álvarez, the first segment could have been amazing. Kalatozov's sense of anti-Americanism just isn't as strong, perhaps biting is a better word, as Álvarez's.

[Qrazy]

Oh man, I Am Cuba. I'm not exactly sure what I think of it. It's kinda the same feeling I had after watching Kalatozov's The Letter That Was Never Sent. Just an amazing display of technological prowess, but the actual content left me wanting for more. The third short is by far the strongest, but I think if handled by Santiago Álvarez, the first segment could have been amazing. Kalatozov's sense of anti-Americanism just isn't as strong, perhaps biting is a better word, as Álvarez's.

Hah! I was with you at the beginning, I wanted more too, but what I wanted was rather more fleshed out characterizations and a stronger narrative throughline rather than more rigorous propaganda! In my opinion I am Cuba edges out The Cranes are Flying on a formal level, but the latter film is much more emotionally subtle, so I might give the edge to Cranes for that alone. I actually rewatched I am Cuba a little while ago and while I still enjoyed the visuals I kind of found it hard to get as invested as I had the first time around. That said I'm still quite a big fan of the film.

[Boner M]

The infamous static ten-minute shot similarly gets some added life. We’re invited to either ogle Naomi Watts in her underwear or watch the car race behind her. In the original film, the family came off as human beings and we were simply watching them bleed. In this remake, we cannot escape the fact of Watts’ incredible, well, wattage. She becomes virtually as cinematic and artificial as Paul. These minor variations make this remake better than the original, but for the most part this is still a shot-by-shot remake and we are seeing very much the same movie.
I wanna bang Naomi Watts more than the Austrian chick too, but that doesn't strengthen the remake's thesis.

[soitgoes...]

Hah! I was with you at the beginning, I wanted more too, but what I wanted was rather more fleshed out characterizations and a stronger narrative throughline rather than more rigorous propaganda! In my opinion I am Cuba edges out The Cranes are Flying on a formal level, but the latter film is much more emotionally subtle, so I might give the edge to Cranes for that alone. I actually rewatched I am Cuba a little while ago and while I still enjoyed the visuals I kind of found it hard to get as invested as I had the first time around. That said I'm still quite a big fan of the film.
If the four stories were somehow interwoven it could've been great. I'm not actually wanting propaganda, but if that's what he is giving me I want it to be great. Instead I was given an exercise in camera wielding greatness by Sergei Urusevsky, yet again. Everything else took the backseat to that. The Cranes Are Flying is able to find a balance between technical greatness and emotional greatness.

[Qrazy]

I wanna bang Naomi Watts more than the Austrian chick too, but that doesn't strengthen the remake's thesis.

But doesn't it? Doesn't it?

Put on your thinking cap Boner.

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/sirup/sirup0904/sirup090400063/4769054-business-man-with-erect-penis-head.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

I have decided to double feature the two Funny Games back-to-back in the eventual future. Cuz I mean how much fun does that sound!!!


Buffalo Bill is probably one of Altman's less impressive and affecting films - I was close to giving it a 7.5 - but it's still a strong and atmospheric work. Its commentary is a bit thudding, everything seriously on-the-nose, and its humor is often broad, also, without much of Altman's off-kilter strangeness and seizing ambiguity to elevate the material.

[Grouchy]

I'd held out on seeing Star Trek so far despite all the good comments, mainly because I'm probably the only person you've known who has never seen an entire episode from the original Star Trek series. I'm so completely unfamiliar with the universe I couldn't muster enough interest for the reboot. Well, now I've seen it, and, although I'm convinced I missed on a lot (the time travel aspect of the plot suggests a familiarity with the "other" timeline I obviously don't have), I had a pretty good time all the same. Not a great movie, but a very good one and a rousing example of the space opera genre.

[SirNewt]

I was wondering if a few of you fine folks could recommend some good documentaries on neuroscience. I'm mostly interested in just about anything wether it's psychobiology or behavioral.

[Bosco B Thug]

I've warmed up a lot to Tropical Malady, most certainly a wondrous and open-hearted movie whose spell over people is completely justified. I still find it uneven - it's not a very tight film, it feels like a lot of "moments" are thrown in there without sustained impact, and Joe definitely steps it up in Syndromes and a Century with much more controlled and carefully orchestrated cinematography - but it's all nitpicks.

I very much like how our point of identification is the rough, experienced soldier character, yet how - even in the first half - the unassuming boy he falls for is the teasing, unaccountably cunning and careful-footed figure of mystery (I love Ed Gonzalez calling out the boy's hand-licking as vaguely condescending). The soldier's earnest hunt for him in the 2nd half follows perfectly organically, and the moody 2nd half I didn't care for before (and still have my qualms with...) really effectively elevates their relationship to the mystic and all-natural.

[Sycophant]

I'm probably the only person you've known who has never seen an entire episode from the original Star Trek series.

I haven't either! I haven't either!

[Sven]

I have also not seen any Star Trek related cinema, of any era.

[Sven]

Buffalo Bill is probably one of Altman's less impressive and affecting films - I was close to giving it a 7.5 - but it's still a strong and atmospheric work. Its commentary is a bit thudding, everything seriously on-the-nose, and its humor is often broad, also, without much of Altman's off-kilter strangeness and seizing ambiguity to elevate the material.

I thought this movie was totally strange and ambiguous and impressive. A milestone Altman entry, I think. Top ten, at least.

[Rowland]

I wanna bang Naomi Watts more than the Austrian chick too, but that doesn't strengthen the remake's thesis.That wasn't the entire point I was making, but okay. Yeah, Naomi Watts' innate sexuality does work to the film's thematic favor.

[Sycophant]

Y'all are right. Harakiri is absolutely incredible. Between this and Samurai Rebellion, Kobayashi is positioned to be one of my favorite filmmakers.

[soitgoes...]

Y'all are right. Harakiri is absolutely incredible. Between this and Samurai Rebellion, Kobayashi is positioned to be one of my favorite filmmakers.
I know, right?

And now for The Human Condition...

[Stay Puft]

I Wish I Knew (Jia 10) ***

Say a few words!

[Boner M]

That wasn't the entire point I was making, but okay. Yeah, Naomi Watts' innate sexuality does work to the film's thematic favor.
Sorry, I've been a grouch about movies recently & using Alex Jackson's words doesn't help matters.

[Dukefrukem]

Back to the Future trilogy on blu-Ray October 26th!!

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/08/89221a3bb06f2e1439c1bd99a0302b 4e/340x.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2009/stoneposter.jpg

[number8]

I think you meant to post that in the Upcoming Films section. The trailer looks kind of dumb.

[Ezee E]

I think you meant to post that in the Upcoming Films section. The trailer looks kind of dumb.
Looks awful.

Said it before, Jovovich is only in shitty movies. Too bad I like her enough to where I see them all. Dummy is her best performance.

[number8]

She was in one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.

[Dukefrukem]

5th Element!

Does Ed Norton have cornrows?

[Ezee E]

More people outside of the Asian cult need to see Mother. Good stuff.

[megladon8]

More people outside of the Asian cult need to see Mother. Good stuff.


Don't tell me what to do.

[number8]

I like Asian cult people because Asian Kool-Aid taste so much better.

[Bosco B Thug]

I thought this movie was totally strange and ambiguous and impressive. A milestone Altman entry, I think. Top ten, at least. It's good, and had its strange and ambiguous moments and elements, but I felt there was no hook, no consistency. Too many characters seemed uninvolved in the thematic fabric. Things were too clear cut, like making Annie Oakley the only humanist in the troupe. Nashville has many caricatures, but it made each surprise us with extreme moments of pathos; this doesn't do that. Also, this employed Nashville's flat, documentary-like directing, but Nashville had much more dense and malleable environments to cover, as opposed to the campground of this set.

It's a really well-done film, but, like I said, it just calls a lot less attention to itself. I'd be interested in people's favorite bits, though. Paul Newman and Will Sampson left the most impression on me. The haunting scene is still stunning.

[soitgoes...]

Say a few words!I liked the idea of the film, and 20-30 minutes into it I thought it was going to be something special. It's beautiful shot and a few of the interviews are absolutely heartwrenching. Two things fell through though. Shanghai and its immediate history is way to large of a subject for the structure of the film. A handful of interviews on their own are great, but it gives no sense of Shanghai. Also there are segments of Tao Zhao wandering the streets of Shanghai that just come off as weird.

[Sycophant]

And now for The Human Condition...

Gonna be doing this very soon!

[StanleyK]

The Incredibles is a very fun and well-made film but I'm seriously bothered by its subtext, which borders on social Darwinism. Its agenda seems to be less about society as a whole watching out for the less fortunate, as it claims it is, and more about praising the supers for their innate (and totally untouchable by the impure pleb) skills, a point it makes through ridiculous strawmen like the suicide guy or Bob's boss. Since the movie gets much love, I'd like to read some counter-arguments.

[megladon8]

The Incredibles is a very fun and well-made film but I'm seriously bothered by its subtext, which borders on social Darwinism. Its agenda seems to be less about society as a whole watching out for the less fortunate, as it claims it is, and more about praising the supers for their innate (and totally untouchable by the impure pleb) skills, a point it makes through ridiculous strawmen like the suicide guy or Bob's boss. Since the movie gets much love, I'd like to read some counter-arguments.


I've seen this argument made against it many times here on MC and it's making me want to re-watch the movie with this in mind.

Because from my memory, this feels like a troublesome "reading too much into it" criticism.

Again, I need to rewatch it with this in mind and see if it feels like it's really there or not.

[number8]

For the record:


People have a real hard time pegging me politically, which I’m fine with. Certain liberals got upset with the lines like, “It’s not a graduation! He’s moving from the fourth grade to the fifth!” And conservatives get upset about my position about weaponry in The Iron Giant, and one guy even thought that the movie was pro-Communist, which is completely ridiculous. And I can’t do anything about how people perceive my films except to say, Well, that ain’t what I was thinkin’. Politically, I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m for the individual, which definitely puts me at odds with this cultural tendency to give everyone a trophy just for showing up. I hate that, because I’m sorry, life doesn’t work that way. There are winners and losers, and losing can actually build character, and the nervousness about failure is a priceless thing that can stimulate you to do your best work.

[Derek]

I've seen this argument made against it many times here on MC and it's making me want to re-watch the movie with this in mind.

Because from my memory, this feels like a troublesome "reading too much into it" criticism.

I wouldn't even call it sub-text. It's the text itself and the implications are pretty clear. I mean, ferchrissakes, the family's non-superhero last name is PARR and wasn't the villain rejected (from something...) and he now wants to steal The Incredibles innate superhero's powers for himself? It's a very Objectivist outlook on the world.

But I do agree that a lot of your "reading too much into it" criticisms are troublesome. ;)

[transmogrifier]

For the record:

The trouble with that quote is that for Bird, as seen through Ratatouille and The Incredibles, it is obvious that he sees winners and losers to be an innate characteristic, not something that can be manufactured or learnt. In the former, the rat can cook from natural talent, and the rest of the film is basically charting the slow realization by the rest of the plebians who dare to think they should be in the kitchen as well. In the latter, superheroes are born, and the main villian is the common person who dares to try to become an equal.

Both films have a terrible political slant. And unfortunately, the rest of the films (plot, jokes etc) doesn't have enough quality to allow me to overlook it.

The two worst Pixar films, by my reckoning, though Cars would be close as well.

[megladon8]

I wouldn't even call it sub-text. It's the text itself and the implications are pretty clear. I mean, ferchrissakes, the family's non-superhero last name is PARR and wasn't the villain rejected (from something...) and he now wants to steal The Incredibles innate superhero's powers for himself? It's a very Objectivist outlook on the world.

But I do agree that a lot of your "reading too much into it" criticisms are troublesome. ;)


I don't understand, though. Why does the supervillain's jealousy of the superheros' powers give the story this aura of Objectivism?

Would you then say that Superman lore has the same message, because in many tellings of the Superman/Lex Luthor rivalry, much of Luthor's hate stems from jealousy over Superman's ability to fly?

[number8]

The trouble with that quote is that for Bird, as seen through Ratatouille and The Incredibles, it is obvious that he sees winners and losers to be an innate characteristic, not something that can be manufactured or learnt. In the former, the rat can cook from natural talent, and the rest of the film is basically charting the slow realization by the rest of the plebians who dare to think they should be in the kitchen as well. In the latter, superheroes are born, and the main villian is the common person who dares to try to become an equal.

I think Bird is just primarily against the forced crippling of people with innate abilities for the sake of equality. Yes, he is in favor of celebrating natural born abilities, but the ending of The Incredibles, where Dash deliberately takes second place, shows a willing to compromise for the "greater good," as long as it's self-prescribed.

I'm not sure how to defend the Syndrome characterization other than the fact that he is obviously meant to be a Lex Luthor analogue to Mr. Incredible's Superman. He's the autodidact whose crime isn't that he builds himself to be a Superman out of jealousy, but that he then uses it to try and destroy the innate Superman rather than just becoming an altruistic Superman himself. The problem is that this isn't really stated obviously in The Incredibles, whereas it's a recurring theme in Superman comics—that if Luthor could get his head out of his ass for one second, he could be mankind's greatest champion, more so than Superman because he acquired his greatness himself.

The opening scene where Mr. Incredible rejects Syndrome for no reason clearly doesn't help, although I believe the movie acknowledges that Mr. Incredible was wrong in doing this.

[megladon8]

I have to say I agree with Brad Bird that celebrating mediocrity so that "everyone is a winner" is a load of B.S.

[DavidSeven]

Yes, I think you can argue that the text of The Incredibles isn't entirely douche-y (as number8 does above me). I like the film, and I think its themes (as morally questionable as they might be) are at least presented in a somewhat thoughtful way. You shouldn't have to agree with a film's moral viewpoint or politics to appreciate the work anyway.

But Bird just comes across as plain smug in Ratatouille. It's pretty off-putting, and he conveys a lot more arrogance than he did in The Incredibles. Might be my least favorite Pixar.

[MadMan]

I just seem them as great movies. I don't really care about their politics, although I still don't see how Ratatouille is at all political. If they sucked I wouldn't give a shit about how they see the individual, blah blah....

[megladon8]

Yes, I think you can argue that the text of The Incredibles isn't entirely douche-y (as number8 does above me). I like the film, and I think its themes (as morally questionable as they might be) are at least presented in a somewhat thoughtful way. You shouldn't have to agree with a film's moral viewpoint or politics to appreciate the work anyway.

But Bird just comes across as plain smug in Ratatouille. It's pretty off-putting, and he conveys a lot more arrogance than he did in The Incredibles. Might be my least favorite Pixar.



What is smug about Ratatouille?

[Spinal]

In a general sense, I think it's perfectly ok to cite bad politics as a reason for disliking a film. Personally, I don't apply this strictly. I certainly disagree with Brad Bird in a significant way, but I don't find that this rises to a level where I can't take something away from the film and be entertained. But I think that it is possible to be so politically and morally wrong that it renders your artistry moot. What you have to say matters.

[number8]

What Spinal said.

[StanleyK]

Yeah, I don't think it's possible to read 'too much' into a film; it may be possible to have an incorrect interpretation of it, if you can't back up your reading with stuff from the film's text. But reading into the subtext is the nature of art.


He's the autodidact whose crime isn't that he builds himself to be a Superman out of jealousy, but that he then uses it to try and destroy the innate Superman rather than just becoming an altruistic Superman himself.

The opening scene where Mr. Incredible rejects Syndrome for no reason clearly doesn't help, although I believe the movie acknowledges that Mr. Incredible was wrong in doing this.

If these things are implied, then the movie does a very half-hearted job at it.

[DavidSeven]

What is smug about Ratatouille?

See the post from trans above. I believe his interpretation is what a lot of people took away from the film, and I think it's presented in a way that's quite on the nose and a bit annoying.


In a general sense, I think it's perfectly ok to cite bad politics as a reason for disliking a film. Personally, I don't apply this strictly. I certainly disagree with Brad Bird in a significant way, but I don't find that this rises to a level where I can't take something away from the film and be entertained. But I think that it is possible to be so politically and morally wrong that it renders your artistry moot. What you have to say matters.

I think it depends on how those politics or morals are conveyed. There are ways to pose contrarian viewpoints that are tactful, enlightening, and genuinely interesting. And there are ways to be a jerk. It's all a matter of degree and how this information is expressed. This is how I can like The Incredibles, but am put off by Ratatouille in spite of a very similar text. Plus The Incredibles is just a better movie. Ratatouille has a smaller narrative and emotional scope than Pixar's most epic works, a fairly pedestrian plot, and less laughs than their purely fun works like Monsters, Inc.

[Winston*]

But I think that it is possible to be so politically and morally wrong that it renders your artistry moot. What you have to say matters.

It always baffles me when Triumph of the Will is called a great film.

[StanleyK]

It always baffles me when Triumph of the Will is called a great film.

Same here with The Birth of a Nation.

[megladon8]

Ratatouille is Pixar's best film by a wide margin.

[DavidSeven]

By the same token, would it be fair for a capitalist to dismiss all the artistic elements of a film like I am Cuba because of its ideology?

Not trying to suggest anything with the questioning; just genuinely curious.

[Spinal]

By the same token, would it be fair for a capitalist to dismiss all the artistic elements of a film like I am Cuba because of its ideology?

Not trying to suggest anything with the questioning; just genuinely curious.

Well, not exactly. I think if it has good cinematography, then it has good cinematography. Bad ideas (according to the hypothetical capitalist) don't change the quality of the camerawork. Same with Triumph of the Will. But, I think it is ok to say, when it comes right down to it, this is not a good film because its core is rotten. And I don't have to add a star or two to my rating just because I recognize an excellent technical accomplishment. This is how I personally feel about Braveheart. Obviously it is made with technical competence. It's not like an Ed Wood movie. But what matters most to me is where the film takes me, what is has to say and how it makes me feel. If film scholars feel the need to apply different standards, so be it. I'm not a film scholar.

[megladon8]

Is there a reason why more Russ Meyer films are not readily available on legitimate DVD?

I have wanted to see Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill! for such a damn long time.

[number8]

If these things are implied, then the movie does a very half-hearted job at it.

It's kind of connected, actually.

For the first point, it's not so much implied as it's kind of there, especially if you recognize the Superman-Luthor reference. I mean, you see that this kid has become a successful billionaire, and he could use his vast wealth and intellect to better mankind—yet he doesn't. He's greedy. I think everyone sort of got that he could've been a great man if Mr. Incredible didn't act like a jerk when Syndrome was a kid. I think the film's darkest moment is actually when Syndrome tries to kidnap Jack-Jack, and he says, "Don't worry. I'll be nurturing and encouraging, something you never did!" to Mr. Incredible. There's a perverse love there that wants to show Mr. Incredible why what he did in the beginning of the movie was wrong. That's why it's so morbid that they just up and kill Syndrome and not address the consequence of that.

[D_Davis]

Is there a reason why more Russ Meyer films are not readily available on legitimate DVD?

I have wanted to see Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill! for such a damn long time.

They were available for some time, but were very, very expensive new - $30-50 for a domestic DVD! Insane. I believe that Meyer's estate still holds all the copyrights, and he did when he was alive, and so they've pretty much just sat on them, and only released them at certain times for outrageous prices. Not sure about the reasons - it makes no sense.

[StanleyK]

It's kind of connected, actually.

You're right; it must've been subtle enough that I missed it. You're also right, however, that it makes his demise more problematic.


Well, not exactly. I think if it has good cinematography, then it has good cinematography. Bad ideas (according to the hypothetical capitalist) don't change the quality of the camerawork. Same with Triumph of the Will. But, I think it is ok to say, when it comes right down to it, this is not a good film because its core is rotten. And I don't have to add a star or two to my rating just because I recognize an excellent technical accomplishment. This is how I personally feel about Braveheart. Obviously it is made with technical competence. It's not like an Ed Wood movie. But what matters most to me is where the film takes me, what is has to say and how it makes me feel. If film scholars feel the need to apply different standards, so be it. I'm not a film scholar.

I agree with this, but I do add stars on technical accomplishment. Just as possible for a well-made movie to be slight or morally rotten, it's possible for a righteous and intelligent movie to be completely boring as a film, and I think filmmaking prowess should be valued.

Also:


Ratatouille is Pixar's best film by a wide margin.

It's all about WALL·E.

[megladon8]

They were available for some time, but were very, very expensive new - $30-50 for a domestic DVD! Insane. I believe that Meyer's estate still holds all the copyrights, and he did when he was alive, and so they've pretty much just sat on them, and only released them at certain times for outrageous prices. Not sure about the reasons - it makes no sense.


Yeah, I noticed that Amazon has a few of them for $35.99 each...which is just absurd.

[Watashi]

For the record:
Brad Bird is so awesome.

I can't wait to see how he inserts Objectivism into Mission Impossible 4.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I noticed that Amazon has a few of them for $35.99 each...which is just absurd.

Have you seen Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? It's awesome, and seems fairly easy to find at a reasonable price.

[Watashi]

I don't find Bird's films smug at all. They address serious topics that few animated (let alone kid's films) dare to tackle and wrap it in a clever story with strong characters. I don't automatically use politics as a meter when judging a film's greatness. Look at Happy Feet. That film is very heavy-handed with its political slant which I disagree with, but I respect Miller's boldness into covering this topic and as a whole the film is pretty incredible. Hell, Barty loves The American President which is polar-opposite of what he stands for.

[Winston*]

Have you seen Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? It's awesome, and seems fairly easy to find at a reasonable price.

I bought it for 1 Australian dollar a few years ago. Last film I bought I think.

[megladon8]

Have you seen Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? It's awesome, and seems fairly easy to find at a reasonable price.


I borrowed it from the library once but the disc was so scratched I couldn't watch it :sad:

[MacGuffin]

I really should buy it. It has some great music and I find myself listening to this a lot.

49w2EAfmR60

[megladon8]

Women were so much sexier back then.

[Grouchy]

I thought this movie was totally strange and ambiguous and impressive. A milestone Altman entry, I think. Top ten, at least.
I agree.

http://m1.paperblog.com/i/13/131191/tv-critica-you-dont-know-jack-2010-L-1.jpeg

You Don't Know Jack
Barry Levinson, 2010

Jack Kevorkian is such an awesome personality that this movie was somewhat inevitable. With Al Pacino in the title role, it's better than it could have been. At the same time, I found most of it very average - good and forgettable at the same time, If I can convey my drift. The strongest moments come towards the end, when Kevorkian's stubborn behavior costs him his freedom. I enjoyed the movie, but it felt like something seen many times before. In these cases, I think I prefer a good documentary.

One thought that sprang to mind during this. Cinema has moved into a direction in which a lot of shots and overabundance of coverage is the norm. I was watching a scene with Pacino and John Goodman having a conversation inside a car and the contrast between that and the shots in The Great Escape (showing in the other channel) was fucking incredible. All right, that's an extreme counter-example, but what I mean is that there was no physical action in the scene and yet we had all these separate shots capturing minute gestures of each actors that I instinctively disliked. In my personal taste, that almost shows a lack of trust in the scene, the dialogue or the actors, which obviously must not be the case here.

[Qrazy]

Gonna be doing this very soon!

Have you seen Kwaidan also? After that and Human Condition trilogy Kuroi kawa and Inn of Evil are solid as well but kind of like early Kurosawa films in that they're very good but not great compared to the rest of the director's body of work.

[Qrazy]

The Incredibles is a very fun and well-made film but I'm seriously bothered by its subtext, which borders on social Darwinism. Its agenda seems to be less about society as a whole watching out for the less fortunate, as it claims it is, and more about praising the supers for their innate (and totally untouchable by the impure pleb) skills, a point it makes through ridiculous strawmen like the suicide guy or Bob's boss. Since the movie gets much love, I'd like to read some counter-arguments.

Go to The Incredibles thread.

Anyone who persists in their belief that The Incredibles is an objectivist text either did not read my thoughts on the film or are living in a miserable state of denial whereby they refuse to recognize the brilliance of my innately superior argumentation.

[Watashi]

Your superior argumentation sucks.

[Qrazy]

Your superior argumentation sucks.

Because you don't understand it.

[Watashi]

Because you don't understand it.
I don't understand your face.

[Qrazy]

I don't understand your face.

Probably because it was hit by a snow shovel when I was a small child.

[Watashi]

Werner Herzog answers a bunch of Twitter questions. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWsyBsFlsuM&p=F259CE0648A0282B&playnext=1)

So awesome.

[Barty]

Ratatouille is simply the best animated film of all time. It is absolutely genius. It would make my Top 20 for sure.

Oh, and Bird Bird is absolutely awesome in every way.

[transmogrifier]

Ratatouille is simply the best animated film of all time. It is absolutely genius. It would make my Top 20 for sure.

Oh, and Bird Bird is absolutely awesome in every way.

This post makes your GD threads seem like an oasis of sanity.

Ratatouille is an irritating, mirthless political tract. Looks good, though, I'll give you that.

[Watashi]

The politics of Ratatouille have almost zero bearing of why I love it so much.

[Watashi]

This post makes your GD threads seem like an oasis of sanity.

Ratatouille is an irritating, mirthless political tract. Looks good, though, I'll give you that.

This and saying Herzog is overrated?

Not a good day for you, transy.

[Barty]

This post makes your GD threads seem like an oasis of sanity.

Ratatouille is an irritating, mirthless political tract.

So wrong.

[transmogrifier]

This and saying Herzog is overrated?

Not a good day for you, transy.

Typical day, I would have thought :)

[Watashi]

It's funny how people (mostly Match-cutters) easily jump on the "oh noes, Bird hates the common man without god-given talents" bandwagon. Bird's films are political (and god forbid that a film doesn't align with your ideologies symmetrically), but there is so much more in his films than his strong point-of-views. Ratatouille has strong individualism characteristics, but there is also a strong need of family all throughout. Remy tries to break free from his clan's boring tribal routines and thinks he can accomplish his dreams on his own, but at the end, he needs his family to help him and realizes their support and contribution will make him stronger. There isn't a clear political stream to be found because it is a constant mish-mash of ideas and themes (something Bird and Pixar is known for). If Ratatouille does say one thing clearly, it is through Anton Ego's review and that's not to be a cynic when diving into a new property and make time with what life gives you. There's no political leaning in that.

[Barty]

Ratatouille's ending is a brilliant summation of social cooperation and peaceful prosperity: The Capitalist, the Entrepreneur, the Manager, and the Worker, are all harmonious in their service towards each other and the consumer. All consumers are welcome, Rats and Humans alike, there is no bias towards one or the other. Despite the best efforts of bureaucrats to shut down a wonderful restaurant based on preconceived and bigoted notions, the market of peaceful cooperation finds a way and a line of people stretches out the door, ready to enjoy delicious food, prepared affordably by a master chef.

The choice of Ratatouille as the dish of the title is a perfect pick by Bird, as the movie quite on the noise says, the dish is a "peasant" dish. The choice is symbolic because Bird recognizes that in a society which allows genius and creative people to thrive without being held back, they produce specifically for the average person and ultimately it's everyone that benefits, not just the genius or the brilliant. This is not to say that the "peasants" are looked down upon, quite the contrary, they are in integral part of the operation, as demonstrated by the clumsy and clueless Linguini, who is able to recognize the special talents of Remy, and thus becomes an entrepreneur in giving him a place to provide his services to everyone who wants a new gourmet experience, even though he himself lacks skills to cook.

No better message could be presented then this, that we are all in this together, and that each individual has an important part not only to play as a provider of a service, but to enjoy their human experience as a consumer of others service. Anyone who wants to hold back, regulate, tax, or condemn the successful, brilliant, or creative either out of jealously, notions of equality, or outdated norms is merely holding back society by not allowing everyone to experience what others have to offer. Any other reading of this film as a celebration of some selfish or elitist political message is simply wrong, and misses the point entirely. It has nothing to do with political messages, but merely with the basics of human success: peaceful existence through voluntary cooperation.

[Sven]

The politics of Ratatouille have almost zero bearing of why I love it so much.

Almost zero bearing of why I dislike it so much, conversely.

[Barty]

I also saw the movie way before I became a hard-core Libertarian, and loved it, so it's always been the story, characters, and the beautiful images that made me love the movie so much.

Examining Bird's brilliant message only made me love it more.

[transmogrifier]

Ratatouille's ending is a brilliant summation of social cooperation and peaceful prosperity: The Capitalist, the Entrepreneur, the Manager, and the Worker, are all harmonious in their service towards each other and the consumer. All consumers are welcome, Rats and Humans alike, there is no bias towards one or the other. Despite the best efforts of bureaucrats to shut down a wonderful restaurant based on preconceived and bigoted notions, the market of peaceful cooperation finds a way and a line of people stretches out the door, ready to enjoy delicious food, prepared affordably by a master chef.

The choice of Ratatouille as the dish of the title is a perfect pick by Bird, as the movie quite on the noise says, the dish is a "peasant" dish. The choice is symbolic because Bird recognizes that in a society which allows genius and creative people to thrive without being held back, they produce specifically for the average person and ultimately it's everyone that benefits, not just the genius or the brilliant. This is not to say that the "peasants" are looked down upon, quite the contrary, they are in integral part of the operation, as demonstrated by the clumsy and clueless Linguini, who is able to recognize the special talents of Remy, and thus becomes an entrepreneur in giving him a place to provide his services to everyone who wants a new gourmet experience, even though he himself lacks skills to cook.

No better message could be presented then this, that we are all in this together, and that each individual has an important part not only to play as a provider of a service, but to enjoy their human experience as a consumer of others service. Anyone who wants to hold back, regulate, tax, or condemn the successful, brilliant, or creative either out of jealously, notions of equality, or outdated norms is merely holding back society by not allowing everyone to experience what others have to offer. Any other reading of this film as a celebration of some selfish or elitist political message is simply wrong, and misses the point entirely. It has nothing to do with political messages, but merely with the basics of human success: peaceful existence through voluntary cooperation.

Heh, you watched a different film to me. The one I saw was about the peaceful existence through abandoning all your ambitions and dreams at the altar of a pre-determined genius.

[Watashi]

Ratatouille's ending is a brilliant summation of social cooperation and peaceful prosperity: The Capitalist, the Entrepreneur, the Manager, and the Worker, are all harmonious in their service towards each other and the consumer. All consumers are welcome, Rats and Humans alike, there is no bias towards one or the other. Despite the best efforts of bureaucrats to shut down a wonderful restaurant based on preconceived and bigoted notions, the market of peaceful cooperation finds a way and a line of people stretches out the door, ready to enjoy delicious food, prepared affordably by a master chef.

The choice of Ratatouille as the dish of the title is a perfect pick by Bird, as the movie quite on the noise says, the dish is a "peasant" dish. The choice is symbolic because Bird recognizes that in a society which allows genius and creative people to thrive without being held back, they produce specifically for the average person and ultimately it's everyone that benefits, not just the genius or the brilliant. This is not to say that the "peasants" are looked down upon, quite the contrary, they are in integral part of the operation, as demonstrated by the clumsy and clueless Linguini, who is able to recognize the special talents of Remy, and thus becomes an entrepreneur in giving him a place to provide his services to everyone who wants a new gourmet experience, even though he himself lacks skills to cook.

No better message could be presented then this, that we are all in this together, and that each individual has an important part not only to play as a provider of a service, but to enjoy their human experience as a consumer of others service. Anyone who wants to hold back, regulate, tax, or condemn the successful, brilliant, or creative either out of jealously, notions of equality, or outdated norms is merely holding back society by not allowing everyone to experience what others have to offer. Any other reading of this film as a celebration of some selfish or elitist political message is simply wrong, and misses the point entirely. It has nothing to do with political messages, but merely with the basics of human success: peaceful existence through voluntary cooperation.
This may be your least crazy (and best) post yet and it doesn't call for anyone to burn in a fire or be labeled a fascist. Perfectly sums up my thoughts.

[Barty]

Heh, you watched a different film to me. The one I saw was about the peaceful existence through abandoning all your ambitions and dreams at the altar of a pre-determined genius.

Linguini's aspiration is merely to hold his job and not lose it, but thanks to the cooperation between him and Remy (and his superior forecasting of his talents), Linguini becomes richer than he ever would, runs a fantastic restaurant, and falls in love with someone special. Who's ambitions were sacrificed? None, in fact, and Linguini's expectations were exceeded beyond even his wildest dreams. Linguini becomes an entrepreneurial genius, just as Remy is a technical genius at cooking.

And, contrary to this pre-determined genius critcism, Remy also has to learn all his skills from reading books and watching the cooking show.

You missed the point entirely.

[MacGuffin]

The Mothman Prophecies is at once surprisingly underrated and disappointing. It starts out strong with a thematic blueprint that has some great potential for startling imagery and an equally compelling ambition of chilling supernatural analysis. Unfortunately the movie is too flashy for its own good; instead of creating some truly disturbing imagery, it results to an endless barrage of nonsensical transitions and forced camera movements. So it was no surprise when I discovered the director makes music videos. For the first hour, it works as it's entertaining, Gere proves himself to be the underrated character actor I always thought he was, and there are some nice Twilight Zone-esque moments. But when you realize the movie isn't going to bring anything else to the table, it becomes overlong. I looked up Mothman online after the movie and was saddened to see there was far more potential for a chilling movie about an unexplained, historical supernatual phenomenon than The Mothman Prophecies delivered.

[transmogrifier]

Linguini's aspiration is merely to hold his job and not lose it, but thanks to the cooperation between him and Remy (and his superior forecasting of his talents), Linguini becomes richer than he ever would, runs a fantastic restaurant, and falls in love with someone special. Who's ambitions were sacrificed? None, in fact, and Linguini's expectations were exceeded beyond even his wildest dreams. Linguini becomes an entrepreneurial genius, just as Remy is a technical genius at cooking.

And, contrary to this pre-determined genius critcism, Remy also has to learn all his skills from reading books and watching the cooking show.

You missed the point entirely.

An entrepreneurial genius? By allowing the sainted, untouchable, never-wrong Remy to literally puppet him through the entire film? The film is structured around a parade of people slowly coming around to the "fact" of his genius - none of the supporting characters do anything to bring out the best in Remy; the film posits him as the best and then rather ploddingly lines up every other character to fall in line with him. There's no evidence in the film of any other talent or skill in the supporting characters. It's thesis is you can be successful as long as you manage to stumble across genius and let them tell you what to do.

An obviously, when we talk about innate talent, I'm not talking about him coming out of his little rat-womb with a skillet and an apron. Even Federer had to learn how to hit a tennis ball.

[Watashi]

Remy couldn't have gotten anywhere without the help of Gusteau and his cookbooks and shows. He is not "untouchable" or "never-wrong" (he succumbs to stealing food out of anger). He has to learn his skills like everyone else.

[Barty]

An entrepreneurial genius? By allowing the sainted, untouchable, never-wrong Remy to literally puppet him through the entire film?

He puts his human capital to the best use possible, satisfying the demands of numerous customers. He recognizes the talent in Remy, more importantly though, the talent will be demanded by customers, and thus like any successful entrepreneur he shifts his production into the best possible use.


The film is structured around a parade of people slowly coming around to the "fact" of his genius - none of the supporting characters do anything to bring out the best in Remy;

Completely incorrect. Linguini teaches Remy the value of cooperation, as until then he is a do it all himself type, and Remy specifically requires the help of his entire family, not to mention the humans, in order to achieve his goal. In fact, the "villain" of the movie, specifically brings out the best creative talent in Remy and forces him to up his game. They don't recognize his genius because it's some pre-determined historical fact, but because he actually demonstrates his skills and they find it valuable.



the film posits him as the best and then rather ploddingly lines up every other character to fall in line with him. There's no evidence in the film of any other talent or skill in the supporting characters.

Incorrect, completely. Collete is recognized early on as a skilled and up and coming kitchen talent, who has earned her spot in the kitchen. Ego, while viscous in his criticisms, clearly has a sharp eye and taste for quality food (as well as ultimately fare, considering his change of opinion). And you completely are dismissing Linguni's creative talent, even if he's clumsy as hell.


It's thesis is you can be successful as long as you manage to stumble across genius and let them tell you what to do.

It's part of the thesis, though not in the way you are saying. You are completely ignoring the complimentary factors clearly distinguished as necessary for a genius to thrive.


An obviously, when we talk about innate talent, I'm not talking about him coming out of his little rat-womb with a skillet and an apron. Even Federer had to learn how to hit a tennis ball.

And even if he has "innate" talent, that should be celebrated, as it makes everyone better off.

[transmogrifier]

And even if he has "innate" talent, that should be celebrated, as it makes everyone better off.

Because I really should be doing work, I'll only address this for now (you have obviously thought longer and harder (ooh-ah) about the film than I. I dislike the thesis you present here - that our worth as a human is in recognising the status quo (our skills, others skills, the way it is) and just putting it in the right place to satisfy market demand, as opposed to having hopes and dreams that may not necessarily maximize economic productivity. While I'm glad this is what jazzes you, it does not me, and especially the way Bird goes about celebrating it. He stacks the deck, presenting the family as dimwitted culinary oafs, Linguini as a fool out of his depth, and Remy above it all, a kind of arrogant demi-god frustrated by everyone. It is a miserable, smug characterisation for a lead character, and it deadens the whole enterprise.

[Sven]

He stacks the deck, presenting the family as dimwitted culinary oafs, Linguini as a fool out of his depth, and Remy above it all, a kind of arrogant demi-god frustrated by everyone.

Don't forget the food critic, who is very much a victim of Bird's deck-stacking.

[Sven]

New Moon was bad, though there are sharp moments in it, and I maintain that Pattinson is good, doing compelling things with a character that really doesn't earn it. Lautner is bad. The pacing is really bad. That movie has so many poorly staged moments of dull-looking silence.

I can't get over how terrific Edge of Darkness is. I dig the reflection of the local onto the global (or maybe the discovery of community that is nurtured at home), the lighting is gorgeous, and its uncompromising spirit casts a very alluring spell. At times it almost feels like science fiction. Danny Huston... malevolicious. Sounds just like his father. This is definitely one to study.

[number8]

Confession: I think Robert Pattinson has the capacity to be a Leonardo Di Caprio or Matt Damon when he's a bit older.

[Dukefrukem]

This post makes your GD threads seem like an oasis of sanity.

Ratatouille is an irritating, mirthless political tract. Looks good, though, I'll give you that.

How can a movie like that upset you so much? You can't push it aside and enjoy it?

edit: just read your post on why you hate it. Ratatouille has the best ending of all Pixar movies. It's pretty close to surpassing Finding Nemo.

[number8]

Why would anyone tell someone to ignore what they don't like about a movie and just enjoy it? Seems self-defeating.

[Dukefrukem]

Why would anyone tell someone to ignore what they don't like about a movie and just enjoy it? Seems self-defeating.

Do you believe in being over-analytical?

[Ezee E]

Why would anyone tell someone to ignore what they don't like about a movie and just enjoy it? Seems self-defeating.
Leave your brain at home good sir!

[Mara]

I convinced my sister and brother-in-law to see A Town Called Panic and they totally loved it. My BIL is more fluent in French than I am, and he's been quoting the film to me ever since. My sister and I are reduced to screaming "Janine! Cowboy! Cheval! Indien!" at each other.

...I may need to rewatch, actually.

[Boner M]

Time Without Pity was far less of a one-note anti-death-penalty tract than I'd expected. I got the impression that Losey is less interested in the polemical aspect of his story, and the sentiment resonates more because he takes for granted where the sympathies of his presumed audience lie. It's more of a railing against apathy in general, with floridly melodramatic plotting and his energetic mise-en-scene perfectly complimenting the theme; the sense that only the most highly wrought emotions and effects are permissable drives the film along wonderfully. Awesome final shot, makes me wonder if Fassbinder saw this film.

[number8]

Do you believe in being over-analytical?

The only difference between being over-analytical and being smartly perceptive is a convincing argument.

[Qrazy]

An entrepreneurial genius? By allowing the sainted, untouchable, never-wrong Remy to literally puppet him through the entire film? The film is structured around a parade of people slowly coming around to the "fact" of his genius - none of the supporting characters do anything to bring out the best in Remy; the film posits him as the best and then rather ploddingly lines up every other character to fall in line with him. There's no evidence in the film of any other talent or skill in the supporting characters. It's thesis is you can be successful as long as you manage to stumble across genius and let them tell you what to do.

An obviously, when we talk about innate talent, I'm not talking about him coming out of his little rat-womb with a skillet and an apron. Even Federer had to learn how to hit a tennis ball.

Remy is shown to have a talent, his nose, but he also has to work hard to get to the place he reaches by the end of the film. And he risks a lot when he leaves his family in order to chase his dreams. Your position that Remy is only presented as a frustrated demi-god is not supported by the film in the slightest. The other characters respond to the poor way in which he treats them and he has to make it up to them to accomplish his goals. His arrogance is an intentional character flaw but it's also completely understandable given the fact that he's essentially ghost writing all of these meals. He would like some credit for his work.

And you know what, there are actually genetic markers and other early indicators that both predict and suggest early success in varying domains. It's true that to become an elite in any field nothing beats prolonged deliberate practice (10,000 hours - Ericsson). But at the same time if you're only 4 feet tall your entire life, you're never going to be the greatest lap swimmer of all time. Or if you have trouble adding numbers together until you're 10 years old, it's extremely unlikely you're going to become an astrophysicist.

If you believe that everyone can succeed in any domain they wish to as long as they work hard enough at it, then that's fine. But this is what Bird doesn't agree with and I agree with him. I'm not sure if I believe in innate talent per se, as it's largely unquantifiable. But do I believe that certain individuals do have advantages over others in varying domains and this position is certainly well supported in the psychological literature. So while you're welcome to your beliefs I don't think it helps anything to reduce the film's text to an objectivist sentiment when there is very clearly many more nuances to the piece than that.

[Barty]

I dislike the thesis you present here - that our worth as a human is in recognising the status quo (our skills, others skills, the way it is) and just putting it in the right place to satisfy market demand

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. An entrepreneur and a genius satisfy market demand precisely by messing up the status quo, that's the basic theory of the entrepreneur. How could this movie be anything about the status quo, when it's about giving a rat the opportunity to cook in a fine restaurant? The premise is so absurd, but that's what makes the metaphor piercing.



as opposed to having hopes and dreams that may not necessarily maximize economic productivity.

But I'm saying precisely that is fine and the movie even celebrates that. Ego, for instance, loses his job and his respect level because he praises something that everyone else finds disgusting. Yet, since the movie is inherently optimistic, even he is able to make a living off supporting what he loves.


While I'm glad this is what jazzes you, it does not me, and especially the way Bird goes about celebrating it. He stacks the deck, presenting the family as dimwitted culinary oafs, Linguini as a fool out of his depth, and Remy above it all, a kind of arrogant demi-god frustrated by everyone. It is a miserable, smug characterisation for a lead character, and it deadens the whole enterprise.

The family, of course, has to be culinary oafs in order to make his point that even a rat can become a great chef. And Linguini is clumsy, but not a fool.

And as Qrazy pointed out, it's hardly a criticism of a the film that the lead has a character flaw he has to overcome with Remy's arrogance.

[Sven]

How could this movie be anything about the status quo, when it's about giving a rat the opportunity to cook in a fine restaurant?

Because it relies on the conventional terms of "good" and "cuisine" (closely related to its implication of "art"). Those terms are not challenged. Hence, tacit bolstering of traditional mores. Hence, championing the status quo.

[Barty]

Because it relies on the conventional terms of "good" and "cuisine" (closely related to its implication of "art"). Those terms are not challenged. Hence, tacit bolstering of traditional mores. Hence, championing the status quo.

It isn't a deconstruction of what is good or bad art, but genius and the nature of social cooperation, hence it completely challenges the status quo.

[Derek]

The only difference between being over-analytical and being smartly perceptive is a convincing argument.

Repped. This should be the motto of the FDT.

[Barty]

Repped. This should be the motto of the FDT.

I'm not convinced it should be. I think you're taking this too far.

[number8]

I'm not convinced it should be. I think you're taking this too far.

I in turn repped this. For hilarity.

[Grouchy]

Confession: I think Robert Pattinson has the capacity to be a Leonardo Di Caprio or Matt Damon when he's a bit older.
I believe the same thing. I started thinking about it as a direct comparison to Leonardo Di Caprio, actually.

[Grouchy]

In other news, shit Armaggedon has aged badly. I tried to watch some of it last night and just couldn't cope. I remembered it being at least entertaining - granted, the last I saw of it was in 1998. What was on TV yesterday was just a parade of random close-ups and white noise.

[Sven]

It isn't a deconstruction of what is good or bad art, but genius and the nature of social cooperation, hence it completely challenges the status quo.

I don't know if there's much of a deconstruction of genius. Isn't all the genius in the film accepted as just that? Also, the film's take on social cooperation does not challenge the status quo in the slightest. There are already many accepted systems based on what we see in the film. That it is so widely praised and accepted and played in living rooms across the country daily, I think, is evidence that whatever it's doing can't be that much of a challenge to our norms, let alone a "complete" one.

Oooohhhh, but I knew I should not have chimed in. If there's any film I like discussing less than Ratatouille, I don't know what it is.

[Spinal]

In other news, shit Armaggedon has aged badly. I tried to watch some of it last night and just couldn't cope. I remembered it being at least entertaining - granted, the last I saw of it was in 1998. What was on TV yesterday was just a parade of random close-ups and white noise.

I would look on the bright side and take this as evidence that your film taste has improved, which is certainly more plausible than Armageddon ever being any good.

[Sycophant]

Sadao Yamanaka's Humanity and Paper Balloons really is a beautiful movie. Thanks to whoever it was that pointed it out to me. I've got access to his other two surviving films, and I intend to see them soon.

[soitgoes...]

Sadao Yamanaka's Humanity and Paper Balloons really is a beautiful movie. Thanks to whoever it was that pointed it out to me. I've got access to his other two surviving films, and I intend to see them soon.
It's disheartening after you've finished watching Humanity and Paper Balloons to know that there are only two more of his films left to see. The feeling compounds as you watch the other two, because while not as great they both are still good.

[Sycophant]

Surely. It seems he had a profound impact on many of his contemporaries and successors. It's a grave pity both that we have lost what must have been a very impressive body of work and that we never got to see it flourish in Japanese postwar cinema

Interestingly, I came across his will last night. I thought it was heartbreaking and inspiring and beautiful:

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF
YAMANAKA SADAO

I have nothing to say as an Infantry Corporal in the Japanese Army. I have done my best as such.

A word as a member of the Association of Film Directors in Japan:

If Humanity and Paper Balloons should prove to be the last film by Yamanaka Sadao, I would feel a little aggrieved. It is not a loser’s grief.

All my insurance money goes to Mr. Inoue Kintaro.

I am very sorry that Mr. Inoue has to take the trouble for me. Pay all my debts at P.C.L. [film studio which would later become Toho] and Naruse, the restaurant. Probably my money will not cover them all. Cheat them to make them content with the result.

If there should be a surplus, share it among the Association and the Zenshin-za [a left-wing theatre group with whom he made two films, including Humanity and Paper Balloons].

Lastly, I say to my seniors and friends:

Please make good movies.

18 April, 1938
YAMANAKA Sadao


A Chinese Odyssey Part 1: Pandora's Box (Lau 94) - "Bitch, don't step on my intestine!"

I like this. I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the line delivered in response to this is something like "But I like to!" and is also wonderful.

[BuffaloWilder]

I've always wondered - what's the point of reading political allegory into Pixar films? I mean, there's nothing within them that seems to lend itself to that kind of reading without really, really stretching past the basic text. As morality tales, they're all - with the exception of WALL-E - aimed pretty squarely at the personal, rather than the societal.

[Sycophant]

Because basically everything is a political text, regardless of how much it was designed to be so.

[D_Davis]

I've always wondered - what's the point of reading political allegory into Pixar films?

Certain people approach their film criticism/analysis in different ways. I have a friend who approaches almost every film in terms of political message. I think it's interesting. Pixar is definitely saying something beyond simple morality tales, and I think it is good to look at what they are saying especially in terms of politics. He is especially critical of Pixar because he sees their films as having somewhat dangerous politics.

For another example, I find it interesting to look at the films of Tsui Hark in terms of gender politics and roles. Sure, many people would say that Tsui's films are simple genre films, but that discredits the director's desire to say more. He has always been concerned with gender roles in Hong Kong films. His action-based genre films also contain a lot of political allegory - so much so that some of them have been banned on the Mainland.

If we didn't approach film criticism in this way, there wouldn't really be a lot to say. Shoot, Robin Wood definitely wouldn't have had a career. Stephen Teo and Leon Hunt (his essay Deadly China Dolls is a brilliant look at gender roles in martial arts cinema) also approach HK film criticism in terms of politics and gender roles.

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure someone could write a political essay on Hannah Montana: The Movie if they really tried.

All films are influenced by politics. Doesn't necessarily mean they are all political.

[D_Davis]

I'm pretty sure someone could write a political essay on Hannah Montana: The Movie if they really tried.


One probably should. If people were more critical - in terms of political and gender-roll messaging - of the media marketed to children, I'm sure we'd find a lot of very questionable, dangerous, and out-dated ideas being presented.

[Sven]

I've always wondered - what's the point of reading political allegory into Pixar films?

A very strange question for someone with scholarly ambitions like yourself to ask. I'm especially surprised that you don't see how Pixar's films are blatantly political. Cars is about development and urban/rural spaces, Incredibles explores concepts of individuals adapting and maneuvering through social systems, Monsters Inc uses corporate malfeasance as a jumping point to express the transformation of oppressive, fearful enterprise into transparent community energy, Up! is about fat kids and talking dogs, etc etc.

[Spinal]

Up! is about fat kids and talking dogs, etc etc.

:lol:

[megladon8]

One probably should. If people were more critical - in terms of political and gender-roll messaging - of the media marketed to children, I'm sure we'd find a lot of very questionable, dangerous, and out-dated ideas being presented.


There's nothing out-dated about laughing at young girls for having dreams beyond home-making.

[Sycophant]

Did anyone else here see Yojiro Takita's Departures/Okuribito? The one that won best foreign language film at the most recent Academy Awards? I just watched it and though it occasionally came close to being too nakedly manipulative or melodramatic, it was on the whole a very engaging and lovely film.

[Winston*]

Did anyone else here see Yojiro Takita's Departures/Okuribito? The one that won best foreign language film at the most recent Academy Awards? I just watched it and though it occasionally came close to being too nakedly manipulative or melodramatic, it was on the whole a very engaging and lovely film.

I saw it in theatres. Didn't care for it that much. Thought it made its point fairly early on and then kept repeating it with diminishing returns.

Just watched Shakepeare Behind Bars. Anyone seen this one? Pretty incredible movie.

EDIT:
Hey, the whole things on youtube.

PneqAr85NXc