28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

There's a subs link on KG, but I'm not sure if it will fit your file.

Nice thanks, I'll grab it again if not.

[Skitch]

Harmony Korine sucks my balls.
Agreed!

[baby doll]

Should I go see The Leopard on the big screen tomorrow?Yes, but I'll take this as an opportunity to reiterate my dissenting opinion that I find the film to be too stately and tasteful for its own good. I prefer Rocco and His Brothers and The Damned.

[[ETM]]

Should I go see The Leopard on the big screen tomorrow?

I did, and you should.

[StanleyK]

I was a bit underwhelmed by Grave of the Fireflies. Maybe it's because it had been hyped to be the ultimate, soul-crushingly depressing film, but the sentimentality often felt forced (like, a main character dies and then we get 20 flashbacks of them set to weepy music), as opposed to Miyazaki's work, which feels a lot more natural and less labored to me. Still a good film, but I can't say it did a whole lot for me.

[StanleyK]

Random question, and I know it's come up before, but what's the proper way to list Chinese names? Is it Zhang Yimou or Yimou Zhang? Jia Zhangke or Zhang Ke Jia?

[soitgoes...]

Random question, and I know it's come up before, but what's the proper way to list Chinese names? Is it Zhang Yimou or Yimou Zhang? Jia Zhangke or Zhang Ke Jia?
It doesn't matter as long as you're consistent, but last name first is how they roll.

[Raiders]

Westernization is fairly inconsistent in adapting director's names. Many times we adapt them to the Western format, such as Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Kurosawa and so forth. But we go with Wong Kar-Wai in the proper order, same with Zhang Yimou (I've seen it both ways over here, but the Eastern format seems more prevalent).

Not sure what determines it other than maybe how popular they are over here, but I imagine WKW is pretty well known in cinema circles that actually watch foreign cinema, so who knows. It does seem we westernize Japanese names far more than Chinese/HK names. Again, maybe that has to do with Japanese cinema being more integrated into western cinema viewings.

[dreamdead]

Between Glass's evocative music and the generally stimulating discussions from Robert McNamara, Morris's The Fog of War is easily the best thing I've seen in the past month or so. Constantly challenging and intellectually provocative.

The Thin Blue Line is now much higher on my radar.

[balmakboor]

"Harmony Korine sucks my balls."

I never quite understood why this would be used as a derogatory. Getting your balls sucked is actually quite enjoyable. And if you have a problem with the sucker being Mr. Korine, just close your eyes and imagine Teagan Presley.

[balmakboor]

Between Glass's evocative music and the generally stimulating discussions from Robert McNamara, Morris's The Fog of War is easily the best thing I've seen in the past month or so. Constantly challenging and intellectually provocative.

The Thin Blue Line is now much higher on my radar.

The Thin Blue Line sucks my balls.

[Winston*]

Fast, Cheap and Out of Control is my favourite Morris film. Mole rats.

[Spinal]

The Thin Blue Line sucks my balls.

I was really confused by this post until I clicked on the previous page.

[Raiders]

Vernon, Florida for me. But really, his first three films are all awesome. I seem to be less enamored than most with Fog of War (I found McNamara almost too cunning for Morris' inquiries and remained generally uninterested) and I didn't care much at all for Standard Operating Procedure. I really do need to see Fast, Cheap and Out of Control.

[Winston*]

Vernon, Florida for me. But really, his first three films are all awesome. I seem to be less enamored than most with Fog of War (I found McNamara almost too cunning for Morris' inquiries and remained generally uninterested) and I didn't care much at all for Standard Operating Procedure. I really do need to see Fast, Cheap and Out of Control.

Mr Death is also worth watching.

[Beau]

Westernization is fairly inconsistent in adapting director's names. Many times we adapt them to the Western format, such as Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Kurosawa and so forth. But we go with Wong Kar-Wai in the proper order, same with Zhang Yimou (I've seen it both ways over here, but the Eastern format seems more prevalent).

Not sure what determines it other than maybe how popular they are over here, but I imagine WKW is pretty well known in cinema circles that actually watch foreign cinema, so who knows. It does seem we westernize Japanese names far more than Chinese/HK names. Again, maybe that has to do with Japanese cinema being more integrated into western cinema viewings.

It might be that we expect surnames to be longer than first names, or at least I expect that, and Akira Kurosawa is westernized because the first name has three syllables while the last name has four, while the westernized Yimou Zhang runs into a problem, because the first name has two syllables while the last name has one, so we keep it Zhang Yimou because that way we we preserve the longer last name, even though it's not the last name, but that's how we read it. Same for Wong Kar-Wai.

That was it for today's completely random guess. Tune in for more tomorrow!

[Beau]

"Harmony Korine sucks my balls."

I never quite understood why this would be used as a derogatory. Getting your balls sucked is actually quite enjoyable. And if you have a problem with the sucker being Mr. Korine, just close your eyes and imagine Teagan Presley.

But I expect sucking your balls over and over again would prove to be an intensely unsatisfactory experience. As such, it would constitute due punishment for someone who has pained you, and who thus has to repay you by, not only suffering by having to suck your balls, but sucking your balls so that you erase the memory of the sucker's film by indulging in something that, as you put it, is "quite enjoyable."

[Derek]

I have never met anyone who has complained about having his balls sucked too much. I suspect that will always remain the case.

[Rowland]

I can see there being such a thing. I dunno about anyone else, but it's pretty sensitive down there. Sucking them for a few seconds at a time in between focusing on the, err, main attraction, is way to go, says I.

[Derek]

You know, next time any one of us is wondering why more girls don't post here, we can refer back to the past two pages.

[Beau]

I have never met anyone who has complained about having his balls sucked too much. I suspect that will always remain the case.

But I meant to point out that the punishment is for the sucker, not the suck...ee.

Yeah.

[Derek]

But I meant to point out that the punishment is for the sucker, not the suck...ee.

Yeah.

True, but unless the person saying "[Insert name] sucks my balls" is some sort of sadist who wishes to punish people he doesn't like by having them suck his balls, you'd think he'd appreciate that person's continued efforts to please him. At this point, I'm going to take a step back from this conversation and admire from afar that this has actually become a topic of debate here. :)

[Beau]

True, but unless the person saying "[Insert name] sucks my balls" is some sort of sadist who wishes to punish people he doesn't like by having them suck his balls, you'd think he'd appreciate that person's continued efforts to please him. At this point, I'm going to take a step back from this conversation and admire from afar that this has actually become a topic of debate here. :)

Distant admiration sounds good to me, too.

[Spinal]

You know, next time any one of us is wondering why more girls don't post here, we can refer back to the past two pages.

:lol:

Or any of the previous 1500+ for that matter.

[soitgoes...]

:lol:

Or any of the previous 1500+ for that matter.Hey, girls* have accounted for about 3% of the total posts in this thread. That's proportional to their percent of the total population, right?

*Girls - Philosophe rouge, Mara and a sprinkling of others

[Derek]

Hey, girls* have accounted for about 3% of the total posts in this thread. That's proportional to their percent of the total population, right?

*Girls - Philosophe rouge, Mara and a sprinkling of others

Your Chevalier av + Big Tits Zombie being at the top of your sig make this post so much better.

[Qrazy]

When did this site become full of literalists?

[Boner M]

He-Man Woman-Hatin' Film Discussion Thread: The "Suck My Balls!" Edition

plz?

[Derek]

He-Man Woman-Hatin' Film Discussion Thread: The "Suck My Balls!" Edition

plz?

To be fair, Qrazy was talking about a man sucking his balls, so let's not pin the woman-hating on him.

[soitgoes...]

Your Chevalier av + Big Tits Zombie being at the top of your sig make this post so much better.Mild Big Tits Zombie spoiler and the inappropriate mental imagery it might produce:
There's a scene in Big Tits Zombie where a stripper, who has recently changed to zombie form, shoots fire out of her vagina in order to kill the other stripper zombie-killers. For a couple of moments I thought whether or not I could make an av out of that scene. I feel like that would have really boosted my above post in your eyes. Chevalier has nothing on a zombie stripper's fire breathing vagina.

[Derek]

Mild Big Tits Zombie spoiler and the inappropriate mental imagery it might produce:
There's a scene in Big Tits Zombie where a stripper, who has recently changed to zombie form, shoots fire out of her vagina in order to kill the other stripper zombie-killers. For a couple of moments I thought whether or not I could make an av out of that scene. I feel like that would have really boosted my above post in your eyes. Chevalier has nothing on a zombie stripper's fire breathing vagina.


:lol:

I actually imagine Chevalier would make that same expression when faced with a vagina.

[Spaceman Spiff]

So I just saw Uncle Boonmee. On the whole, I really liked it, but I think I'm growing more and more disillusioned with long takes of nature. I can see why Apichatpong wants this rhythmic (read: slow) flow to his movies, but really a whole 30 seconds just watching grass swaying in the wind? Or bubbles forming in water? Less swaying grass, more catfish sex and red-eyed chewbaccas please.

Actually, I also kinda zoned out at what turned out to be the ending and was left pretty baffled by what that entire scene was supposed to mean. Can anyone shed some light on this? Qrazy? baby doll?

[balmakboor]

But I expect sucking your balls over and over again would prove to be an intensely unsatisfactory experience. As such, it would constitute due punishment for someone who has pained you, and who thus has to repay you by, not only suffering by having to suck your balls, but sucking your balls so that you erase the memory of the sucker's film by indulging in something that, as you put it, is "quite enjoyable."

You're taking all the fun out it.

[Boner M]

Actually, I also kinda zoned out at what turned out to be the ending and was left pretty baffled by what that entire scene was supposed to mean. Can anyone shed some light on this? Qrazy? baby doll?
It don't 'mean' shit, ya lousy literalist.

I offered this brief paragraph after seeing the film: "In particular, the film’s coda and final scene feels absolutely perfect in the culmination of ideas and motifs introduced earlier, clarifying ‘rebirth’ as something that also occurs moment-to-moment in addition to life-to-life. It can’t be a coincidence that the film ends with three characters watching images on a TV set – continuing a process of regeneration."

Also, the underwater/bubbles-forming shot was amazing, ya bum.

[soitgoes...]

The Crush is good, but the lead is somewhat annoying. He's much too talkative and cocksure, though by the end it makes sense why he played it this way. Outside of that Olmi's direction is top notch, especially in his handling of a scene towards the end between the young protagonist and an older woman. I can't wait for I fidanzati.

[Spaceman Spiff]

It don't 'mean' shit, ya lousy literalist.

I offered this brief paragraph after seeing the film: "In particular, the film’s coda and final scene feels absolutely perfect in the culmination of ideas and motifs introduced earlier, clarifying ‘rebirth’ as something that also occurs moment-to-moment in addition to life-to-life. It can’t be a coincidence that the film ends with three characters watching images on a TV set – continuing a process of regeneration."

Also, the underwater/bubbles-forming shot was amazing, ya bum.

Heh. 'Mean' was certainly not the right word. Cool thoughts though.

It is you, who is the bum.

[Boner M]

Heh. 'Mean' was certainly not the right word. Cool thoughts though.

It is you, who is the bum.
Actually, I should've mentioned that I didn't love the film immediately, partly because I think AW's long take/static shots are such a familiar art cinema trope, which undermines the otherworldly quality he's going for. Granted that's not really his fault, and I suppose the juxatposition of the mundane/familiar and the fantastic is by design and ultimately effective.

[lovejuice]

Actually, I also kinda zoned out at what turned out to be the ending and was left pretty baffled by what that entire scene was supposed to mean. Can anyone shed some light on this? Qrazy? baby doll?

Boner said it. But I think it's also a commentary on the effect of media, especially television news. How it sucks out your life and makes you into a souless, brainless being. Kinda like what Peter Jackson and DeLillo did in the 80s.

It's too a slap in the face of censorship authority in Thailand. A much less but similar controversial scene is cut from Syndrome, and this is Joe saying, "So, Sucka, are you going to censor my movie now that it gets Palm?"

[Winston*]

Went to see The Leopard. It's funny to me that people will walk out of an 190 minute movie 180 minutes in.

Movie was pretty good. Definitely one that feels its length though.

[Qrazy]

So I just saw Uncle Boonmee. On the whole, I really liked it, but I think I'm growing more and more disillusioned with long takes of nature. I can see why Apichatpong wants this rhythmic (read: slow) flow to his movies, but really a whole 30 seconds just watching grass swaying in the wind? Or bubbles forming in water? Less swaying grass, more catfish sex and red-eyed chewbaccas please.

Actually, I also kinda zoned out at what turned out to be the ending and was left pretty baffled by what that entire scene was supposed to mean. Can anyone shed some light on this? Qrazy? baby doll?

Personally I liked the bubbles although I didn't care much for the catfish sex or that scene in general. Aside from what Boner said I took the final scene to be on the basic level a fitting expression of the three characters grief for Boonmee. Delving more deeply, it presents two ways for the nephew of managing that grief (self-medication/zoning out/isolation/comforts of modernity = television) or further human engagement in the form of having a meal together (which recalls the shared meal which brought forth Boonmee's dead wife and monkey child). In a semi-string theory approach Joe visualizes two possible paths for Boonmee's nephew, and the boy is even able to witness himself making the choice. Our lives are a series of choices, of births and rebirths, and these specific individual instantiations themselves exist in larger cycles of birth and rebirth.

To clarify, at the screening Joe discussed two major topics in relation to the film and it's ending. The first being the politics of Thailand, issues of civil war, in the past refugees hiding out in networks in the forests, etc. The film may be primarily focused on one man's former lives but it's also about the ebb and flow of the entire nation. Now I don't know much about Thai politics but I believe some of this can be found more explicitly in the film in a bit of the content which appears on the televisions, that photo montage and sporadically elsewhere.

He also spoke about birth and rebirth in cinema, genre, self-referencing etc. I haven't seen many of his films but apparently he uses many of the same actors in his works. The final scene I believe incorporated a character from one of his other films or at least a reflection of a character played by the same actor (the girl maybe?). He mentioned trying to generate a different style (and to some extent echo genre) in each section of the film as a sort of reflection on cinema of the past.

Anyway, that's what I think (informed by Joe's comments) about the ending. Although personally I don't think it completely works. Not because it doesn't effectively convey what it wants to convey but simply because it (and much of the film) isn't meshed together effectively enough. Joe said at the screen something to the effect of 'I wasn't sure while we were making it if it was going to work, but then it did.' Well to me that lack of overall purposiveness shows through. It's definitely a film driven by atmosphere and emotion over total aesthetic and conceptual cohesiveness. It's an interesting work, but for me at least more so moment to moment than as a whole.

[MadMan]

Went to see The Leopard. It's funny to me that people will walk out of an 190 minute movie 180 minutes in.

Movie was pretty good. Definitely one that feels its length though.Why would people walk out of a 190 minute movie 180 minutes in? That feels rather counter-productive. Not to mention the fact that they actually payed for the movie.

[StanleyK]

I have no idea what Dog Star Man: Part I was about, and while I wasn't quite bored with it, I have to say I'm not very interested in parsing the meaning behind its images. It's definitely the least of the Brakhage I've seen so far; strange, because I really couldn't tell you how exactly it's different from the Prelude, which was entertaining and fascinating.

[Stay Puft]

He also spoke about birth and rebirth in cinema, genre, self-referencing etc. I haven't seen many of his films but apparently he uses many of the same actors in his works. The final scene I believe incorporated a character from one of his other films or at least a reflection of a character played by the same actor (the girl maybe?).

Yeah, the girl is the same actress from Blissfully Yours.


Joe said at the screen something to the effect of 'I wasn't sure while we were making it if it was going to work, but then it did.' Well to me that lack of overall purposiveness shows through. It's definitely a film driven by atmosphere and emotion over total aesthetic and conceptual cohesiveness. It's an interesting work, but for me at least more so moment to moment than as a whole.

I thought he was still talking about the different styles for each reel? That he wasn't sure how he wanted to approach the film, or what exactly the film should communicate, but the old Thai cinema and television dramas eventually inspired him to take the path he did.

I think it's as much a function of the film being the final stage of the Primitive platform. You can tell he was always driven to make this film, but that it became as much a product of his other work, and a response to that work. At the Mavericks panel, for example, he showed clips from other parts of the Primitive platform, specifically from a dual screen installation depicting a group of teenagers sleeping in a flying saucer. One of the teens talks about his memories and other topics, and the words sometimes inform or suggest other meanings in the action on the other screen (one conversation about his memories of the night sky recontextualizes images of people moving through forests with flashlights, dots of light in the distance, etc.) The teen also talks about past lives and even recounts a dream that is basically dialogue repeated by Uncle Boonmee in the feature. I found this material very illuminating in terms of Joe's ambitions for the feature and the project as a whole; it helped make more sense out of it than anything he had said himself.

I'm convinced, basically, that Uncle Boonmee would actually work a lot better in the context of the project as a whole. At least, I've found that it has helped contextualize the film. I still agree with you about the success of the film, though. My feelings on Uncle Boonmee as a whole have not coalesced into anything more than what I felt I left the theatre with. Individual moments are powerful, but it is not as cohesive as his previous work. The binary structures of Tropical Malady and Syndromes are more obvious but I think may have helped Joe maintain more of a focus on the overall project (he said in the Mavericks panel that he always knew he wanted to structure the films in that manner), or at least I found the experience of watching them to have more of a cumulative impact because of that focus (they are still the product of a collaborative and improvisational process, driven by atmosphere and emotion).

[Stay Puft]

Also, F. Murray Abraham was in last week's episode of Bored to Death. This guy is awesome. I wish he'd randomly appear in more stuff.

[[ETM]]

Went to see The Leopard. It's funny to me that people will walk out of an 190 minute movie 180 minutes in.

Movie was pretty good. Definitely one that feels its length though.

Indeed. The 30 minute ball scene is awesome, but it does test bladders and patience.

[balmakboor]

If your local film society announced this as their film series for this Winter/Spring, what would you think? (Assume you live in smallish middle American town where none of these have a prayer of playing on a big screen.)

35 Shots of Rum (2008) – France/Germany
A Film Unfinished (2010) – Germany/Israel
Fish Tank (2009) – UK/Netherlands
The Illusionist (2010) – UK/France
In the Loop (2009) – UK
Inside Job (2010) – USA
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010) – USA
Lebanon (2009) – Israel/France/Lebanon/Germany
No One Knows about Persian Cats (2009) – Iran
The Song of Sparrows (2008) – Iran
Tiny Furniture (2010) – USA
Wild Grass (2009) – France

[balmakboor]

Holy moly. The 3-disc BR of AN is definitely going to find its way into my hands. I'll just ditch my two DVD versions.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare3/apocalypsenow3.htm

[baby doll]

If your local film society announced this as their film series for this Winter/Spring, what would you think? (Assume you live in smallish middle American town where none of these have a prayer of playing on a big screen.)

35 Shots of Rum (2008) – France/Germany
A Film Unfinished (2010) – Germany/Israel
Fish Tank (2009) – UK/Netherlands
The Illusionist (2010) – UK/France
In the Loop (2009) – UK
Inside Job (2010) – USA
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010) – USA
Lebanon (2009) – Israel/France/Lebanon/Germany
No One Knows about Persian Cats (2009) – Iran
The Song of Sparrows (2008) – Iran
Tiny Furniture (2010) – USA
Wild Grass (2009) – FranceNo Beau travail, but still, beau travail. Fascinating, multifaceted Holocaust doc. Predictable kitchen sink realism, but worth a look. Disappointing and it ultimately left a sour taste in my mouth, but still worth a glance. Haven't seen. Haven't seen. It's definitely the Joan Rivers that she wanted to show to the camera, but her stand-up is hilarious. Haven't seen it, but you should. Ditto. Haven't seen. Haven't even heard of it, but I love the title. Haven't seen it, but it's Resnais, so you should see it.

[D_Davis]

Going to see Reservoir Dogs tonight at a theater. Haven't seen the film in well over 10 years. Should be fun. And I think this is the first movie I've seen in the theater this year. I'm totally getting back into movies.

[soitgoes...]

Punishment Park (Peter Watkins, 1971) / ****
Welcome to the fold.

[baby doll]

Welcome to the fold.Yeah, it's pretty strong stuff. I had forgotten before watching Watkins' introduction (or maybe I just never knew) that during the Chicago Eight trial, they actually bound and gagged Bobby Seale.

[balmakboor]

If your local film society announced this as their film series for this Winter/Spring, what would you think? (Assume you live in smallish middle American town where none of these have a prayer of playing on a big screen.)

35 Shots of Rum (2008) – France/Germany
A Film Unfinished (2010) – Germany/Israel
Fish Tank (2009) – UK/Netherlands
The Illusionist (2010) – UK/France
In the Loop (2009) – UK
Inside Job (2010) – USA
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010) – USA
Lebanon (2009) – Israel/France/Lebanon/Germany
No One Knows about Persian Cats (2009) – Iran
The Song of Sparrows (2008) – Iran
Tiny Furniture (2010) – USA
Wild Grass (2009) – France

Keep thoughts coming. This is our annual struggle to come up with a 12 film series. We met two days ago and came up with a list of 96 films that various board members want to show. Now we each have two weeks to create a list of 12 that we feel strongly about. Then the fights begin.

That was the list I came up with this evening. Some of the others I'm considering are below. Feel free to point out ones that I should move from the list below to the list above.

Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
Best Worst Movie
Bonnie and Clyde
Departures
Howl
I Love You Phillip Morris
I'm Still Here
Leaves of Grass
Machuca
Me and Orson Welles
Micmacs
Mother
My Dog Tulip
Police, Adjective
The Secret in Their Eyes
Summer Hours
Tony Manero
Winnebago Man

[balmakboor]

Btw, I've seen 35 Shots of Rum and The Song of Sparrows and loved them both.

[B-side]

I'd love to see Ali: Fear Eats the Soul in a theater.

[balmakboor]

I'd love to see Ali: Fear Eats the Soul in a theater.

Yeah, we usually have one or two classics and it probably will end up that way. Ali and Bonnie and Clyde were my two contributions to the cause. I also wanted the restored Metropolis, but it is too long for our format. The theater owner gives us the screen and projectionist for nothing and about all he asks in return is that we keep the films at or under two hours. That way we don't interrupt his usual evening screenings.

[megladon8]

Going to see Reservoir Dogs tonight at a theater. Haven't seen the film in well over 10 years. Should be fun. And I think this is the first movie I've seen in the theater this year. I'm totally getting back into movies.


That's awesome, man!

Even though Reservoir Dogs is one I've never been particularly fond of, I'd jump at the chance to see it in the theatre.

Have a good time!

[balmakboor]

That's awesome, man!

Even though Reservoir Dogs is one I've never been particularly fond of, I'd jump at the chance to see it in the theatre.

Have a good time!

I can proudly say I've seen every Tarantino movie in the theater on opening weekend.

[megladon8]

Fuck, it's happening AGAIN.

The next three weeks' midnight movies at IFC are The Jerk, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Red Dawn - the first two are not very good, and the third is flat out terrible.

I swear it'll be like this for the 3 1/2 months I'm here, then the day I leave they'll show Le Samourai followed by American Psycho or something.

Fuck you, too, New York.

[megladon8]

I can proudly say I've seen every Tarantino movie in the theater on opening weekend.


That's pretty awesome, though he's not a filmmaker I very actively seek out.

I see a relatively low number of movies in theatres. It's too expensive, and the selection in Ottawa sucks.

[balmakboor]

Fuck, it's happening AGAIN.

The next three weeks' midnight movies at IFC are The Jerk, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Red Dawn - the first two are not very good, and the third is flat out terrible.

I swear it'll be like this for the 3 1/2 months I'm here, then the day I leave they'll show Le Samourai followed by American Psycho or something.

Fuck you, too, New York.

The same thing always happens to me when I visit Seattle every other year or so. A bunch of stuff I barely want to see followed by a gold rush the day I leave.

[Ezee E]

If your local film society announced this as their film series for this Winter/Spring, what would you think? (Assume you live in smallish middle American town where none of these have a prayer of playing on a big screen.)

35 Shots of Rum (2008) – France/Germany
A Film Unfinished (2010) – Germany/Israel
Fish Tank (2009) – UK/Netherlands
The Illusionist (2010) – UK/France
In the Loop (2009) – UK
Inside Job (2010) – USA
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010) – USA
Lebanon (2009) – Israel/France/Lebanon/Germany
No One Knows about Persian Cats (2009) – Iran
The Song of Sparrows (2008) – Iran
Tiny Furniture (2010) – USA
Wild Grass (2009) – France
Sounds like K-Fan's festival.

[balmakboor]

Sounds like K-Fan's festival.

I know. I started to make a post back when he posted that saying that his festival looked a lot like what I expected our series to be. One thing that sucks nowadays -- and it seems to suck a bit more each year -- is that films pretty much have to already be on DVD for them to be available to us. We only rent a film for one day, just like K-Fan's festival, and distributors don't seem to have much interest in such small potatoes until they exhausted all other theatrical possibilities. I'm worried about even being able to get most of the ones on my list for that reason. Some things like Another Year, Biutiful, and Catfish were on our list and won't even be worth trying for this year.

[megladon8]

The same thing always happens to me when I visit Seattle every other year or so. A bunch of stuff I barely want to see followed by a gold rush the day I leave.


It's a running joke Jen and I have every time I visit.

The only time we ever really had the IFC Center play great stuff was last spring when I was here for a month, and we saw three movies during the final week I was there.

Of course there are hundreds of venues all over NYC and we'll find someplace playing great stuff. But we really like the IFC Center and that area, and so when it plays crap the whole time I'm there and then Blade Runner the week after I leave, it's a little maddening.

[MadMan]

I'd love to see Reservoir Dogs on the big screen, but then I'm a huge fan of QT's work. I've only seen Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds on the big screen, though. I think I was old enough to watch Kill Bill Vol. 2, but I'm not sure-and I don't even remember if it came to my area or not.

Last night I saw Apocalypse Now in Blu Ray thanks to my friend, who bought the new release that's complete also with Redux and Heart of Darkness. Utterly stunning in every single way-its still one of the most gorgeous and beautiful movies ever made. I still recall my first viewing, which was three-four years ago, and it was truly something I don't think I'll ever forget.

[balmakboor]

I'd love to see Reservoir Dogs on the big screen, but then I'm a huge fan of QT's work. I've only seen Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds on the big screen, though. I think I was old enough to watch Kill Bill Vol. 2, but I'm not sure-and I don't even remember if it came to my area or not.

Last night I saw Apocalypse Now in Blu Ray thanks to my friend, who bought the new release that's complete also with Redux and Heart of Darkness. Utterly stunning in every single way-its still one of the most gorgeous and beautiful movies ever made. I still recall my first viewing, which was three-four years ago, and it was truly something I don't think I'll ever forget.

This is one of those times when I don't really mind being old. I was one of those lucky people back in 1979 trying to decide which was better, Apocalypse Now or All that Jazz. 29 years and many viewings of each later and I still haven't quite decided.

[MadMan]

This is one of those times when I don't really mind being old. I was one of those lucky people back in 1979 trying to decide which was better, Apocalypse Now or All that Jazz. 29 years and many viewings of each later and I still haven't quite decided.Well according to my Top 10 of All Time Thread I prefer AN, as its my #1 of all time. But I love All That Jazz, which is also a fantastic movie. From what I've seen 1979 had some truly great movies-AN, Jazz, Alien, Herzog's Nosferatu, The Warriors, and Mad Max. I'm jealous that you got to view both on the big screen, though.

[Boner M]

The Jerk... not very good
:crazy:

[soitgoes...]

Apocalypse Now is my 12th favorite film from 1979, which puts it possibly in my Top 1000 Films of All-time.

[balmakboor]

I also fondly remember debating with high school classmates whether Robert Deniro or Jon Voight should win best actor (for The Deer Hunter and Coming Home of course). I still think Voight, but have long since sided with The Deer Hunter as a movie.

Man, I loved the '70s. These two debates make arguing over Avatar and The Hurt Locker seem silly indeed. I can't imagine either still meaning much of anything in 29 years. They didn't even mean much to me on a second viewing a month later.

[balmakboor]

:crazy:

The Jerk is one of those movies that I don't think is very good, but that I find very, very funny. Plus my wife and I quote it all the time.

[Ezee E]

I also fondly remember debating with high school classmates whether Robert Deniro or Jon Voight should win best actor (for The Deer Hunter and Coming Home of course). I still think Voight, but have long since sided with The Deer Hunter as a movie.

Man, I loved the '70s. These two debates make arguing over Avatar and The Hurt Locker seem silly indeed. I can't imagine either still meaning much of anything in 29 years. They didn't even mean much to me on a second viewing a month later.
Ha. Great point.

[MadMan]

Man, I loved the '70s. These two debates make arguing over Avatar and The Hurt Locker seem silly indeed. I can't imagine either still meaning much of anything in 29 years. They didn't even mean much to me on a second viewing a month later.Those debates are even more silly considering neither one is the best movie of 2010. Avatar is destined to be the next Titanic, though, in that its remembered for its huge box office and the fact that it was directed by James Cameron ;)

If we're talking movies that will be remembered from 2009, I'd say probably something like Inglourious Basterds comes to mind, as does (unfortunately) Avatar and the Star Trek reboot/remake/whatever the hell you want to call it.

[transmogrifier]

The Jerk is neither a good nor funny movie.
Apocalypse Now is the second-best film of all-time
The Hurt Locker is even slighter and more forgettable than Slumdog Millionaire or Shakespeare in Love
The Deer Hunter is crazy good.
Reservoir Dogs is still Tarantino's best film

[balmakboor]

Inglourious Basterds is clearly running away from the pack for me as the best film of last year. I've watched it several times now and it just keeps getting better. The only other movies, American movies anyway, that I still get excited about are A Single Man and A Serious Man.

[transmogrifier]

IB is only the 12th best film I saw in a pretty weak year.

[MadMan]

I love A Serious Man, but I'm not sure if enough people saw it for it to be remembered in the long run. Its top tier Coens Brothers as far as I'm concerned.

[Boner M]

Weekend:

Beware of a Holy Whore (Fassbinder)
Something I've been promising to watch for the last month (Close-up, Fury, Story of the Late Chrysanthemums, Le pont du nord)
The Messenger[/b] (rpt, gotta review it for the alt-weekly and wasn't conscious enough the first time... not looking forward to sitting through that macho angst-fest again, esp. since it means missing Gods of the Plague at the cinematheque, first world problems etc)
I'm Still Here or Let Me In or Detective Dee at the movies

[Derek]

The Jerk is neither a good nor funny movie.
Apocalypse Now is the second-best film of all-time
The Hurt Locker is even slighter and more forgettable than Slumdog Millionaire or Shakespeare in Love
The Deer Hunter is crazy good.
Reservoir Dogs is still Tarantino's best film


IB is only the 12th best film I saw in a pretty weak year.

All of this wrongness is forgiven if you could please explain how When Harry Met Sally gets the highest score I've ever seen you give.

[MadMan]

When Harry Meet Sally actually is a great movie, from what I remember. I'm not sure why the hell trans thinks so highly of Grease, though.

[transmogrifier]

All of this wrongness is forgiven if you could please explain how When Harry Met Sally gets the highest score I've ever seen you give.

Because it's funny and has a depth of emotion no other modern romantic comedy has ever got close to.

Also, Rob Reiner is the greatest director that ever lived.

[transmogrifier]

When Harry Meet Sally actually is a great movie, from what I remember. I'm not sure why the hell trans thinks so highly of Grease, though.

Grease is a brilliantly immature romp, with catchy songs.

[baby doll]

Apocalypse Now is the second-best film of all-timeExcept that it goes to pieces by the end. The need to keep Brando constantly in the shadows in order to hide his flab brings out in Vittorio Storaro a tendency towards overly arty, high contrast cinematography.

But even before that point, the film is no more critical of America's invasion of Vietnam than Rambo: To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, like a high school newspaper, the film never bothers to ask why its rooting for the school team; the film just knows it's supposed to root for them. The entire ideological thrust of the movie is to vindicate the soldier on the ground after America's defeat by blaming it on the know-nothing generals (like Rambo, or The Deer Hunter for that matter, the film views the end of the war in terms of masculine humiliation). Why, if only Kurtz could've fought the war his way without the bureaucracy, then America might've won this thing--never-mind why they were there in the first place. As filmmaking it's often stunning, but as history it never rises above Cowboys and Indians. One characteristic moment comes during the storming of the village: When a Vietnamese woman throws a grenade into an American helicopter, Robert Duvall remarks (without any hint of irony), "Fucking savages." I'm sorry, who's the one leveling the treeline with napalm, and then saying it smells like "victory"? And while the film isn't uncritical of Duvall's character, it certainly doesn't spend much time considering any perspectives the Vietnamese might have, north or south.

[Duncan]

Good god.

[Mysterious Dude]

I read somewhere that there was more humanity in the reporting of the war while it was still happening than there was in any of the films that followed it. In the climax of John Ford's Stagecoach, the coach-riders are battling Indians, who drop off like flies. The natives are treated as obstacles, not people. Most war movies, especially the ones not set in Europe, treat the indigenous population in a similar fashion.

This bit of film accomplished so much more in putting human faces on the war:

[not safe for work]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0

[transmogrifier]

And The Wild Bunch doesn't consider the perspectives of Indians, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind doesn't consider the perspective of beach combers, and Saving Private Ryan doesn't consider the perspective of Egyptians.... There's no criticism of a film more useless than blaming it for not being what it never had any intention of being in the first place.

In other words, you seem to dislike the film for not being the magical Vietnam War movie you have swimming around up there in your head.

[Derek]

Because it's funny and has a depth of emotion no other modern romantic comedy has ever got close to.

One word, two syllables: Lubitsch.

[[ETM]]

Good god.

:lol:

[transmogrifier]

On an unrelated note: how many times, I wonder, have I confused Derek and Duncan?

[transmogrifier]

One word, two syllables: Lubitsch.

One word, two syllables: modern

[[ETM]]

I read somewhere that there was more humanity in the reporting of the war while it was still happening than there was in any of the films that followed it. In the climax of John Ford's Stagecoach, the coach-riders are battling Indians, who drop off like flies. The natives are treated as obstacles, not people. Most war movies, especially the ones not set in Europe, treat the indigenous population in a similar fashion.

Black Hawk Down is a perfect example. It's a powerful survival story only if you completely disregard the fact that they're killing people by the dozens themselves.

[baby doll]

And The Wild Bunch doesn't consider the perspectives of Indians, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind doesn't consider the perspective of beach combers, and Saving Private Ryan doesn't consider the perspective of Egyptians.... There's no criticism of a film more useless than blaming it for not being what it never had any intention of being in the first place.

In other words, you seem to dislike the film for not being the magical Vietnam War movie you have swimming around up there in your head.Coppola set out to make a film about the Vietnam war (I'll let it slide that he once claimed that the film "was Vietnam"), and as assessment of said war, it's limited to acceptable criticisms. During the run-up to the present war in Iraq, any criticism of the grounds for war was marginalized by the mass media. When the war began, it was acceptable to criticize the war for being poorly run, and when the surge started to turn things around, it was seen as a vindication of the Bush policy that a war the US shouldn't have entered into in the first place was now starting to go well. (There's a reason why The Hurt Locker got so much press and won an Oscar without making much more money than any of the earlier Iraq war films, which were completely marginalized. Bigelow doesn't even concern herself with how the war's going--which doesn't make it a bad movie, just not the second greatest ever made.) Similarly, Coppola limits his criticisms to chiding the generals for losing the war without asking any fundamental questions about why the war started in the first place. And for a film purporting to take a clear-eyed assessment of what happened in Vietnam, yes, I think that's a valid criticism.

[transmogrifier]

And for a film purporting to take a clear-eyed assessment of what happened in Vietnam, yes, I think that's a valid criticism.

Yeah, we didn't see the same film.

[Mysterious Dude]

And The Wild Bunch doesn't consider the perspectives of Indians, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind doesn't consider the perspective of beach combers, and Saving Private Ryan doesn't consider the perspective of Egyptians.... There's no criticism of a film more useless than blaming it for not being what it never had any intention of being in the first place.
Saving Private Ryan is set in France, so I do not fault it for ignoring the Egyptians. Apocalypse Now is set in Vietnam.

Now I don't begrudge Apocalypse Now for being what it is, at least not to the extent than BabyDoll does (I like the cinematography). But it would be nice if what I said didn't apply to pretty much all of the well-known Vietnam movies (The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, fucking Forrest Gump). Is there any movie "about" Vietnam that doesn't ignore the Vietnamese?

[Derek]

On an unrelated note: how many times, I wonder, have I confused Derek and Duncan?

The problem is that unlike some other posters, you so often come across as a reasonable person with good taste and valid opinions and then you blindside me with statements that completely invalidate that. You are the enigma of MatchCut for me.


One word, two syllables: modern

One sentence, many syllables: I didn't read your post that closely.

[Derek]

Saving Private Ryan is set in France, so I do not fault it for ignoring the Egyptians. Apocalypse Now is set in Vietnam.

Now I don't begrudge Apocalypse Now for being what it is, at least not to the extent than BabyDoll does (I like the cinematography). But it would be nice if what I said didn't apply to pretty much all of the well-known Vietnam movies (The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, fucking Forrest Gump).

Have you seen Hearts & Minds? You'd love it.

[baby doll]

Yeah, we didn't see the same film.So the film you saw wasn't full of references to the generals fucking things up, and didn't contain narration that explicitly contrasted US soldiers going to USO shows with "Charlie [squatting] in a bush," and didn't have Brando give a speech about Viet-Cong hacking off children's arms (never happened) in order to make the point that "they" were "stronger," and if the "we" had been "strong" like that, "our troubles" over there would be over shortly?

[transmogrifier]

Saving Private Ryan is set in France, so I do not fault it for ignoring the Egyptians. Apocalypse Now is set in Vietnam.

Now I don't begrudge Apocalypse Now for being what it is, at least not to the extent than BabyDoll does (I like the cinematography). But it would be nice if what I said didn't apply to pretty much all of the well-known Vietnam movies (The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, fucking Forrest Gump). Is there any movie "about" Vietnam that doesn't ignore the Vietnamese?

Apocalypse Now is not about the Vietnamese. Criticizing it for not focusing enough on the Vietnamese is therefore just silly.

[baby doll]

Apocalypse Now is not about the Vietnamese. Criticizing it for not focusing enough on the Vietnamese is therefore just silly.It's about Vietnam, and in particular, America's involvement there circa 1968 or '69 when the film is set.

[transmogrifier]

The problem is that unlike some other posters, you so often come across as a reasonable person with good taste and valid opinions and then you blindside me with statements that completely invalidate that. You are the enigma of MatchCut for me.


Which statement? WHMS?

[transmogrifier]

It's about Vietnam, and in particular, America's involvement there circa 1968 or '69 when the film is set.

Yep.

[transmogrifier]

So the film you saw wasn't full of references to the generals fucking things up, and didn't contain narration that explicitly contrasted US soldiers going to USO shows with "Charlie [squatting] in a bush," and didn't have Brando give a speech about Viet-Cong hacking off children's arms (never happened) in order to make the point that "they" were "stronger," and if the "we" had been "strong" like that, we "our troubles" over there would be over shortly?

So I guess all that's left is for you to explain what the word "clear-eyed" actually means to you.

[baby doll]

Yep.Indeed, and it makes certain criticisms of how the war strategy was mishandled, but makes no criticism of the grounds for war. In other words, it wants to be an "apolitcal" film about genocide. And films that do take a political stance on genocide are often marginalized (although it's not about Vietnam, Dead Man is a film about genocide that was marginalized in the mainstream press on first release), while Coppola's film is lauded as a masterpiece by ostensibly left-leaning mainstream reviewers like Roger Ebert and institutions like the AFI. I think it's a very good film, even if I have problems with the last twenty or thirty minutes (Martin Sheen rising slowly from the mud is just silly to me--certainly in a film that wants to be taken seriously as an assessment of the Vietnam war, as this film so clearly does, as I've tried to show. Also, how does Brando know that Chef is about to call in an air strike? Does crazy give you telepathic powers?), but as a statement about the war, it's downright cowardly.

[baby doll]

So I guess all that's left is for you to explain what the word "clear-eyed" actually means to you.In this context or in general? Well, Coppola might've given at least some thought to why the war happened at all. And although he devotes some attention atrocities committed by US soldiers, we don't see anything even close to the systematic mass murder at My Lai. I think what's fascinating about a film like Peter Watkins' Culloden, about the Jacobite rebellions in the 18th century, is how it moves from a minute-by-minute recreation of this one battle to a larger, more far-reaching look at its implications.

[transmogrifier]

.... in a film that wants to be taken seriously as an assessment of the Vietnam war, as this film so clearly does......


And although he devotes some attention atrocities committed by US soldiers, we don't see anything even close to the systematic genocide at My Lai.

It's like saying Beetlejuice obviously wants to be a somber treatise on the hollowness of grief, but it doesn't depict realistic funerals, and doesn't show anyone going into a deep depression over the death of a loved one, and it doesn't discuss the philosophical ramifications of death, and it doesn't document the process of decay on a human body. So therefore it's not really that good.

[baby doll]

Nup.Then why set a movie in Vietnam in 1968, unless you're either going to make a statement about said war (and I've cited examples in the film, where he attempts to do exactly that), or a Green Berets-style action romp?

[baby doll]

....As I said, acceptable criticisms. In the film, they shoot a woman because they think she was going for a gun; in other words, they thought their lives were in danger. Then Sheen puts her out of her misery. It's one of the stronger moments in the film, and it obviously resists a simple right/wrong reading, but when it comes to objectively genocidal acts committed by US soldiers during that war, the film remains utterly silent. Had any US filmmaker attempted that, in 1979 or today, they would undoubtedly be marginalized by the mainstream press.

[transmogrifier]

Then why set a movie in Vietnam in 1968, unless you're either going to make a statement about said war (and I've cited examples in the film, where he attempts to do exactly that), or a Green Berets-style action romp?

See above.

[baby doll]

It's like saying Beetlejuice obviously wants to be a somber treatise on the hollowness of grief, but it doesn't depict realistic funerals, and doesn't show anyone going into a deep depression over the death of a loved one, and it doesn't discuss the philosophical ramifications of death, and it doesn't document the process of decay on a human body. So therefore it's not really that good.Except in Apocalypse Now, there are no supernatural fantasy elements apart from perhaps Brando's evident telepathy (he has spidey-sense for air strikes).

[transmogrifier]

It's like saying Beetlejuice obviously wants to be a somber treatise on the hollowness of grief, but it doesn't depict realistic funerals, and doesn't show anyone going into a deep depression over the death of a loved one, and it doesn't discuss the philosophical ramifications of death, and it doesn't document the process of decay on a human body. So therefore it's not really that good.

Actually this is fun.

Toy Story 3 is obviously trying to be a shattering look at psychological make-up of a sociopath and his co-dependence with mass media sensationalism, but it doesn't show anyone being killed and investigate the impact of that death on society as a whole, nor does it introduce the amoral reporting methods utilized by newspapers, nor does it even bother to have a character that is a sociopathic killer. Terrible!

[B-side]

I have no idea what's going on, so here's a funny picture:

http://4gifs.com/gallery/d/155628-1/Inmate_hair.jpg

[B-side]

Catfish was utterly compelling. Sometimes unsettling, sometimes baffling, sometimes highly emotional. Loved it.

[Winston*]

Anyone seen Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet? It is excellent, best filmed version of the play. If only it was in English...

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8250/vlcsnap2010102123h53m03.png

[Morris Schæffer]

Really cool empire article on the fate of Aliens: Colonial Marines:

http://www.empireonline.com/features/aliens-colonial-marines-profiles/

[Boner M]

One characteristic moment comes during the storming of the village: When a Vietnamese woman throws a grenade into an American helicopter, Robert Duvall remarks (without any hint of irony), "Fucking savages." I'm sorry, who's the one leveling the treeline with napalm, and then saying it smells like "victory"?Characteristic of what? Isn't the very fact that he says it w/o a hint of irony an irony in itself?

[Dukefrukem]

check this fucker out. 1000+ Minutes of shit! $139.99 U.S.

http://blastr.com/assets_c/2010/10/alien_anthology_blu_ray-thumb-330x407-49689.jpg

[baby doll]

Characteristic of what? Isn't the very fact that he says it w/o a hint of irony an irony in itself?When I said irony, I probably should've said, "without any hint of satirical intent on the part of the filmmakers." (The problem with irony is that you can read anything as ironic.) Later, when Duvall says that he loves the smell of napalm in the morning, it's obviously meant satirically (only a crazy person would love the smell of napalm, since everybody knows that it smells terrible). Here, on the other hand, the comment passes unnoticed by most moviegoers, coming as it does immediately after a savage act of terrorism (the idea that the girl was defending her village from foreign invaders would never occur to this movie, for the very reasons I've been stating in this thread). Incidentally, during the same sequence, although Coppola gives us a handheld close-up of a wounded American screaming in agony, when US soldiers shoot down Vietnamese people, it's seen from a distance without much blood. The camera placement and editing have us identify uncritically with the American position, which is justifiable in certain respects (the story is narrated from the point of view of an American soldier), but in choosing that vantage point and sticking with it, Coppola approaches the war as if it were a high school football match (he doesn't know why he's rooting for the US; he just knows that he wants his team to win), which would be fine, if the film didn't hold itself up (and this is where it differs from The Hurt Locker) as a serious commentary on the war by having the characters in the film comment explicitly on how the war was being mishandled.

[number8]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Other_Side_1.jpg/391px-Other_Side_1.jpg

It's better than Apocalypse Now.

[Raiders]

Has it occurred to you baby doll that telling a story from one vantage point does not necessarily equate to "rooting?" I mean, the central story after all is about an American going to kill another American. The film's goal isn't to show you both sides and to give you a scorecard on who's winning, why we're there, should we be there... (you seem to want to make this into a sporting match more than Coppola). The film is all about the quagmire, the complete and utter surrealty of being up the river without a paddle (pun intended) and of aimlessly fighting a war without any distinct purpose or directive from above. The only clear orders in the film are to find and execute a fellow American soldier. Sheen's character is barely even fighting a war; the skirmishes that happen do so only with Sheen as a bystander (to the obviously insane Kilgore) or as random events that happen along his journey. There are no battlefields, no formations, no victories. Just random encounters of violence. It's a pretty clear picture, and commentary, on the unique and ridiculous nature of the war.

Every film has to have a distinct perspective and purpose. You may as well ask why Peter Davis' Hearts and Minds doesn't properly give equal measure to the suffering of American soldiers and POWs as it does those for the Vietnamese and even seems to intentionally villify the American soldiers. Naturally the answer is obvious: his intention was to depict what the American soldiers and regime were causing in that region and to clarify some of the misconceptions on the nature of the Viet Cong and Vietnamese people. He had an agenda and made the best film he could around that agenda. Coppola too has an agenda. He makes a fiction film about the experience of a disillusioned soldier trapped in an unwinnable and disparate war where the purpose is as muddy as the landscape and his own mission is comically backward. Coppola is not interested in creating an encyclopedic version of the war. His is more personal, less political.

In response to your comments regarding the sequence with Kilgore and the Vietnamese girl, I must admit I think most filmgoers might actually just be quicker than you appear to be on this point. Not only are his own comments intended to be ironic (and this point seems practically explicit), but I think it is important to remember the song they fly to. They designated themselves the choosers of who lives and who dies, their felt superiority and arrogance made very explicit. The girl attacking them and being killed would normally, in a John Wayne-esque war film, be a moment of small victory for the US troops. But after Kilgore's callous and ironic response, it seems very clear that Coppola is at least superficially, satirizing the classic response such a scene would evoke. It would be silly to suddenly try and come at the scene from the Vietnamese point of view; Coppola has chosen his (the American, more specifically Willard) and stuck with it. We inherently understand that the girl was no more a savage than Kilgore and it equates the violent factions of both sides, which is about as human and fair a thing you can do.

[baby doll]

Has it occurred to you baby doll that telling a story from one vantage point does not necessarily equate to "rooting?" I mean, the central story after all is about an American going to kill another American. The film's goal isn't to show you both sides and to give you a scorecard on who's winning, why we're there, should we be there... (you seem to want to make this into a sporting match more than Coppola). The film is all about the quagmire, the complete and utter surrealty of being up the river without a paddle (pun intended) and of aimlessly fighting a war without any distinct purpose or directive from above. The only clear orders in the film are to find and execute a fellow American soldier. Sheen's character is barely even fighting a war; the skirmishes that happen do so only with Sheen as a bystander (to the obviously insane Kilgore) or as random events that happen along his journey. There are no battlefields, no formations, no victories. Just random encounters of violence. It's a pretty clear picture, and commentary, on the unique and ridiculous nature of the war.If the film intends to portray the war as a quagmire, as you say, first of all, wouldn't it be in the film's interest to explain why the war was wrong from the beginning, and second, why then make the case--as Brando does in his celebrated horror monologue, and which reenforces points already made in the narration--that the US could've won the war had they been "strong" enough to go around hacking the arms off of schoolchildren? For that matter, while the US may not have gone around doing that precisely, how many children were killed by US soldiers, not only at My Lai but during the entire run of the war? I mean, maybe the single most famous image of the war is the picture of the girl whose clothes had been burned off by napalm. Yet the film makes the case, basically, that the US should have been even more indiscriminate and systematic about the children they killed if they really wanted to win.


Every film has to have a distinct perspective and purpose. You may as well ask why Peter Davis' Hearts and Minds doesn't properly give equal measure to the suffering of American soldiers and POWs as it does those for the Vietnamese and even seems to intentionally villify the American soldiers. Naturally the answer is obvious: his intention was to depict what the American soldiers and regime were causing in that region and to clarify some of the misconceptions on the nature of the Viet Cong and Vietnamese people. He had an agenda and made the best film he could around that agenda. Coppola too has an agenda. He makes a fiction film about the experience of a disillusioned soldier trapped in an unwinnable and disparate war where the purpose is as muddy as the landscape and his own mission is comically backward. Coppola is not interested in creating an encyclopedic version of the war. His is more personal, less political.The adjective "unwinnable" brings me back to my other point, which is less about the film itself, than the film as a cultural phenomenon: There are certain acceptable criticisms that a filmmaker can make about the war in Vietnam (for instance, that it was badly mishandled and therefore unwinnable--basically, what Kronkite said about the war in 1968), but beyond a certain point, they face being marginalized. It's interesting to reflect that the war films most vigorously supported by Roger Ebert tend to be so-called "apolitical" war movies like Black Hawk Down and The Hurt Locker. Similarly, look at The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp: Although it was made by a lifelong Tory and intended as propaganda, it was too hot for 1943 Britain because of its implication that England would lose the war if they didn't fight dirty, and consequently, was only shown after the war in a censored version. When the film was finally restored forty years later, the political climate having shifted, it was hailed as a masterpiece. My point is that I don't think that Coppola's film would've been so widely embraced as a masterpiece had its criticisms of the war been more pointed.


In response to your comments regarding the sequence with Kilgore and the Vietnamese girl, I must admit I think most filmgoers might actually just be quicker than you appear to be on this point. Not only are his own comments intended to be ironic (and this point seems practically explicit), but I think it is important to remember the song they fly to. They designated themselves the choosers of who lives and who dies, their felt superiority and arrogance made very explicit. The girl attacking them and being killed would normally, in a John Wayne-esque war film, be a moment of small victory for the US troops. But after Kilgore's callous and ironic response, it seems very clear that Coppola is at least superficially, satirizing the classic response such a scene would evoke. It would be silly to suddenly try and come at the scene from the Vietnamese point of view; Coppola has chosen his (the American, more specifically Willard) and stuck with it. We inherently understand that the girl was no more a savage than Kilgore and it equates the violent factions of both sides, which is about as human and fair a thing you can do.As I said, you can read it as ironic or you can read it straight. But going back to the point I just made, had the film's criticism been more pointed, as opposed to sticking with the ideologically acceptable cliche of the Insanity of War, I doubt it would've been as widely embraced.

One could also argue that the film is opportunistically muddled: The Kilgore scenes, and Sheen's comically backwards mission of going upriver to kill another American, show the Insanity of War (therefore, the widespread agreement that the film represents some kind of anti-war statement), while the Brando scenes and much of the narration make the case the war could've been won had the US just gone all out.

[Qrazy]

So the film you saw wasn't full of references to the generals fucking things up, and didn't contain narration that explicitly contrasted US soldiers going to USO shows with "Charlie [squatting] in a bush," and didn't have Brando give a speech about Viet-Cong hacking off children's arms (never happened) in order to make the point that "they" were "stronger," and if the "we" had been "strong" like that, "our troubles" over there would be over shortly?

I feel you're misreading the film. I suggest reading (re-read?) Heart of Darkness and then re-watching. No, one doesn't have to read the book to understand all the ramifications of the film but it helps.

[Raiders]

I don't remember getting the feeling that I was meant to side with Brando's beliefs whatsoever. He's charismatically insane and does a lot of philosophizing, and I'm sure there is an intended truth to his position that a less political and more elemental, and brutal, regime would have "won" the war. But you seem to be taking this at face value, as if because it is in the screenplay and because Brando convincingly gives his argument that the film preaches it as gospel instead of another layer to the madness, and wicked and distorted logic, that can be wrought from such a war and experience.

I admittedly don't remember many specific details of the actual narration so I won't comment regarding that.

By chance, have you read Conrad's book?

[Qrazy]

If the film intends to portray the war as a quagmire, as you say, first of all, wouldn't it be in the film's interest to explain why the war was wrong from the beginning, and second, why then make the case--as Brando does in his celebrated horror monologue, and which reenforces points already made in the narration--that the US could've won the war had they been "strong" enough to go around hacking the arms off of schoolchildren? For that matter, while the US may not have gone around doing that precisely, how many children were killed by US soldiers, not only at My Lai but during the entire run of the war? I mean, maybe the single most famous image of the war is the picture of the girl whose clothes had been burned off by napalm. Yet the film makes the case, basically, that the US should have been even more indiscriminate and systematic about the children they killed if they really wanted to win.

The adjective "unwinnable" brings me back to my other point, which is less about the film itself, than the film as a cultural phenomenon: There are certain acceptable criticisms that a filmmaker can make about the war in Vietnam (for instance, that it was badly mishandled and therefore unwinnable--basically, what Kronkite said about the war in 1968), but beyond a certain point, they face being marginalized. It's interesting to reflect that the war films most vigorously supported by Roger Ebert tend to be so-called "apolitical" war movies like Black Hawk Down and The Hurt Locker. Similarly, look at The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp: Although it was made by a lifelong Tory and intended as propaganda, it was too hot for 1943 Britain because of its implication that England would lose the war if they didn't fight dirty, and consequently, was only shown after the war in a censored version. When the film was finally restored forty years later, the political climate having shifted, it was hailed as a masterpiece. My point is that I don't think that Coppola's film would've been so widely embraced as a masterpiece had its criticisms of the war been more pointed.

As I said, you can read it as ironic or you can read it straight. But going back to the point I just made, had the film's criticism been more pointed, as opposed to sticking with the ideologically acceptable cliche of the Insanity of War, I doubt it would've been as widely embraced.

One could also argue that the film is opportunistically muddled: The Kilgore scenes, and Sheen's comically backwards mission of going upriver to kill another American, show the Insanity of War (therefore, the widespread agreement that the film represents some kind of anti-war statement), while the Brando scenes and much of the narration make the case the war could've been won had the US just gone all out.

The film is not pro-Kurtz.

[Duncan]

That line of Duvall's, "Fucking savages," is utterly ironic. That you could read it otherwise is possible, I guess, but beyond me. I think you've completely missed the point of the film.

[Melville]

you've completely missed the point of the film.
Fixed.

[DavidSeven]

Apocalypse Now really isn't just about the insanity of war. It's about the insanity of spreading democracy, "freedom", or whatever ideology through warfare. The insanity of building a "civilization" by launching grenades at it. The absurdity of how sending one American soldier up a river to kill another American Soldier could in any way advance the country's ideological goals. It's a very obvious adaptation of Conrad's criticism of European Colonialism (adapted to Western Interventionism). This is all very obvious within the film, but still very well done. Probably the most ingenious literary to film adaptation ever. But that's my opinion.

[baby doll]

I don't remember getting the feeling that I was meant to side with Brando's beliefs whatsoever. He's charismatically insane and does a lot of philosophizing, and I'm sure there is an intended truth to his position that a less political and more elemental, and brutal, regime would have "won" the war. But you seem to be taking this at face value, as if because it is in the screenplay and because Brando convincingly gives his argument that the film preaches it as gospel instead of another layer to the madness, and wicked and distorted logic, that can be wrought from such a war and experience.

I admittedly don't remember many specific details of the actual narration so I won't comment regarding that.

By chance, have you read Conrad's book?I have not, but I fully intend to one day. I'd also like to see Nicholas Ray's adaptation of the same book, Wind Across the Everglades to see how it stacks up against Coppola's. (As much as I admire Coppola, particularly The Conversation, I don't think it's a put-down to say that Ray is the better filmmaker.)

The reason why I think the film endorses Kurtz's point of view is that the narration, which largely consists of exposition about Kurtz, tracing his journey into the Heart of Darkness, portrays him as an exceptional military officer who was capable of coming up with operations and pulling them off without official permission, "winning the war his way," much to the chagrin of the generals watching the war from behind their desks. (This presumably accounts for his near psychic ability to predict when Chef plans to call in an air strike.) And the fact of his being charged with murder and the military sending Willard into kill him is not only indicative of the Insanity of War, but the narration ultimately vindicates Kurtz's decision to execute those people (Willard reports on the soundtrack, "Enemy activity in Kurtz's sector dropped off to zero. He must have hit the right four people").

It's true that when Kurtz asks him about his methods, Willards says that there doesn't seem to be any method at all (just the Insanity of War), but he also says in the voice-over that he "felt like he knew a thing or two about Kurtz that wasn't in the dossier," suggesting at least some sort of grudging admiration. Maybe the reason the film seems to go to hell in the final stretch is that Coppola didn't have a clear idea of Kurtz as a character.

[Duncan]

And, as others have said, the film is not pro-Kurtz. It is desperately anti-Kurtz. Kurtz is a character, obviously, and a pretty good one as played by Brando, but he also represents the American justifications, tactics, and, yes, even motivations for being in Vietnam, stripped of all polite, propagandistic white-washing, and taken to their limits of extremity. The American position ends in slaughter and heads on pikes. I mean, I feel like to say what I'm about to say is to go into, like, maybe grade 9 levels of Coles Notes-sophistication, but anyway... So there's this guy, Willard, and he's going down a river, into a kind of heart of darkness, if you will, and the further he goes down the river, the madder the world gets. Along the way he meets guys like Duvall who play Ride of the Valkyries, an earnest gesture by the character, but satire of war films in general with their rousing scores. The guy is a sociopath, and portrayed consistently as such. Further down the river still, Willard's boat mates begin to succumb to madness, and, yes, the film does have some sympathy for them, their youth and lives having been wasted on a brutal and absurd war that was a mistake from the beginning. They never should have been there. The whole time you've got these USO shows and rank and file trying to keep a semblance of order layered over the war, but, ultimately, this is untenable, because the universal principle of war is horror, chaos, massacre...basically what Kurtz says. The film, then, is not saying that Vietnam could have been won if the Americans were more callous, but that Vietnam, as a war, sprung from the darkest, most violent places within men. It is deeply critical of the war.

edit: plus what D7 said about it being analogous to European colonial tendencies.

And, again, it does consider that Vietnamese woman's position. That you could misread a scene so completely baffles me.

[baby doll]

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how you can claim that the film argues that the American war in Vietnam was "a mistake from the beginning," when it doesn't go into any of the reasons as to why the war happened in the first place. At best, you could claim it shows the insanity of wars in general--a cliche which I've already argued falls into the category of acceptable criticisms. Nor do I think the film makes the case that Kurtz is representative of the American policy when the film portrays him as constantly at odds with the military bureaucracy. It would be more reasonable to say that his insanity is representative of war in general. When you say that the war springs from the darkest depths of the human soul, you could be talking about any war. In other words, war is bad and makes people crazy, which is far from a pointed analysis of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

[Duncan]

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how you can claim that the film argues that the American war in Vietnam was "a mistake from the beginning," when it doesn't go into any of the reasons as to why the war happened in the first place. At best, you could claim it shows the insanity of wars in general--a cliche which I've already argued falls into the category of acceptable criticisms.
Pretty sure every single vignette is commenting on Vietnam in particular, fictionalized or not. That these specifics can then be broadened to a commentary on war in general shouldn't be held against the film. That's ridiculous. It's an adaptation of a 19th century novel. Of course it's going to be about more than just Vietnam.

Nor do I think the film makes the case that Kurtz is representative of the American policy when the film portrays him as constantly at odds with the military bureaucracy. I am saying he is representative of American policy stripped of its civilized veneer. The generals don't want him killed because he's evil or whatever. The subtextual reason they want him dead is that he reveals the American position in Vietnam for what it is: yet another absurd, colonial escapade that, if looked at honestly, is pretty evil in itself.

It would be more reasonable to say that his insanity is representative of war in general. When you say that the war springs from the darkest depths of the human soul, you could be talking about any war. In other words, war is bad and makes people crazy, which is far from a pointed analysis of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia. I don't really disagree with you, and that's why I prefaced my comments with the Coles Notes remark. But you seemed not to be picking up on any of it, so I felt it necessary to state the obvious. That said, I think the film is much richer than that.

[Raiders]

Why does it matter to this particular film why the war started when it so obviously has led us to this point where the film picks up? Whyever it did start, it has come to this and "this" is what Sheen's character has to face and deal with. The war has become such a failure that Sheen's mission is to hunt down a man, his own brethren, who was once a brilliant military strategist who has allowed the darkness and brutality of war (and make no mistake, it could indeed be any war, but Vietnam has always had a very distinctive air that makes it even more pungent in these regards) to seep into his own strategical mastery and form a kind of monstrous rationality for how to "win" the war, when the entire first two hours of the film have shown us not only that we aren't "winning" anything but that the war is no longer a focused initiative about "winning" but is disparate elements, factions of people all living it out differently from Kilgore's narcissistic, sociopathic adherence to killing and surfing to USO facades to outposts that seem almost completely removed from reality. It shows that the American manifest belief of spreading change and democracy has failed and I don't think you need to be a scholar to see the arrogance of ever trying, particularly when there are men such as Kilgore and Kurtz leading the way.

[Qrazy]

I have not, but I fully intend to one day. I'd also like to see Nicholas Ray's adaptation of the same book, Wind Across the Everglades to see how it stacks up against Coppola's. (As much as I admire Coppola, particularly The Conversation, I don't think it's a put-down to say that Ray is the better filmmaker.)

No, not a put down, just incorrect. Ray never made a film close to Godfather I or II or Apocalypse Now.

[Qrazy]

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how you can claim that the film argues that the American war in Vietnam was "a mistake from the beginning," when it doesn't go into any of the reasons as to why the war happened in the first place. At best, you could claim it shows the insanity of wars in general--a cliche which I've already argued falls into the category of acceptable criticisms. Nor do I think the film makes the case that Kurtz is representative of the American policy when the film portrays him as constantly at odds with the military bureaucracy. It would be more reasonable to say that his insanity is representative of war in general. When you say that the war springs from the darkest depths of the human soul, you could be talking about any war. In other words, war is bad and makes people crazy, which is far from a pointed analysis of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

Because this film is not the dogmatic rhetorical shite that you want it to be.

[Bosco B Thug]

No, not a put down, just incorrect. Ray never made a film close to Godfather I or II or Apocalypse Now. Arguableee. But of course you know this.

Apocalypse Now is a fine movie, though.

[Ivan Drago]

To this day I will never understand why it took me 22 years to see The Exorcist for the first time. Fucking amazing film.

[MadMan]

Having seen AN 3-4 times, I have to say that based on what baby doll has posted about the movie I think he completely missed the point of the whole thing. I hate to say it, but I believe it to be true. Maybe he went on to say further things about the characters, but if he thinks that Kurtz and Kilgore exist to say "If only we'd done this and that we'd won the war," then he watched a completely different movie than I did. I came away feeling what Coppola wanted me to feel: that these guys were utterly insane. But okay...

PS: My review of the movie states how I feel about it, and what I think. And hey, its whoring out my own work. Hurray!

http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=226782&postcount=55

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

Inherit the Wind (Kramer)
The Lion in Winter (Harvey)
The Diamond Arm (Gaidai)
Salvatore Giuliano (Rosi)
Catfish
Animal Kingdom

[Spinal]

Kuroneko is opening at a Portland cinema in early November. Anyone else getting this in their town? Is this one of those pre-DVD tours? Cause it's a great movie.

[Derek]

Kuroneko is opening at a Portland cinema in early November. Anyone else getting this in their town? Is this one of those pre-DVD tours? Cause it's a great movie.

Coming to LA 2 weeks after Portland. Janus picked it up, so it'll most likely get a Criterion. Been wanting to see this for a while since I love what I've seen from Shindo.

[Spinal]

Janus picked it up, so it'll most likely get a Criterion.

I had a feeling.

[soitgoes...]

I probably prefer Onibaba to Kuroneko when comparing Shindô horror.

[endingcredits]

Weekend:

ten (Kiarostami)
On The Silver Globe (Zulawski)

[Qrazy]

Kuroneko is opening at a Portland cinema in early November. Anyone else getting this in their town? Is this one of those pre-DVD tours? Cause it's a great movie.

When are you going to give Naked Island another chance?

[Qrazy]

I probably prefer Onibaba to Kuroneko when comparing Shindô horror.

Almost goes without saying. Onibaba is his masterpiece.

[Derek]

When are you going to give Naked Island another chance?


Almost goes without saying. Onibaba is his masterpiece.

I prefer Naked Island. You know poetic minimalism is Spinal's kryptonite...no need to make him suffer.

[soitgoes...]

Almost goes without saying. Onibaba is his masterpiece.


I prefer Naked Island.

Derek is the winner!

[Raiders]

It goes without saying that Onibaba is 'meh'.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It goes without saying that Onibaba is 'meh'.

And yet, here you are, saying so.

;)

I agree. I thought it was stylistically impressive but repetitive to a fault and overly shrill.

[MadMan]

Weekend:

*The Bird With the Crystal Plumage
*Freddy V. Jason
*The Lost Boys
*Tales Of Terror/Twice Told Tales
*Black Sabbath

And maybe Killer Klowns From Outer Space

[balmakboor]

Finally saw The Road this evening. Definitely wasn't disappointed.

[balmakboor]

Picked up the directors cut of Natural Born Killers today on a lark for $4.99 at Best Buy. Been wanting to revisit it for quite a while now. It was the second movie I ever reviewed and I pointed out at the time how it was closely related to Full Metal Jacket, which it is. I've been meaning to expand upon those thoughts.

[balmakboor]

Wow! I'm kinda surprised that Paranormal Activity 2 is getting such high marks. Surprised and pleased. I was intrigued when I saw that it includes a baby in a crib. It gives me hope that my allegorical reading of the first one will continue. A couple with a baby was the next logical step.

[balmakboor]

To this day I will never understand why it took me 22 years to see The Exorcist for the first time. Fucking amazing film.

Yes it is. Great movie. I always found it fascinating that Friedkin shot the exorcism scenes on a refridgerated set so we could see their breath.

[Derek]

Wow! I'm kinda surprised that Paranormal Activity 2 is getting such high marks. Surprised and pleased. I was intrigued when I saw that it includes a baby in a crib. It gives me hope that my allegorical reading of the first one will continue. A couple with a baby was the next logical step.

Hopefully this house will have a basement. Creepy cellar noises FTW!

[Spinal]

To this day I will never understand why it took me 22 years to see The Exorcist for the first time. Fucking amazing film.

Well, those first 12 or 13 years are understandable. Not a lot of grade schoolers watch The Exorcist.

[Spinal]

Wow! I'm kinda surprised that Paranormal Activity 2 is getting such high marks.

Think I might go see that tomorrow.

[megladon8]

Friday November 12th/Saturday November 13th, The Night of the Hunter is playing at IFC Center.

Jen and I will be there (not sure which showing).

[B-side]

In the interest of furthering my martyr status, who else here wasn't all that impressed with Night of the Hunter?

[Spinal]

In the interest of furthering my martyr status, who else here wasn't all that impressed with Night of the Hunter?

Knuckleheads.

[B-side]

Knuckleheads.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/charles-barkley.jpg

[Grouchy]

In other words, war is bad and makes people crazy, which is far from a pointed analysis of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia.
In My Humble Olympics, this is the key point of the discussion.

You want Apocalypse Now to be something it's not - an analysis of international politics of imperialism that caused US to fuck up Vietnam and to engage in genocide. The film is an adaptation of a Joseph Conrad novel that - I haven't read it either - speaks about violence in the heart of the human being as a whole. Vietnam is simply the adequate setting for such a story. If you stop looking for something that isn't really there, you'd be more able to engage in the experience of a masterpiece.

I mean, even Platoon is more specifically political. I'd like to see the two other movies in the unofficial "Vietman trilogy" (Bourn on the 4th of July, Heaven & Heart) to see movies that dwell more specifically on Vietnam as a chapter of history. I turn to Coppola's film for other things.

[Grouchy]

The Killer Inside Me
Michael Winterbottom, 2010

Frankly, I wanted to like this much more than I did. I thought it did a nice job at being stylish (I never seen a Winterbottom film that wasn't) but it didn't manage to develop a coherent story. I'm speaking from ignorance here, because I never read Jim Thompson's novel, but the script of this film never dwelled enough into the character. And Casey Affleck was fucking dynamite, so I was left wanting more meat. Not that Jessica Alba isn't a mouthful. In short, it was a slight spectacle that never cut deep enough into its premise, despite some excruciating scenes of violence against the dames. Nice cast.

http://opiniones.terra.es/tmp/swotti/cacheYSBWZXJMZWN0IHDVCMXKRW50Z XJ0YWLUBWVUDC1NB3ZPZXM=/imgA%20Perfect%20World1.jpg

A Perfect World
Clint Eastwood, 1993

I have no idea why I had never seen this. Badass film. Truly a classic of crime that develops slowly but assuredly. I loved Clint taking a back seat to a cool character arc that might be Kevin Costner's finest moment. The final scene is a fucking masterclass of good emotion directing. I am truly at a loss for more good word at the moment.

Buried
Rodrigo Cortés, 2010

This was pretty much exactly what I expected, but, don't get me wrong, it's good stuff. Cortés knows how to pull the strings, and it's a concept that leaves a lot of tantalizing possibilities once you think about it. The snake scene, without spoling too much, is truly great. There are a couple of other moments that display wonderful dark humor and rang eerily true.

I might be a little against such a bleak ending, specially after so much suffering, but I'm liking it more and more as I grow apart from it.

[transmogrifier]

In the interest of furthering my martyr status, who else here wasn't all that impressed with Night of the Hunter?

*hand up*

[B-side]

*hand up*

Your taste often baffles me, but I suppose that's no different than how folks respond to me, so I suppose we're one in the same.

[Melville]

In the interest of furthering my martyr status, who else here wasn't all that impressed with Night of the Hunter?
I was indifferent. My brother and I just kept calling the girl Zuzu to maintain interest in the proceedings. I remember it being kind of hokey, but it's been years since I've seen it, and a kind of hokey lyrical journey down a river, fleeing a killer step-parent in proper fairytale style, seems appealing in retrospect.

[B-side]

I was indifferent. My brother and I just kept calling the girl Zuzu to maintain interest in the proceedings. I remember it being kind of hokey, but it's been years since I've seen it, and a kind of hokey lyrical journey down a river, fleeing a killer step-parent in proper fairytale style, seems appealing in retrospect.

Well, when you say it like that...

[MadMan]

I'm just reminded that I still haven't posted my Night of the Hunter review. I thought it was a really good, well made thriller. And that Robert Mitchum was excellent. HIs "Love and Hate" monologue is a classic, really.

[soitgoes...]

Why the hell did Stanley Kramer feel the need to be as subtle as a sledgehammer? The guy had a mastery of mise en scène and the camera. Technically he was right up there with his contemporaries, but he had no control over the story or actors. It's like his direction to his actors was just let it all hang out from the start. There's no build up, whether he's preaching on the Holocaust, race, nuclear threat or religion, it's over the top from the moment go. The Defiant Ones is the only film of his I'd say is good, but after my last two of his viewings, I'm questioning whether it deserves a rewatch.

[Winston*]

Didn't care for the direction in A Single Man. Makes the film too much like watching a series of carefully framed photographs set to orchestral music. Excellent acting by Firth and Moore makes it kind of work though.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend (all first time I think):

Army of Darkness
Gremlins 2
The Exorcist 3
The Lost Boys

[Boner M]

Didn't care for the direction in A Single Man. Makes the film too much like watching a series of carefully framed photographs set to orchestral music. Excellent acting by Firth and Moore makes it kind of work though.
Yup, I can't think of another recent film more spoiled by fussy over-direction.

[Raiders]

Why the hell did Stanley Kramer feel the need to be as subtle as a sledgehammer? The guy had a mastery of mise en scène and the camera. Technically he was right up there with his contemporaries, but he had no control over the story or actors. It's like his direction to his actors was just let it all hang out from the start. There's no build up, whether he's preaching on the Holocaust, race, nuclear threat or religion, it's over the top from the moment go. The Defiant Ones is the only film of his I'd say is good, but after my last two of his viewings, I'm questioning whether it deserves a rewatch.

:: golf clap ::

And no Qrazy, I still have not watched The Defiant Ones.

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
Enter the Void

The Secret of their Eyes
Hurlyburly
Fires on the Plain

[Qrazy]

:: golf clap ::

And no Qrazy, I still have not watched The Defiant Ones.

*shakes head slowly*

[Qrazy]

I was indifferent. My brother and I just kept calling the girl Zuzu to maintain interest in the proceedings. I remember it being kind of hokey, but it's been years since I've seen it, and a kind of hokey lyrical journey down a river, fleeing a killer step-parent in proper fairytale style, seems appealing in retrospect.

Yeah I liked it but I"m not that big a fan either.

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger
Paranormal Activity 2

I'm also working as a sound mixer for my friend's 12-minute thesis film, so I'll be watching that (get made).

[Watashi]

Didn't care for the direction in A Single Man. Makes the film too much like watching a series of carefully framed photographs set to orchestral music. Excellent acting by Firth and Moore makes it kind of work though.

The over-direction and fantastic score really makes the film and suits the flamboyantness of everything. Take away both of those and your left with something pedestrian.

[Watashi]

I think I'll be one of the few who checks out the new Eastwood film this weekend. It doesn't look good, but eh... its Eastwood.

[Spinal]

Eastwood is the reason I assume it's probably not good.

[Ezee E]

The over-direction and fantastic score really makes the film and suits the flamboyantness of everything. Take away both of those and your left with something pedestrian.
Exactly.

[balmakboor]

I'll just say that few movies have filled me as fully with love for its passionate moviemaking the way A Single Man did. And few movies have left me as anxious to see a director's next movie. The below scene has often been cited as an example of "over direction." I think it is one of the most beautiful and intoxicating scenes I've ever watched.

http://www.screentrek.com/images/a-single-man22.jpg

[baby doll]

If you reedited A Single Man so that it said "A film by Wong Kar-wai" instead of somebody known as a fashion designer, and dubbed it into Cantonese, we'd all be praising it for its style.

[soitgoes...]

If you reedited A Single Man so that it said "A film by Wong Kar-wai" instead of somebody known as a fashion designer, and dubbed it into Cantonese, we'd all be praising it for its style.Having an all white cast speaking Cantonese in 60's era LA would be stylistically intriguing, I have to admit.

[baby doll]

Having an all white cast speaking Cantonese in 60's era LA would be stylistically intriguing, I have to admit.It's no worse than making a film set in Casablanca where everybody's speaking English.

[soitgoes...]

It's no worse than making a film set in Casablanca where everybody's speaking English.Poor example, the lead actor who everyone (an eclectic mix of internationals) interacts with is an American, it isn't as if he is French or Moroccan, but I understand what you're trying to say. Hollywood has always been at fault for keeping subtitles to a minimum. Memoirs of a Geisha would have been a good comparison. They even cast Chinese to play Japanese.

[baby doll]

They even cast Chinese to play Japanese.I'll let you in on a little secret: First, Asians can't tell other Asians apart. My former girlfriend was on a plane from Malaysia to Seoul, and when the stewardess started talking to this one guy in Korean, he got really mad because he was Japanese. Also, they think all white people look the same.

[megladon8]

But, Americans have HUGE penis.

Asian penis...so small...



/South Park reference

[transmogrifier]

Crap. Even I can tell Japanese, Chinese and Koreans apart with a 95 per cent accuracy.

[baby doll]

Crap. Even I can tell Japanese, Chinese and Koreans apart with a 95 per cent accuracy.Yeah, if you listen to them talking, it's not hard. But it's not like gaydar, where you can spot one at a distance.

[megladon8]

Crap. Even I can tell Japanese, Chinese and Koreans apart with a 95 per cent accuracy.


http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7857/70256045.jpg

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, if you listen to them talking, it's not hard. But it's not like gaydar, where you can spot one at a distance.

Even without hearing the language. And though I make the odd mistake (usually the older the person is), I would expect actual Koreans to be better than I. It's certainly not the case that "they can't tell one another apart"

[transmogrifier]

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7857/70256045.jpg

I travelled around Asia with that card for the first 3 years, of course. How else would I know?

[megladon8]

The couple of Asian friends I have, have said that yes, they can tell each "sub race" of Asians apart from one another with few mistakes.

Latinos, however, cannot tell each other apart from my experience, except for some Mexicans who have a very distinct look (and sometimes stature).

Similar to how it's fairly easy to differentiate, say, Russians, or Swedes. But it's just about impossible to tell Scottish, Irish, English and Welsh people apart just by looking at them.

[baby doll]

I travelled around Asia with that card for the first 3 years, of course. How else would I know?Fine, but how can you spot a Korean? And I don't know about the skin tone thing, since Koreans tend to vary wildly based on whether their ancestors were farmers or rich people.

[baby doll]

Similar to how it's fairly easy to differentiate, say, Russians, or Swedes.Russians and Swedes, of course, but what about Russians and Ukrainians, or Swedes and Danes?

[megladon8]

Fine, but how can you spot a Korean? And I don't know about the skin tone thing, since Koreans tend to vary wildly based on whether their ancestors were farmers or rich people.


I couldn't tell a Korean apart just by looking at them, but I find their language very distinct.

I know it'll sound terrible to say this, but a lot of their intonations sound kind of "whiny" to a western ear.

[transmogrifier]

Fine, but how can you spot a Korean? And I don't know about the skin tone thing, since Koreans tend to vary wildly based on whether their ancestors were farmers or rich people.

Don't know - never quantified it.

I was only kidding about the 95% accuracy. I'm much worse than that. But Koreans don't seem to have a problem.

[baby doll]

Don't know - never quantified it.

I was only kidding about the 95% accuracy. I'm much worse than that. But Koreans don't seem to have a problem.It's kind of a sensitive issue though, just because of the lingering anti-Japanese sentiment in the country. People were so pissed off when Japan put it in their school textbooks that they had control of these incredibly small, depopulated islands that are basically just big rocks in the middle of the sea. It was this big thing all over the news, like Japanese colonialism was again rearing its ugly head.

[transmogrifier]

I couldn't tell a Korean apart just by looking at them, but I find their language very distinct.

I know it'll sound terrible to say this, but a lot of their intonations sound kind of "whiny" to a western ear.

Korean is very whiny. Most Koreans recognise this though and aren't offended when you point it out.

[baby doll]

Korean is very whiny. Most Koreans recognise this though and aren't offended when you point it out.The Korean "yes" is pretty whiny (naaayyyy), but I don't know about Korean in general. Then again, the extent of my Korean is, "Kim-chi da guseyo," so I'm hardly an expert.

[megladon8]

Korean is very whiny. Most Koreans recognise this though and aren't offended when you point it out.


It was just an observation I didn't want to sound like something derogatory.

Korean sounds whiny, and German often sounds quite angry to me.

And no matter how much Spanish I learn living here in NYC, I cannot keep up with actual Spanish-speaking people. They speak so fast I don't know how they are even able to understand each other!

[DavidSeven]

Koreans tend to have softer facial features. Many Japanese people tend to have facial features that are common among Anglos (for men: square jaws, abundant facial hair, similar eyes). No one in Korea would ever think Ken Watanabe, Mifune, or Ichiro were anything but Japanese.

[baby doll]

Korean sounds whiny, and German often sounds quite angry to me.I once met a German woman who said that people in Germany never laugh at the movies, even at comedies. Is that really true, or was she just seeing how gullible Canadians are?

[baby doll]

Koreans tend to have softer facial features. Many Japanese people tend to have facial features that are common among Anglos (for men: square jaws, abundant facial hair, similar eyes). No one in Korea would ever think Ken Watanabe or Mifune were anything but Japanese.But there's a range of Japanese looks, so some Japanese looks overlap with Korean looks, and others don't. I mean, I had one student who looked exactly like an anime character.

[DavidSeven]

But there's a range of Japanese looks, so some Japanese looks overlap with Korean looks, and others don't. I mean, I had one student who looked exactly like an anime character.

That's fine. But many races overlap. I'm just speaking in generalities here. Appears this last page was trying to set a Match-Cut record in that metric anyway.

[megladon8]

I once met a German woman who said that people in Germany never laugh at the movies, even at comedies. Is that really true, or was she just seeing how gullible Canadians are?


I would find that a bit...unnerving.

Speaking of which, when watching a movie with others (be it at home or in a theatre) I often laugh. But when watching a movie alone, even if it's the funniest thing I've ever seen, I rarely laugh out loud.

Is this weird?

[Boner M]

If you reedited A Single Man so that it said "A film by Wong Kar-wai" instead of somebody known as a fashion designer, and dubbed it into Cantonese, we'd all be praising it for its style.
Nah, we'd just be praising Wong's newfound ability to get good performances out of white people.

[baby doll]

Nah, we'd just be praising Wong's newfound ability to get good performances out of white people.He got a good performance out of Natalie Portman, amazingly. Rachel Wiesz, on the other hand... She's a pretty girl but I've seen nothing to suggest that she's a good actress. Then again, she's mostly in terrible movies, so who knows?

[Boner M]

He got a good performance out of Natalie Portman, amazingly. Rachel Wiesz, on the other hand... She's a pretty girl but I've seen nothing to suggest that she's a good actress. Then again, she's mostly in terrible movies, so who knows?
The only good performances in that film were Strathairn and Chan Marshall/Cat Power for her couple minutes of screentime.

[Qrazy]

I once met a German woman who said that people in Germany never laugh at the movies, even at comedies. Is that really true, or was she just seeing how gullible Canadians are?

I've known plenty of good natured Germans so I'll go with gullible.

[Derek]

The only good performances in that film were Strathairn and Chan Marshall/Cat Power for her couple minutes of screentime.

Yup. Then again, I'm rarely that impressed with Portman as an actress, so I can't necessarily hang that one on Wong.

[Ezee E]

I just really hope that Tom Ford directs something again.

[megladon8]

Oh Derek, you're always doing some unnecessary hanging on Wong.

:lol:


...



I'll go sit over here.

[balmakboor]

Man, only around here could claiming you love A Single Man lead to a discussion about telling Japanese, Chinese, and Korean people apart.

Maybe I like the movie so much because my dad is Tom Ford. Really.

[soitgoes...]

WTF happened to the last page of this thread?

[Sxottlan]

I'm flying to San Francisco Tuesday and without intending to, I ended up booking a room at a motel kitty corner to the headquarters for Industrial Light & Magic. I'll have to stop by.

[transmogrifier]

WTF happened to the last page of this thread?

You know who to blame:

http://www.gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1211369 (http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1211369/everyone.html)

[Ezee E]

Good one.

[Dukefrukem]

Watched Taxi-Driver for the first time last night... Can't say I was that impressed.

[Ezee E]

Watched Taxi-Driver for the first time last night... Can't say I was that impressed.
That one actually took me a couple times to appreciate as well. Now I love it.

[DavidSeven]

Taxi Driver is a pretty cool movie. I appreciate it a heck of a lot, probably more than I actively enjoy it. You wonder how they ever got away with making it, even in the 70s.

I still think he did it better 20 years later with Bringing Out the Dead.

[Dukefrukem]

The concept is cool for sure, I think some of the scenes could have been cut entirely or shortened. It's a lot of build up for a very weak climax.

[Dukefrukem]

Now John Carpenter's Dark Star is a pretty damn cool movie I just finished watching. If it wasn't for it's technical shortcomings it might rival 2001. What is done well is some of the dark humor. But the movie doesn't age well at all. A space alien as a beach ball makes it hard to be immersed in the story.

[Sven]

A space alien as a beach ball makes it hard to be immersed in the story.

I'm glad that you liked it, but the fact that you set this aside makes me think that maybe you didn't quite get it.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm glad that you liked it, but the fact that you set this aside makes me think that maybe you didn't quite get it.

Its obvious its low budget, some things I can get past and some things I can't... the beach ball was something I couldn't. And believe me when I say I laughed at a few of those scenes, especially in the elevator shaft. (If they had put a little more effort into that alien I'd be fine. I mean... I laughed my balls off during the Dead Alive baby scene in the park. I'm not oblivious to bad effects)

I loved the ending...


When the two astronauts are floating away from each other, knowing they're gonna die and they're calmly describing the things around them. "Hey I found some debris from the ship". Haha.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm going through a Carpenter bender this week.

Tonight: Someone's Watching Me

[Watashi]

I decided not to see Hereafter, but instead watch another similar movie about near-death experience and the fascination of the line between life and death after post-national disaster. I think I made the right choice. Fearless is awesome. It's only drawback is that it's a bit dated (hard to fault), but the melodrama here never feels forced or spoonfed. This is probably Bridges best work in his already illustrious career. The plane crash scene is probably one of the most intense disaster scenes ever filmed. It was masterfully directed in every way.

[Sven]

I'm going through a Carpenter bender this week.

One of the best benders one which one can be.

[Rowland]

Working hard to articulate something through writing, only to accidently lose it by closing the wrong tab in my browser, makes me never want to write anything again.

[Ezee E]

I decided not to see Hereafter, but instead watch another similar movie about near-death experience and the fascination of the line between life and death after post-national disaster. I think I made the right choice. Fearless is awesome. It's only drawback is that it's a bit dated (hard to fault), but the melodrama here never feels forced or spoonfed. This is probably Bridges best work in his already illustrious career. The plane crash scene is probably one of the most intense disaster scenes ever filmed. It was masterfully directed in every way.
Great movie indeed. My favorite from Weir by a longshot.

[Ezee E]

The concept is cool for sure, I think some of the scenes could have been cut entirely or shortened. It's a lot of build up for a very weak climax.
What I appreciate more about the movie is the character and psychology of Travis Bickle. There's a ton of shots in this movie that I didn't pick up on the first time, second time, or third time I saw it. His direction could've easily swayed him into doing something entirely different based on just a few moments. The result is obvious, but it's everything leading up to it that makes me appreciate it.

I hear there's an amazing commentary from Scorsese, but I can't find it anywhere.

[Spinal]

Going back a couple pages, I don't think it's a problem to have characters all speak English even if the film is set in a different country, so long as the characters would acually share a common language. That's just a theatrical convention that we can agree to accept, much like we can agree to accept that people will sing to each other in a musical. (Never mind that some people are unwilling to accept even this convention. They are silly people and not to be trusted in these matters.)

A bigger issue is a film like Planet of the Apes in which the space travellers are not at all surprised to find that they can understand and communicate easily with a "distant" civilization.

[Qrazy]

Now John Carpenter's Dark Star is a pretty damn cool movie I just finished watching. If it wasn't for it's technical shortcomings it might rival 2001. What is done well is some of the dark humor. But the movie doesn't age well at all. A space alien as a beach ball makes it hard to be immersed in the story.

Taxi Driver has a weak climax...

Dark Star could rival 2001...

No and no.

[megladon8]

Maybe I'm thinking of a different movie, but wasn't Dark Star supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek?

[Qrazy]

Maybe I'm thinking of a different movie, but wasn't Dark Star supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek?

Completely, the last scene features a guy surfing in space towards a planet.

[Kurosawa Fan]

(Never mind that some people are unwilling to accept even this convention. They are silly people and not to be trusted in these matters.)


:sad:

[MadMan]

Yeah I often don't care for musicals because they feature people randomly busting into song and dance. So I'm with yah on this, KF. Unless your thinking of something different.

I'm now curious about finally watching Dark Star. Considering I really love Carpenter. Which reminds me-I still own In The Mouth of Madness, but I haven't watched it yet.

Oh and Taxi Driver is a great movie, but I think I need to rewatch my copy of it again, as I feel I missed certain things about it. I wonder if a second viewing would result in me thinking even higher of it, or just sticking with my original rating. Travis Bickle is one of the best roles Di Niro ever played, no doubt about that.

[StanleyK]

My problem with musicals isn't that people randomly start singing, it's that most of the time, the song and dance is there merely as a show-stopper, with little bearing on the plot or themes. Like, was the 15-minute movie-within-a-movie pitch really necessary in Singin' in the Rain? I probably owe the movie a rewatch, but still.

[Mysterious Dude]

My problem with musicals isn't that people randomly start singing, it's that most of the time, the song and dance is there merely as a show-stopper, with little bearing on the plot or themes. Like, was the 15-minute movie-within-a-movie pitch really necessary in Singin' in the Rain? I probably owe the movie a rewatch, but still.
My favorite part about that is how stupidly they work it into the story. It has no resemblance at all to the movie they've already made, so the one guy suggests they make the French Revolution scenes into a dream. The hell? That's a terrible idea.

[number8]

I do not understand why anyone would have a problem with characters bursting into songs.

[Spinal]

I do not understand why anyone would have a problem with characters bursting into songs.

To me, it is as absurd as wondering why all the people in Miyazaki films look like cartoons.

[megladon8]

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the logic of a musical...that's just silly.

But I can understand not being particularly fond of musicals. Because I'm not particularly fond of musicals.

There are, of course, exceptions. But it's not a genre I actively seek out.

[Bosco B Thug]

My favorite part about that is how stupidly they work it into the story. It has no resemblance at all to the movie they've already made, so the one guy suggests they make the French Revolution scenes into a dream. The hell? That's a terrible idea. Haha, yes. That's one of my biggest irks, all their celebrating and joyous love-making after coming up with this idea that's in no way guaranteed to work out at all.

[transmogrifier]

People who don't like musicals are my least favorite type of people.
People who like bad musicals are my second least favorite.

Though I like musicals with regular dialogue and the odd song and/or dance number. I hate movies that are entirely sung. It's bloody annoying and cloying - mainly because music is so subjective, and if you don't like the "tune", it's two hours of hell.

[soitgoes...]

I don't necessarily have a problem with musicals. I have a problem with Golden Age Hollywood musicals. They are usually too saccharine for my tastes.

[Winston*]

Rewatching Get Shorty on TV. This is an extremely entertaining movie.

[B-side]

Like, was the 15-minute movie-within-a-movie pitch really necessary in Singin' in the Rain? I probably owe the movie a rewatch, but still.

Arguably my favorite part of the film.

[transmogrifier]

My problem with musicals isn't that people randomly start singing, it's that most of the time, the song and dance is there merely as a show-stopper, with little bearing on the plot or themes. Like, was the 15-minute movie-within-a-movie pitch really necessary in Singin' in the Rain? I probably owe the movie a rewatch, but still.

Was the 15 minute scene with Alfred Molina in Boogie Nights really necessary?

[megladon8]

It's bloody annoying and cloying - mainly because music is so subjective, and if you don't like the "tune", it's two hours of hell.


This is something I find particularly irritating.

Very rarely do I actually like the songs being sung in musicals.

I find My Fair Lady a painful, atrocious movie due to this (and due to the fact that it's vapid and shallow). It's a film my parents, grandparents and sister love, and when it comes up on family movie night, I leave.

[DavidSeven]

Was the 15 minute scene with Alfred Molina in Boogie Nights really necessary?

Well, that brilliant extended shot on Walberg at the end of the scene is arguably the turning point in the film and the extended absurdity of the entire thing kind of leads up to that.

But I know what you're saying. It could serve no function whatsoever, and no one would complain because being awesome for the sake of awesome isn't the worst thing in the world either.

[DavidSeven]

Also, a lot of musicals just follow the formula of action films with the numbers replacing set pieces. Watching one guy chasing another guy for 15 minutes isn't exactly the most efficient way to further the plot.