28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[jesse]

Just saw 2 Days in Paris, which if nothing else confirms my suspicion that Adam Goldberg's reaction shots are enough to carry a 100 minute film and rescue it from Deply's cloying neuroses, whose persona extends to the film's form in the most grating way imaginable. I guess she's established herself as a distinctive cinematic voice, and (very) occasionally her techniques (voiceovers, superimpositions) have a naivety that's oddly poignant, but it all feels so inconsequential that I felt awkward when the credits started rolling. :sad:

No rep for you.

[Rowland]

Just saw 2 Days in Paris, which if nothing else confirms my suspicion that Adam Goldberg's reaction shots are enough to carry a 100 minute film and rescue it from Deply's cloying neuroses, whose persona extends to the film's form in the most grating way imaginable. I guess she's established herself as a distinctive cinematic voice, and (very) occasionally her techniques (voiceovers, superimpositions) have a naivety that's oddly poignant, but it all feels so inconsequential that I felt awkward when the credits started rolling.
I was grooving on this until the third act, which self-destructs like few movies did last year. Still, I wrung enough laughs out of Delpy's disarmingly personal project to give it a mild positive score. The acting struck me as particularly authentic as well, which isn't surprising in retrospect, given that Delpy and Goldberg were reportedly at each other's throats during filming.

[Boner M]

I was grooving on this until the third act, which self-destructs like few movies did last year. Still, I wrung enough laughs out of Delpy's disarmingly personal project to give it a mild positive score.
Yeah, that's how I felt. Though I personally didn't feel the third act was as much an act of self-sabotage than anyone else; the awkward, 'I don't know how to end this thing' vibe is actually kinda apt considering what's preceded it? I guess that's a bit of a stretch, but I wasn't caring enough about the film's (threadbare) narrative trajectory enough to care where it ended up.

[megladon8]

So Feast was fun, well shot and has an undeniable sense of energy, but it gets too bogged down in juvenile jokes.

By the end of the film, I'd had enough monster semen scenes to last me several lifetimes.

And the scene at the very end where the waitress (or "heroine #2") throat-fucks the monster with her arm then has an orgasm as it dies and screamed "oh ya...choke on it!" was, again, very juvenile and a pretty ham-fisted way of having her gain her dignity back after all the sex sessions with her boss.

In all honesty I just had fun with this one, and it had enough great gore and clever scenes to warrant a rating of 6. But its constant attempts to surprise the audience got so tiresome that the "surprises" could be seen a mile away, and a lot of the dialogue feels like it's trying terribly hard to be clever, but not really succeeding.

[Rowland]

the awkward, 'I don't know how to end this thing' vibe is actually kinda apt considering what's preceded it? I guess that's a bit of a stretch, but I wasn't caring enough about the film's (threadbare) narrative trajectory enough to care where it ended up.Sure, but I just found it lacking in laughs as compared to the first two acts, and any stabs at pathos or profundity during that closing stretch either didn't work or failed to adequately compensate for the humor-shortage.

[Boner M]

Sure, but I just found it lacking in laughs as compared to the first two acts, and any stabs at pathos or profundity during that closing stretch either didn't work or failed to adequately compensate for the humor-shortage.
I dunno, Daniel Bruhl's cameo near the end got the biggest laugh in the film from me, though really only for it's WFT-value.

[Rowland]

I dunno, Daniel Bruhl's cameo near the end got the biggest laugh in the film from me, though really only for it's WFT-value.It grew too broad and self-consciously inexplicable for my taste, I suppose.

[Ezee E]

Heh. Who knew that Alpha Dog turned out to be pretty damn good?

[Boner M]

Heh. Who knew that Alpha Dog turned out to be pretty damn good?
You, apparently.

[Winston*]

I'm almost considering renting Alpha Dog just to see this Ben Foster performance.

[Boner M]

I'm almost considering renting Alpha Dog just to see this Ben Foster performance.
It's the kind of film that positively baits a snarky Winston* review.

Harry Dean Stanton's boorish senility is also very amusing.

[Qrazy]

The Mission was decent, quite a bit better than The Killing Fields. Jeremy Irons was good, De Niro mediocre. It started to jump the shark during the final battle when things began to get too Hollywood for their own good.

[Sven]

The Mission was decent, quite a bit better than The Killing Fields. Jeremy Irons was good, De Niro mediocre. It started to jump the shark during the final battle when things began to get too Hollywood for their own good.

Explain to me your thoughts on The Killing Fields. In my estimation, that one is a million times better than The Mission (which I thought was alright).

[Rowland]

Here's a sample (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACmPussQ4Z0) of Foster's performance. You can watch all of Alpha Dog on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRXn7pLpwjY&feature=related). It's not worth renting.

[Qrazy]

Explain to me your thoughts on The Killing Fields. In my estimation, that one is a million times better than The Mission (which I thought was alright).

I guess they're both middling really but The Killing Fields just got on my nerves more after awhile... especially the huggy ending. Other than that I don't have really explicit reasons, the totality of the craftsmanship just seemed a bit higher to me in The Mission than in The Killing Fields.

[Qrazy]

Here's a sample (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACmPussQ4Z0) of Foster's performance.

Ehhhhh...

[Rowland]

Ehhhhh...
It's just him overacting as a meth-addicted psycho. It's entertaining in context, particularly because the rest of the movie is pretty flat. I don't recommend it.

[Qrazy]

It's just him overacting as a meth-addicted psycho. It's entertaining in context, particularly because the rest of the movie is pretty flat. I don't recommend it.

Yeah, if anything I'm going to check out Notebook first.

[origami_mustache]

I have 3 invites to Cinema Obscura. If anyone would like one, pm me with your email address. Hotmail accounts don't work. It's not as quite as great as KG, especially when comparing the layouts, but the user base is about the same, and you can still find some things KG doesn't have.

[Melville]

I have trouble conceiving of Dead or Alive as consistent but alright. Speaking of The Awful Truth, I recently watched An Affair to Remember, also by McCarey. It's not nearly as funny as Awful Truth, but it's a pleasant little film in it's own right, worth checking out.
Is An Affair to Remember the same thing as Love Affair? I actually just finished watching the latter, and I thought it was pretty much pure hokum.
It lacked the easy elegance necessary to make all its silliness fly. One thing I found especially irksome:The Irene Dunne character's decision to conceal her accident, which drives the narrative in the second half of the film, is never made believable. However, it's the only McCarey film I've seen, so I still expect I'll like The Awful Truth.

[Sycophant]

It's so lame that I hadn't before, but I've now seen my first Ozu film. Tokyo Story was even more than I thought it would be. I'm sure everything I could say about it has been said before and better, but I was astonished at how accomplished, simple, and sympathetic it was.

Wow.

[Sycophant]

Is An Affair to Remember the same thing as Love Affair? I actually just finished watching the latter, and I thought it was pretty much pure hokum.
It lacked the easy elegance necessary to make all its silliness fly. One thing I found especially irksome:The Irene Dunne character's decision to conceal her accident, which drives the narrative in the second half of the film, is never made believable. However, it's the only McCarey film I've seen, so I still expect I'll like The Awful Truth.
An Affair to Remember is McCarey's remake of his own film, which I haven't seen. While I liked Love Affair a good deal, The Awful Truth is far better and much different. Humans like it, so I suspect you will.

[megladon8]

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives was a fun, funny little slasher.

Right from the opening scene and into the credits, it's made clear that this movie takes itself far less seriously than any of the other entries in the series up to that point. Not that the other movies were deadpan serious, but this one was definitely made with the laugh-factor more in mind than scares, and I appreciate that.

The little quasi-James Bond barrel shot before Jason slashes the screen entering the words "Jason Lives" in blood was pretty funny.

It has some great kills, coupled with the usual cliché-ridden script and stereotype characters. But, like last night's viewing of Feast, it just has this great sense of fun and energy which so many other horror movies are missing.

It's probably my second favorite of the series so far, behind number 4.

[Melville]

What was up with the editing in The Sweet Smell of Success? The cinematography was a brilliant cacophony of dramatic angles, stark lighting, and the New York environment, but the editing was bizarrely choppy. Also, the dialogue, while generally accomplishing its Noirish goals of exaggerated characterization, sometimes veered off into a form of stylization completely divorced from human speech; it seemed almost like its own demonic entity, drifting from character to character in some sort of serial possession. The shot that most exemplified this is one in which a crooked cop yells out a bombastic one-liner as he turns casually away from the camera, almost as if he's completely unrelated to his own out-of-control dialogue. Overall, the film was an entertaining careen through a (very nicely captured) lurid milieu, but with a few changes it could have been great.

[Melville]

While I liked Love Affair a good deal, The Awful Truth is far better and much different.
Excellent.

Humans like it, so I suspect you will.
What exactly are you implying about the state of my humanity?

[Bosco B Thug]

Is An Affair to Remember the same thing as Love Affair? I actually just finished watching the latter, and I thought it was pretty much pure hokum.
It lacked the easy elegance necessary to make all its silliness fly. One thing I found especially irksome:The Irene Dunne character's decision to conceal her accident, which drives the narrative in the second half of the film, is never made believable. However, it's the only McCarey film I've seen, so I still expect I'll like The Awful Truth. Yeah, I agree with your spoiler. The film won me over, though.


There are few movies I enjoy more than Happiness of the Katakuris. It's positively a joy for me to watch. It's also the first of Miike's films I've seen, but I still think it holds up as an excellent example of the man's talents, particularly in how it leaps around tonally. It's true the film gets a bit long-winded and repetitive because its so all over the place, but Miike really sold the musical numbers, I thought. I love the film, too.

[chrisnu]

Here's a sample (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACmPussQ4Z0) of Foster's performance. You can watch all of Alpha Dog on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRXn7pLpwjY&feature=related). It's not worth renting.
Here's another. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9r7SqqeKC0) And another. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZEBQ21qUJs)

:lol:

[jesse]

An Affair to Remember is McCarey's remake of his own film, which I haven't seen. While I liked Love Affair a good deal, The Awful Truth is far better and much different. Humans like it, so I suspect you will. I found An Affair to Remember to be dreadful... and is it considered a comedy? I've never heard/seen it classified as such. Anyway, I found it to be a pretty tired romance in the worst sense of classic Hollywood style.

And those singing children... :frustrated:

[Mr. Valentine]

i thought Ben Foster's performance in 3:10 to Yuma was the best in the film.

[jesse]

Also, the dialogue, while generally accomplishing its Noirish goals of exaggerated characterization, sometimes veered off into a form of stylization completely divorced from human speech; Well, the screenwriter was Clifford Odets, which should explain everything...

I tend to agree with Kael in this particular instance:
Clifford Odets never came through more pungently as a screenwriter; his distinctively idiomatic dialogue generally seems like bad poetry when it's spoken from the screen, but here it's harshly expressive and taut.

[Melville]

I found An Affair to Remember to be dreadful... and is it considered a comedy? I've never heard/seen it classified as such. Anyway, I found it to be a pretty tired romance in the worst sense of classic Hollywood style.

And those singing children... :frustrated:
Yeah, I found the singing children in Love Affair to be irritating. Powerfully irritating.

[megladon8]

i thought Ben Foster's performance in 3:10 to Yuma was the best in the film.


I didn't think it was the best in the film, because he basically just played a stylized badass - there wasn't really any depth or emotion there.

But he did play it awfully well, and he was both threatening and gave off a great "badass aura".

[Melville]

Well, the screenwriter was Clifford Odets, which should explain everything...

I tend to agree with Kael in this particular instance:

Clifford Odets never came through more pungently as a screenwriter; his distinctively idiomatic dialogue generally seems like bad poetry when it's spoken from the screen, but here it's harshly expressive and taut.

I agree that the dialogue was harsh and taut, but it didn't always seem expressive—sometimes it just seemed to be filling the void following the previous harsh, taut expression. I've never seen anything else written by Odets, but I guess I'll avoid his other films... or try to see more of them to see if his style grows on me.

[Qrazy]

Is An Affair to Remember the same thing as Love Affair? I actually just finished watching the latter, and I thought it was pretty much pure hokum.
It lacked the easy elegance necessary to make all its silliness fly. One thing I found especially irksome:The Irene Dunne character's decision to conceal her accident, which drives the narrative in the second half of the film, is never made believable. However, it's the only McCarey film I've seen, so I still expect I'll like The Awful Truth.

I believe this was a remake of that although I haven't seen Love Affair. But it has a similar problem with the lack of reveal from the female but... I went along with the concealment in this one just based on my own experience with the way women operate. An affair to remember is just an average flick though, worth checking out if you enjoy classic Hollywood outings but not much more.

[jesse]

I agree that the dialogue was harsh and taut, but it didn't always seem expressive—sometimes it just seemed to be filling the void following the previous harsh, taut expression. I've never seen anything else written by Odets, but I guess I'll avoid his other films... or try to see more of them to see if his style grows on me. Not to entirely dismiss Odet's abilities, but he often errs on the side flowery and/or overwrought, and not in a good way (like, say, Tennesse Williams). I actually have a soft spot for the film version of The Country Girl, based on one of his plays, but his screenplay is certainly a major reason why Humoresque is considered one of Joan Crawford's great melodramatic howlers. I've also read his early play Waiting for Lefty which is an extremely heavy-handed leftist/pro-union propaganda.

So all things considered, I would agree that The Sweet Smell of Success was his high point (at least during his stint in Hollywood), though to be honest, I don't remember a whole lot of about the dialogue anymore... I'm personally curious to see The Big Knife, though I've heard extremely polarized opinions about it.

[Qrazy]

What was up with the editing in The Sweet Smell of Success? The cinematography was a brilliant cacophony of dramatic angles, stark lighting, and the New York environment, but the editing was bizarrely choppy. Also, the dialogue, while generally accomplishing its Noirish goals of exaggerated characterization, sometimes veered off into a form of stylization completely divorced from human speech; it seemed almost like its own demonic entity, drifting from character to character in some sort of serial possession. The shot that most exemplified this is one in which a crooked cop yells out a bombastic one-liner as he turns casually away from the camera, almost as if he's completely unrelated to his own out-of-control dialogue. Overall, the film was an entertaining careen through a (very nicely captured) lurid milieu, but with a few changes it could have been great.

This film's all about that over-stylized dialogue. With that and Wong Howe's stunning cinematography, it's one of the greatest films ever made. Although I agree that the editing seems choppy in specific instances when it does (like the end) I think it was very much intentional and for me at least, effective. Effective that is, at portraying the overly stylized newspaper world, where everything is about syncopated jazz rhythms, and forcing your prey to match the beat you choose... with misleading linguistic perversion.

[Melville]

An affair to remember is just an average flick though, worth checking out if you enjoy classic Hollywood outings but not much more.
Noted. I picked up Love Affair from the library based on vaguely remembering hearing something about it being good; I guess I should have held out for The Awful Truth, which is the only McCarey film I've heard great praise for.

[Qrazy]

I agree that the dialogue was harsh and taut, but it didn't always seem expressive—sometimes it just seemed to be filling the void following the previous harsh, taut expression. I've never seen anything else written by Odets, but I guess I'll avoid his other films... or try to see more of them to see if his style grows on me.

Void filling is what these characters do! They fill the voids in their lives with meaningless wordplay. Even so, every line of dialogue in the film is critical. The script is tight, tight, tight.

[Melville]

This film's all about that over-stylized dialogue. With that and Wong Howe's stunning cinematography, it's one of the greatest films ever made. Although I agree that the editing seems choppy in specific instances when it does (like the end) I think it was very much intentional and for me at least, effective. Effective that is, at portraying the overly stylized newspaper world, where everything is about syncopated jazz rhythms, and forcing your prey to match the beat you choose... with misleading linguistic perversion.
Yeah, the film's dialogue was definitely an essential part of its style, and it almost worked for me... but not quite. The editing, however, really just seemed sloppy, although your comments do make it seem retroactively intriguing.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Noted. I picked up Love Affair from the library based on vaguely remembering hearing something about it being good; I guess I should have held out for The Awful Truth, which is the only McCarey film I've heard great praise for.

Duck Soup has great praise

[Melville]

Void filling is what these characters do! They fill the voids in their lives with meaningless wordplay. Even so, every line of dialogue in the film is critical. The script is tight, tight, tight.
I agree completely about the purpose, and sometimes the effectiveness, of the dialogue, which is why the overall effect was somewhat disappointing. But the dialogue doesn't always seem to believably come from any conceivable human beings, no matter how hard they're trying to fill the voids in their meaningless lives. Maybe the two young lovers' dialogue (and that of the crooked cop) should have been more restrained (although the lovers' was already comparatively restrained), to better contrast with the columnists and press agents'.

[jesse]

Noted. I picked up Love Affair from the library based on vaguely remembering hearing something about it being good; I guess I should have held out for The Awful Truth, which is the only McCarey film I've heard great praise for. I've heard good things about Love Affair; I'd definitely take a look (even though I extremely disliked McCarey's own remake).

The Awful Truth is good too. See both.

[Melville]

Duck Soup has great praise
Jeez, why did I not associate McCarey with that? Not only is it highly praised, but I've seen and loved it.

[Melville]

I've heard good things about Love Affair; I'd definitely take a look (even though I extremely disliked McCarey's own remake).

The Awful Truth is good too. See both.
Well, as I noted a few posts ago, I watched and didn't care for Love Affair earlier today, so it's too late to go back.

[jesse]

But the dialogue doesn't always seem to believably come from any conceivable human beings, no matter how hard they're trying to fill the voids in their meaningless lives. Is that usually an issue with you? Does it bother you in adaptations of say, Williams or O'Neil?

For example, I was watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof for a little bit this morning, and I personally love how they don't speak as "conceivable human beings"--they talk like Tennesse Williams characters. My new favorite line is when Maggie calls Sister-Woman "that monster of fertility!" :lol:

[jesse]

Well, as I noted a few posts ago, I watched and didn't care for Love Affair earlier today, so it's too late to go back. Heh, my bad. Going back I was see Sycophant was merely saying he liked the film (and had seen it previously).

[Melville]

Is that usually an issue with you? Does it bother you in adaptations of say, Williams or O'Neil?

For example, I was watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof for a little bit this morning, and I personally love how they don't speak as "conceivable human beings"--they talk like Tennesse Williams characters. My new favorite line: "Sister-Woman, that monster of fertility!" :lol:
Yeah, it does occasionally bother me with Williams adaptations, although in his case the dialogue seems a bit more precise in exaggerating certain aspects of different characters. My main problem with the dialogue in Sweet Smell of Success was how divorced it was from its characters at certain points. Although, in retrospect, even that is kind of interesting.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen an adaptation of O'Neill.

[Derek]

I'll save Raiders a post and just say that not only is Make Way for Tomorrow the best McCarey film, but one of the greatest of all time.

[Boner M]

So I ended up arriving at Nightmare Alley 1/2 and hour late due to forgetting that the new Cinematheque season's times were changed. The film seemed really interesting and unique from what I saw, for both it's seamy characters and as overt a discussion of spirituality and faith that I've seen in a classic Hollywood film, but my partial viewing meant the rise-and-fall narrative had a distinct lack of cohesion and there was a bit of confusion regarding the plot and character relations. Can't give it a rating, though I generally dug what I saw.

[Raiders]

Ruggles of Red Gap is another celebrated McCarey film. I know of one person who considers it their favorite film of all-time. It is available to me, and I have been meaning to watch it forever.

[Skitch]

Let's see...


Finished 24: Season 3.

Watched Sunshine. Twice. Great movie.

Donated my share to the "Uwe, never stop making me laugh" fund.

[megladon8]

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood was absolute crap.

The kills aren't shown, and only a few glimpses of the end-results are seen - which kind of defeats the entire purpose of the series to this point.

The psychic side-story was bullshit, and that ending where the dad jumps up out of the water after like 10 years and looks exactly the way he did back then was so hilariously stupid in both concept and execution that I think I could safely say it's the most enjoyable part of the movie.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Let's see...


Watched Sunshine. Twice. Great movie.

Donated my share to the "Uwe, never stop making me laugh" fund.

The first part of this I agree with, but you must never do the second part again, skitch.

[megladon8]

Why is it that so many of McCarey's films are not - and never have been - available on DVD?

Make Way for Tomorrow and The Ruggles of Red Gap are two I've been looking for for nearly two years now.

[Duncan]

It's so lame that I hadn't before, but I've now seen my first Ozu film. Tokyo Story was even more than I thought it would be. I'm sure everything I could say about it has been said before and better, but I was astonished at how accomplished, simple, and sympathetic it was.

Wow.
First Days of Heaven, and now this. I commend you on your good taste.

[Bosco B Thug]

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood was absolute crap.

The kills aren't shown, and only a few glimpses of the end-results are seen - which kind of defeats the entire purpose of the series to this point.

The psychic side-story was bullshit, and that ending where the dad jumps up out of the water after like 10 years and looks exactly the way he did back then was so hilariously stupid in both concept and execution that I think I could safely say it's the most enjoyable part of the movie. Hahahaha, yeah... telekinesis...

3:10 to Yuma was fun... Offside creates a strong atmosphere and switches its focus amongst its characters deftly...


Anyone with TCM, the new Martin Scorsese documentary on Val Lewton premieres tonight. Whoo!

[Ezee E]

I found my first miss with Michael Haneke.

Code Unknown remains ambitious just like any other Haneke movie, but I think it's better when Haneke has something stronger in mind, usually something that will get a strong reaction from audiences. This particular movie has other risks in mind, and while the long takes and slice of life works at moments, usually whenever any type of conflict is happening, it sometimes fails at others when there's nothing going on at all, such as someone boarding a plane.

Spinal, Raiders, where you at about this one? I'm pretty sure you guys loved it.

[Duncan]

The Sweet Smell of Success is one of those films I thought I should have loved, but for some reason I couldn't find an entry point while I was watching it. Maybe it was the dialogue, maybe it was the editing. Perhaps the film was actually too tight? I felt like I couldn't get a thought in edgewise; like I was always dancing to its beat. There are few films I've had as strong a desire to rewatch, though. That has to speak highly in its favor.


Watched All the Real Girls a few days ago. My first David Gordon Green film. Started well with the Will Oldham song. Never really got the Zooey Deschanel love before this. Now I get it. Charming. It takes quite a performance to make exposing your belly button such a heart breaking moment. I liked Green's direction a lot. He lets the camera hover, often in two-shot. It's intimate. He also captures a great autumnal vibe where the leaves are remarkably red and warm looking, but the air is cold enough that you want to pull your sleeves over your hands.

[Spinal]

Spinal, Raiders, where you at about this one? I'm pretty sure you guys loved it.

I'm pretty sure Raiders likes it more than I do. I like it, but it didn't impact me nearly as much as some of his other films.

[Raiders]

I loved it, but it was my first Haneke. The only other one I have seen is Funny Games, which I wasn't so impressed with..

[Duncan]

I thought Code Unknown was great. Thought it was a honest and thorough portrayal of incommunicability in terms of both personal and political relationships. I can't remember which moment with the plane you're talking about, E, but I always felt there was some sort of tension in every scene, even if it was subtextual. I was even lucky enough to see Haneke speak in person about it.

[origami_mustache]

Watched [B]All the Real Girls a few days ago. My first David Gordon Green film. Started well with the Will Oldham song. Never really got the Zooey Deschanel love before this. Now I get it. Charming. It takes quite a performance to make exposing your belly button such a heart breaking moment. I liked Green's direction a lot. He lets the camera hover, often in two-shot. It's intimate. He also captures a great autumnal vibe where the leaves are remarkably red and warm looking, but the air is cold enough that you want to pull your sleeves over your hands.

Yeah, the music and the camerawork really create a dreamy atmosphere and their relationship and the performances seemed very authentic and sincere.

[Li Lili]

I loved it, but it was my first Haneke. The only other one I have seen is Funny Games, which I wasn't so impressed with..
I wasn't impressed either with Funny Games.

[origami_mustache]

I wasn't impressed either with Funny Games.

I've seen all of Haneke's major works, aside from his television films. I really enjoy all of his films, and find them very fascinating. I loved Funny Games, for many of the same reasons I enjoyed Man Bites Dog. The film is a unique experience as the audience actually becomes an accomplice to the crimes while simultaneously relating with the victims. I suppose The Piano Teacher would be my least favorite of his films.

[Rowland]

The film is a unique experience as the audience actually becomes an accomplice to the crimes while simultaneously relating with the victims.I wish people knew better than to deem this clever. The viewer is implicitly implicated in all the violence we willfully engage in cinema.

[megladon8]

I'm honestly surprised with the high number of people who dislike - or all-out hate - Man Bites Dog here on MatchCut.

[Qrazy]

I wish people knew better than to deem this clever. The viewer is implicitly implicated in all the violence we willfully engage in cinema.

Yeah, I usually can't stand Haneke because of the way I feel he treats his audience. His films always have formal merit and also have other thematic merits but I really dislike what I interpret as his overall attitude. Time of the Wolf is my favorite from him.

[Rowland]

Yeah, I usually can't stand Haneke because of the way I feel he treats his audience. His films always have formal merit and also have other thematic merits but I really dislike what I interpret as his overall attitude. Time of the Wolf is my favorite from him.
I know how you feel. At his worst, Haneke is punishingly didactic in a manner that borders on condescension.

The first act of Time of the Wolf is the finest stretch of cinema I've seen from Haneke. Frankly put, it's fucking brilliant. Unfortunately, I feel it quickly grows tedious with the arrival of the train station as makeshift civilization.

[megladon8]

Does it make me closed-minded to say I don't want to see movies where animals are actually killed on screen?

I read that Haneke's defense of this scene in Time of the Wolf is that the animal was going to be destroyed anyways.

I honestly don't care - I don't see any reason why another approach couldn't be taken. I don't want to see anything killed in the name of art, entertainment, or anything other than medicine, in which case I still don't want to watch it happen.

[Qrazy]

Does it make me closed-minded to say I don't want to see movies where animals are actually killed on screen?

I read that Haneke's defense of this scene in Time of the Wolf is that the animal was going to be destroyed anyways.

I honestly don't care - I don't see any reason why another approach couldn't be taken. I don't want to see anything killed in the name of art, entertainment, or anything other than medicine, in which case I still don't want to watch it happen.

If it keeps you from watching Andrei Rublev, Bunuel, Blood of the Beasts, etc, then yes in my opinion it makes you close minded. You're not supposed to enjoy watching an animal die, but as of this moment in human history, it's a part of life.

I agree that things shouldn't be killed in the name of entertainment but I think exceptions can be made for art. Millions of animals are killed every day in the meat industry just to be consumed, and I find it immensely hypocritical when people I know eat meat or profit in other ways off of the death of animals but refuse to acknowledge the killing it takes to manifest these benefits. The world is a vicious place and simply averting one's eyes does not change that. It's completely understandable you don't want to see animal violence or death. I don't either. But especially if you're not a vegetarian, you're being way too easy on yourself if you don't recognize the realities of what it means to profit by animal death.

Oh, and just to clarify I am not a vegetarian.

[megladon8]

I fully recognize the horrors of the meat industry.

And I am not excusing that at all.

But I refuse to believe that it can be "OK" to kill an animal in the name of art. Especially since, in this day and age, we have the technology to fake it and still have it be just as convincing and affecting.

To me this begins a really slippery slope. Suddenly we'll hear about some filmmaker fighting for his right to kill a baby on screen - but it's in the name of "art", and the baby wasn't named yet and the mother consented, so it should be fine!

[Winston*]

Blood of the Beasts.
Damn film put me off meat for a week.

[Qrazy]

I fully recognize the horrors of the meat industry.

And I am not excusing that at all.

But I refuse to believe that it can be "OK" to kill an animal in the name of art. Especially since, in this day and age, we have the technology to fake it and still have it be just as convincing and affecting.

I don't agree that technology is at that level at all.


To me this begins a really slippery slope. Suddenly we'll hear about some filmmaker fighting for his right to kill a baby on screen - but it's in the name of "art", and the baby wasn't named yet and the mother consented, so it should be fine!

No, that's absurd. Animals and humans are not the same thing nor provided with the same rights in practically any moral system, whether that system is practical or theoretical/philosophical. Whether or not animals should have certain basic rights is very much up for debate and I would agree they should and ought to be protected from explicit and unnecessary cruelty (although why is difficult to answer, I favor Kantian reasoning here), but as things stand the death of a fish and the death of a human baby are very separate moral events.

[Spinal]

Isn't it Benny's Video that has the animal death and not Time of the Wolf? Or am I forgetting something?

[Qrazy]

Isn't it Benny's Video that has the animal death and not Time of the Wolf? Or am I forgetting something?

On a related note did Bresson actually kill Balthazar at the end of the film?

Another filmmaker with lots of animal killings is Kim Ki Duk. I agree with you Meg that it's hard to know when and when not to sanction this kind of thing. Some films the death is critical to the content and themes, other times it feels extraneous and really devalues a film for me.

[megladon8]

I don't agree that technology is at that level at all.

I've seen plenty of films where animals died and it was convincing and realistic, but an animal wasn't actually killed.



No, that's absurd. Animals and humans are not the same thing nor provided with the same rights in practically any moral system, whether that system is practical or theoretical/philosophical. Whether or not animals should have certain basic rights is very much up for debate and I would agree they should and ought to be protected from explicit and unnecessary cruelty (although why is difficult to answer, I favor Kantian reasoning here), but as things stand the death of a fish and the death of a human baby are very separate moral events.

I think you and I can both agree we're not talking about fish, here.

Sorry but nothing's going to convince me that playing the "art card" makes it okay to kill something onscreen. Nor is anything going to convince me that these days it is absolutely necessary to do that in order to achieve your message or gain credibility.

In I Am Legend, would it have been OK to actually kill a dog for Sam's death scene, just because it's a film, and therefore "art", and people would be more affected to see a real dog dying?

[megladon8]

Isn't it Benny's Video that has the animal death and not Time of the Wolf? Or am I forgetting something?

Apparently a horse gets stabbed and shot, then put down in Time of the Wolf.

[Spinal]

Apparently a horse gets stabbed and shot, then put down in Time of the Wolf.

Boy, I don't remember that at all. That's weird.

[Rowland]

Isn't it Benny's Video that has the animal death and not Time of the Wolf? Or am I forgetting something?The horse that gets shot and its throat slit.

[Spinal]

I find animal death scenes very difficult to watch, but I don't think I've ever liked a film less because of one.

[Spinal]

To me this begins a really slippery slope. Suddenly we'll hear about some filmmaker fighting for his right to kill a baby on screen - but it's in the name of "art", and the baby wasn't named yet and the mother consented, so it should be fine!

A better 'what-if' scenario would be a filmmaker who wanted to integrate footage of a prisoner's execution into their narrative.

[megladon8]

A better 'what-if' scenario would be a filmmaker who wanted to integrate footage of a prisoner's execution into their narrative.


That sort of implies integrating archive footage, though.

I'd say it'd be more of an apt comparison to say that a filmmaker would get the rights from a prison to take a prisoner into their custody, and execute them the way they want, on camera.

[MacGuffin]

I find animal death scenes very difficult to watch, but I don't think I've ever liked a film less because of one.

Then you haven't seen Cannibal Holocaust. What a piece of shit that movie was.

[Spinal]

That sort of implies integrating archive footage, though.

I didn't mean to imply archive footage. For example, what if there was a story where a character went to witness an execution and a filmmaker was allowed to film, say, Benicio del Toro attending a real execution?

[baby doll]

That sort of implies integrating archive footage, though.

I'd say it'd be more of an apt comparison to say that a filmmaker would get the rights from a prison to take a prisoner into their custody, and execute them the way they want, on camera.Except animals aren't people, and since killing animals for food is still acceptable (even though, theoretically, we could all just go vegan), and killing animals for sport is okay, why not kill animals for movies?

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't care about animals. Kill 'em all, says I.

[Spinal]

Then you haven't seen Cannibal Holocaust. What a piece of shit that movie was.

I doubt I would like it any more without the animal death.

[MacGuffin]

I doubt I would like it any more without the animal death.

The turtle scene is the movie's centerpiece, so I doubt anyone would. Any reason someone likes this movie is if they hate big turtles.

[megladon8]

Except animals aren't people, and since killing animals for food is still acceptable (even though, theoretically, we could all just go vegan), and killing animals for sport is okay, why not kill animals for movies?


I'm against killing animals for sport, as well.

And I think killing animals for food is a different story, but the actual meat industry is sickening.

If I had it my way, I would learn how to hunt so I could get my own meat, and I would only get the amount I would need, and use all of it.

That's how the meat industry should be, but unfortunately we're all a bunch of massive over-consumers.

[Rowland]

Apichatpong Weerasethakul's really short short, Prosperity for 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-bSGuz1IJA&eurl=http://thaifilmjournal.blogspot.com/2008/01/prosperity-for-2008-by-apichatpong.html).

[jesse]

To me this begins a really slippery slope. Suddenly we'll hear about some filmmaker fighting for his right to kill a baby on screen - but it's in the name of "art", and the baby wasn't named yet and the mother consented, so it should be fine! To me this is the exact same logic many people use to condemn gay marriage--"if we grant this, allowing bestiality is inevitably next!" I like to think human beings are intelligent enough to discern the difference.

Not that I'm necessarily for the killing of animals on screen, however--but that has more to do with the fact I'm rather against violence, even in simulated cinematic form.

[Spinal]

I should say that I am sympathetic to meg's argument. It's not an issue that I have definitely resolved myself. However, I find that for whatever reason it does not affect how I feel about the film.

[Melville]

No, that's absurd. Animals and humans are not the same thing nor provided with the same rights in practically any moral system, whether that system is practical or theoretical/philosophical. Whether or not animals should have certain basic rights is very much up for debate and I would agree they should and ought to be protected from explicit and unnecessary cruelty (although why is difficult to answer, I favor Kantian reasoning here), but as things stand the death of a fish and the death of a human baby are very separate moral events.
The slippery slope is pretty silly, but I generally agree with meg, because I disagree with the bolded statement above. In a utilitarian system of ethics, animals should clearly be protected from unnecessary cruelty, since they are capable of suffering. In a system that assigns value to humans because of their consciousness, animals should again be protected. Even a basic ethical system based on empathy should imply some protection. Unless someone maintains that animals are not conscious or capable of suffering (or unless one thinks that animals should only have rights if they are capable of making ethical decisions, advanced rational thought, etc.), it seems pretty hard to argue that they should not be protected. What was Kant's reasoning? I remember it being a slippery slope argument: if someone mistreats an animal, they are more likely to become accustomed to such behavior and start treating humans in the same way. That always seemed pretty silly to me (although I heard it from a professor, who might have been misinforming me; it definitely doesn't sound like an argument Kant would make).

However, while I don't think that killing an animal for art is justifiable, I do think it's more justifiable than killing an animal for food. If the art serves to edify in some way, I think that's of greater value than the pleasure gained from a good meal. Obviously the situation would be different if eating the animal were actually required for survival, but that is patently not the case in our society.

[Qrazy]

I'm against killing animals for sport, as well.

And I think killing animals for food is a different story, but the actual meat industry is sickening.

If I had it my way, I would learn how to hunt so I could get my own meat, and I would only get the amount I would need, and use all of it.

That's how the meat industry should be, but unfortunately we're all a bunch of massive over-consumers.

Then go live in the forest and have it your way. What's stopping you?

We're all hypocritical to one degree or another but that morally slippery slope you referred to begins with the denial of our own hypocrisy. Would it have been ok to kill the horse in Time of the wolf if Haneke drank it's blood and the crew devoured it's entrails shortly thereafter?

[baby doll]

I'm against killing animals for sport, as well.

And I think killing animals for food is a different story, but the actual meat industry is sickening.

If I had it my way, I would learn how to hunt so I could get my own meat, and I would only get the amount I would need, and use all of it.

That's how the meat industry should be, but unfortunately we're all a bunch of massive over-consumers.Not really. You're argument against showing the death of an animal in a film is that a director can simply fake it with CGI (assuming they have the money to do that), which would get a different reaction than the real thing. Similarly, I could live a healthy life on a vegan diet, but tofu doesn't taste like meat regardless of whether it's made to look like it. And personally, I don't want to have to hunt for my own food (isn't that why we have civilization in the first place, because that division of labour helps to elevate the society as a whole? Even the best of hunters, left to their own devices, won't eat as well as they would in a society).

[Melville]

Then go live in the forest and have it your way. What's stopping you?

We're all hypocritical to one degree or another but that morally slippery slope you referred to begins with the denial of our own hypocrisy. Would it have been ok to kill the horse in Time of the wolf if Haneke drank it's blood and the crew devoured it's entrails shortly thereafter?
:lol:


And personally, I don't want to have to hunt for my own food (isn't that why we have civilization in the first place, because that division of labour helps to elevate the society as a whole? Even the best of hunters, left to their own devices, won't eat as well as they would in a society).
Yeah, I don't see how hunting for your own food is qualitatively better than eating food that somebody else killed (although I think meg is saying the problem with the meat industry is not that it kills animals for food, but that it causes undue suffering to the animals in the process).

[Spinal]

They could have a disclaimer at the end of the film:

"Animals were, in fact, harmed during the making of this film, but we assure you that we devoured the entrails."

[baby doll]

Yeah, I don't see how hunting for your own food is qualitatively better than eating food that somebody else killed (although I think meg is saying the problem with the meat industry is not that it kills animals for food, but that it causes undue suffering to the animals in the process).But isn't that why people eat kosher? When was the last time you heard of a Jew retreating into the wilderness because he couldn't get a bite to eat among all us over-consumers?

[baby doll]

Speaking of the Jews, here's a good word I came across: "Chukkim," or laws for which there is no reason. You know, like how in the States they won't let gay people get married.

[Spinal]

Best scene I've seen involving actual animal death is Walkabout. It verges on documentary, so it's pretty hard to raise any moral objections.

[Qrazy]

The slippery slope is pretty silly, but I generally agree with meg, because I disagree with the bolded statement above. In a utilitarian system of ethics, animals should clearly be protected from unnecessary cruelty, since they are capable of suffering. In a system that assigns value to humans because of their consciousness, animals should again be protected. Even a basic ethical system based on empathy should imply some protection. Unless someone maintains that animals are not conscious or capable of suffering (or unless one thinks that animals should only have rights if they are capable of making ethical decisions, advanced rational thought, etc.), it seems pretty hard to argue that they should not be protected. What was Kant's reasoning? I remember it being a slippery slope argument: if someone mistreats an animal, they are more likely to become accustomed to such behavior and start treating humans in the same way. That always seemed pretty silly to me (although I heard it from a professor, who might have been misinforming me; it definitely doesn't sound like an argument Kant would make).

However, while I don't think that killing an animal for art is justifiable, I do think it's more justifiable than killing an animal for food. If the art serves to edify in some way, I think that's of greater value than the pleasure gained from a good meal. Obviously the situation would be different if eating the animal were actually required for survival, but that is patently not the case in our society.

Well that's all I'm saying really is that it's as justifiable as killing for food or other resources.

---

In a Utilitarian system where we allot happiness credits to animals... then the death of the animals in Blood of the Beasts in so far as it puts Winston and whoever else off meat for a week is perfectly justifiable. When it comes to unnecessary cruelty, again it depends on the moral system but let's say that it's a suffering based consequentialist system... because I think that system has the greatest capacity to urge animal rights. How do you begin to compare levels of suffering? Are we allotting rights hierarchically? Humans have more than monkeys have more than fish, have more than worms?

Kant's argument is not just that such individuals are eventually likely to treat humans in the same way but that it denigrates the person's general moral attitudes... which could lead to harming people... but it's equally possible he meant that the denigration is bad in itself.

[Melville]

But isn't that why people eat kosher? When was the last time you heard of a Jew retreating into the wilderness because he couldn't get a bite to eat among all us over-consumers?
Is kosher meat slaughtered more humanely? I've never been sure what kosher food is all about... even after looking it up some time last year, I still can't remember the details.

[Spinal]

There's been far more Kant at this site than the old one. I'm not sure what that means.

[Qrazy]

Best scene I've seen involving actual animal death is Walkabout. It verges on documentary, so it's pretty hard to raise any moral objections.

What was killed again? I can't remember.

[baby doll]

Is kosher meat slaughtered more humanely? I've never been sure what kosher food is all about... even after looking it up some time last year, I still can't remember the details.Here's what I found on jewfaq.org:

"The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible."

[Melville]

In a Utilitarian system where we allot happiness credits to animals... then the death of the animals in Blood of the Beasts in so far as it puts Winston and whoever else off meat for a week is perfectly justifiable. When it comes to unnecessary cruelty, again it depends on the moral system but let's say that it's a suffering based consequentialist system... because I think that system has the greatest capacity to urge animal rights. How do you begin to compare levels of suffering? Are we allotting rights hierarchically? Humans have more than monkeys have more than fish, have more than worms?
Obviously it would be hard to construct a scale like that, but comparing different people's suffering can be just as difficult. (And I have a strong aversion to consequentialist ethics in general, so I wouldn't want to take a strict utilitarian view in any case.)

I've got to take a call, so I'll get back to you.

[Qrazy]

Is kosher meat slaughtered more humanely? I've never been sure what kosher food is all about... even after looking it up some time last year, I still can't remember the details.

Yeah amongst other things it's supposed to be slaughtered more humanely.

*Is Jewish but not kosher*

Is this conversation making anyone else feel like pulling a Bunuel, breaking out some ham and munching it guiltily in the corner?

[Spinal]

What was killed again? I can't remember.

I want to say that the boy kills a kangaroo, but I can't quite remember.

Forgot about the poachers though. There's also that part of it.

[Qrazy]

Obviously it would be hard to construct a scale like that, but comparing different people's suffering can be just as difficult. (And I have a strong aversion to consequentialist ethics in general, so I wouldn't want to take a strict utilitarian view in any case.)

I've got to take a call, so I'll get back to you.

Yeah I share that aversion, probably for similar reasons. It's just that for me the argument against the killing of animals (assuming only minor physical cruelty) for food, medical purposes or even art (in a utilitarian system) seems too weak to me because in such a schema, it seems that in almost every case it could be easily argued that the human right will trump the animal right (for the greater good). Even when it's a lesser human right (than the right to life) versus the animal's right to life.

I think my use of brackets here has rendered these sentences semi-incomprehensible.

Although I suppose you're right that in such a schema, all else being equal it would be wrong to harm an animal as an end in itself.

[Qrazy]

So now that Origami has seeing My Friend Ivan Lapshin as well I'm going to enlist his aid in pimping out the film.

[Skitch]

Then you haven't seen Cannibal Holocaust. What a piece of shit that movie was.


Indeed. I'm all for gore and funny death scenes, but anything real is completely and utterly unacceptable, and deplorable. I do not understand people that watch stuff like Faces Of Death and certain websites that show such material. Its utter explotation, with no grounding in art, other than to shock. If it were in documentary form (ala the meat industry, as is also being discussed here) that would be a different story.



....



...I'm drunk. :|

[Yxklyx]

Best scene I've seen involving actual animal death is Walkabout. It verges on documentary, so it's pretty hard to raise any moral objections.

I just saw this again last night. First off, the boy is shown hunting and killing for like 10 minutes straight. It was kind of funny as I thought to myself how he was depleting all of Australia of its wildlife. I know that they had to eat but come on... Then the modern hunters come along and knock off a few wildabeasts (I think) and leave them to rot away. Argh, that score is annoying as hell for the most part but I still love it.

Angel Face (1952, Preminger)
What a hilarious ending (in a good way). Oh Mr Mitchum you had her figured out completely the whole time and then you have a rare moment of insanity. I can just picture everyone in the theater yelling NO at him. Other than that, a pretty good movie.

[MacGuffin]

Indeed. I'm all for gore and funny death scenes, but anything real is completely and utterly unacceptable, and deplorable. I do not understand people that watch stuff like Faces Of Death and certain websites that show such material. Its utter explotation, with no grounding in art, other than to shock. If it were in documentary form (ala the meat industry, as is also being discussed here) that would be a different story.



....



...I'm drunk. :|

I remember the movie could've been a comment on the media, had it not been for the inane ending. I can't remember what ending that was... Somehow though, I think that's a good thing.

[Spinal]

I just saw this again last night. First off, the boy is shown hunting and killing for like 10 minutes straight. It was kind of funny as I thought to myself how he was depleting all of Australia of its wildlife.

I'm pretty sure it's not nearly that long. 10 minutes?

[Duncan]

Watched The End of Summer tonight. Turned out to be my least favorite Ozu film, although that may be because it's the fifth one I've seen over the last couple weeks. Lord knows the man has his pet themes. Anyway, this one had a couple white guys in it, and a fart joke. Whoa.

I have noticed that Ozu usually scores a scene with either diegetic music, and only uses a nondiegetic score after the action has come to a close (usually during the pillow shots). Here, however, the score is both more invasive and louder. Or maybe it just seemed that way to me. I also didn't like the ending of this one at all. Crows on gravestones accompanied by ominous music? Seriously, Yasujiro? Still, a better than average film.

[Yxklyx]

I'm pretty sure it's not nearly that long. 10 minutes?

Yeah, I was exagerrating but it does go on for quite a while. I remember him killing a kangaroo, one or more lizard/snakes, nearly had a wildabeast, even a bird while it was flying - a whole collage of scenes that keeps going. I mean he was all over the place killing left and right. Roeg must have loved all the footage he had and couldn't leave any of it out. I mean it's very interesting but a bit too much for the narrative.

[Spinal]

Yeah, I was exagerrating but it does go on for quite a while. I remember him killing a kangaroo, one or more lizard/snakes, nearly had a wildabeast, even a bird while it was flying - a whole collage of scenes that keeps going. I mean he was all over the place killing left and right. Roeg must have loved all the footage he had and couldn't leave any of it out. I mean it's very interesting but a bit too much for the narrative.

But it's one of the very most important scenes thematically for the film. Roeg gives us time to observe the boy and formulate our own opinions (possibly about his supposed 'savagery') and then he slyly intercuts the scene with meat being prepared with modern machinery. It's very effective, I think.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah amongst other things it's supposed to be slaughtered more humanely.

*Is Jewish but not kosher*



What about kosher salt? Is the salt slaughtered more humanely?

[Spinal]

What about kosher salt? Is the salt slaughtered more humanely?

I support cruelty-free mining.

[Qrazy]

What about kosher salt? Is the salt slaughtered more humanely?

"Kosher salt has a much larger grain size than regular table salt, and a more open granular structure. Like common table salt, kosher salt consists of the chemical compound sodium chloride. Unlike common table salt, Kosher salt typically contains no additives (for example, iodine), although kosher salt produced by Morton contains sodium ferrocyanide as a free-flow agent.

Kosher salt gets its name not because it follows the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah (nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt), but rather because of its use in making meats kosher, by helping to extract the blood from the meat. Because kosher salt grains are larger than regular table salt grains, when meats are coated in kosher salt the salt does not dissolve readily; the salt remains on the surface of the meat longer, allowing fluids to leach out of the meat."

[Qrazy]

In the last two weeks I've only been able to get through the first twenty minutes of Sokurov's Father and Son... Jesus Christ Soaky, you sure know how to craft a disturbingly tedious film.

[Benny Profane]

"Kosher salt has a much larger grain size than regular table salt, and a more open granular structure. Like common table salt, kosher salt consists of the chemical compound sodium chloride. Unlike common table salt, Kosher salt typically contains no additives (for example, iodine), although kosher salt produced by Morton contains sodium ferrocyanide as a free-flow agent.

Kosher salt gets its name not because it follows the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah (nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt), but rather because of its use in making meats kosher, by helping to extract the blood from the meat. Because kosher salt grains are larger than regular table salt grains, when meats are coated in kosher salt the salt does not dissolve readily; the salt remains on the surface of the meat longer, allowing fluids to leach out of the meat."

Thank you Mr. Literal.

[megladon8]

We're all hypocritical to one degree or another but that morally slippery slope you referred to begins with the denial of our own hypocrisy. Would it have been ok to kill the horse in Time of the wolf if Haneke drank it's blood and the crew devoured it's entrails shortly thereafter?


You use a lot of very loaded language here to make your point, but in the end, yes, it would have been better if they were killing the animal and would actually use the meat, etc.

EDIT: And I think we can all agree there's a big fucking difference between gay marriage and killing an animal needlessly for the sake of making a movie.

But this argument's old and I won't continue. I'll just say that I still think it's wrong to kill an animal for the purpose of making a film, and while its presence will raise red flags for me and I will avoid films containing this type of content, I won't say definitively "I will never see this movie". Because, even knowing that there is animal death in something like Andrei Rublev, I still consider it a film I want to see.

[Qrazy]

Thank you Mr. Literal.

Well excuse me for thinking you wanted an answer to your question.

[Rowland]

Has anyone seen The Devil Came on Horseback? It was one of last year's most highly acclaimed documentaries. Since I've been having a lot of success with '07 documentaries, I decided to bump it up to the top of my queue.

[megladon8]

Has anyone seen The Devil Came on Horseback? It was one of last year's most highly acclaimed documentaries. Since I've been having a lot of success with '07 documentaries, I decided to bump it up to the top of my queue.


I haven't seen it, no, but some classmates went to a double-feature of it and Shake Hands With the Devil - the one about Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda - and said it was the better of the two.

[Qrazy]

Does anyone know what films all the shots are from in the Facets intro?

[Melville]

Yeah I share that aversion, probably for similar reasons. It's just that for me the argument against the killing of animals (assuming only minor physical cruelty) for food, medical purposes or even art (in a utilitarian system) seems too weak to me because in such a schema, it seems that in almost every case it could be easily argued that the human right will trump the animal right (for the greater good). Even when it's a lesser human right (than the right to life) versus the animal's right to life.
Well, it's too easy to argue pretty much anything if you're using consequentialist ethics. However, I'm not sure how killing animals for food, which has utility only (or primarily) as a source of sensual pleasure, could be reasonably justified from a utilitarian perspective... unless your ethical system will also allow me to kill some random person (with no friends) in a painless way for my personal pleasure, which utilitarians usually try to avoid by constructing more nuanced systems. Anyway, until we've determined just how much happiness a cow can feel over the course of its lifetime and just how much pleasure people get from eating its meat, I think a utilitarian should be wary of taking its life for any reason.

Consequentialism aside, my own feeling on the matter is that animals' consciousness gives them a place in Kant's kingdom of ends. Maybe they shouldn't get a seat right next to the king, but they should at least be allowed to curl up under the table rather than being sliced up on top of it.

[Melville]

Well excuse me for thinking you wanted an answer to your question.
I appreciated it. This site needs more information about kosher food. And I'm being serious.

Speaking of food, have you guys heard about the Buddha's hand fruit? It owns all other fruit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Buddhahand.jpg/240px-Buddhahand.jpg

[MadMan]

I finished True Romance about 10 minutes ago. Damn what a crazy, entertaining and well made flick although I think it would have suffered without QT's juicy, at times campy, and rather sharp screenplay and script. Mainly because Tony Scott is a solid director at best, although granted I've only seen a few films from him. I loved the scene between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper, if only because its two fine, legendary actors going at it, going from over the top to classy, eating up the rather stark dialogue that once again shows that QT is one of the few white guys to throw around the "n word" in his movies. Also James Gandalfini's monologue in the hotel scene was rather badass, and the last act is indeed cheesy, extremely violent and rather surprising in some regards. Overall, the film gets a 8.5 from me and has the makings of a future favorite. I actually blind bought the two disc unrated directors cut for only $5.50 at a local Best Buy, so therefore I don't know if anything was added on or such.

[megladon8]

I've always thought the argument that it's OK to kill animals because they're soulless/lack conscious thought is religiously fuelled bollocks.

[chrisnu]

Speaking of food, have you guys heard about the Buddha's hand fruit? It owns all other fruit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Buddhahand.jpg/240px-Buddhahand.jpg
That looks like something out of a Guillermo del Toro film. :eek:

[megladon8]

That looks like something out of a Guillermo del Toro film. :eek:


Wow, now that you say that, it's true!

I recently tried this fruit - the name escapes me - which is like a melon, but a very strange, ridged shape. When you cut it in half, the cross section looks like a star.

It's absolutely delicious. I want to say it was called a "starfruit", but I think I'm just thinking of the candy.

[D_Davis]

It's a starfruit.

Have you seen the king of fruit?

http://blog.baliwww.com/wp-content/photos/durian_liz_callison.jpg

These things can get twice as big as a human head, and are very deadly. The sell them at a Japanese market here in Seattle.

[megladon8]

It's a starfruit.

Have you seen the king of fruit?

http://blog.baliwww.com/wp-content/photos/durian_liz_callison.jpg

These things can get twice as big as a human head, and are very deadly. The sell them at a Japanese market here in Seattle.


Deadly how? Poisonous? Or because they're so hard and covered in spikes, it's easy to bash someone's face in?

Because if it's the former...why are they allowed to sell them?

[transmogrifier]

The conversation about killing animals on film is an interesting one. My take:

Seems to me, the only reason to kill a real live animal on film is to easily provoke a reaction from the audience without the having to take a more cerebral approach to the subject. And that's the opposite of art, in my opinion.

"I want my audience to really hate this character. If he kills a real live kitten on-screen, they'll really hate him. Sweet!"

Outside of documentaries (which aren't staging anything), I cannot think of a single situation where any director ever NEEDS to show something actually being killed on-screen. Ever. It's mindless sensationalism.

[Melville]

Deadly how? Poisonous? Or because they're so hard and covered in spikes, it's easy to bash someone's face in?

Because if it's the former...why are they allowed to sell them?
I'm thinking their giant spikes afford them their killing power.

Keeping the fruit discussion going, the miracle fruit is pretty impressive:

"The berry is sweet, and contains an active glycoprotein molecule, with some trailing carbohydrate chains, called miraculin. When the fleshy part of the fruit is eaten, this molecule binds to the tongue's taste buds, causing bitter and sour foods (such as lemons and limes) consumed later to taste sweet. This effect lasts between thirty minutes and two hours."


The conversation about killing animals on film is an interesting one. My take:

Seems to me, the only reason to kill a real live animal on film is to easily provoke a reaction from the audience without the having to take a more cerebral approach to the subject. And that's the opposite of art, in my opinion.

"I want my audience to really hate this character. If he kills a real live kitten on-screen, they'll really hate him. Sweet!"

Outside of documentaries (which aren't staging anything), I cannot think of a single situation where any director ever NEEDS to show something actually being killed on-screen. Ever. It's mindless sensationalism.
I think Andrei Rublev and Apocalypse Now, to name just two examples, accomplish more than that with their scenes of animal deaths. Although I agree that the directors might have been able to find a different way to accomplish the same things.

[Spinal]

Outside of documentaries (which aren't staging anything), I cannot think of a single situation where any director ever NEEDS to show something actually being killed on-screen. Ever. It's mindless sensationalism.

The scenes in Walkabout certainly aren't mindless sensationalism.

[transmogrifier]

The scenes in Walkabout certainly aren't mindless sensationalism.

I haven't seen Walkabout, but are you saying that they absolutely needed to have been filmed the way they were? (I'm arguing blind here, of course)

[transmogrifier]

I think Andrei Rublev and Apocalypse Now, to name just two examples, accomplish more than that with their scenes of animal deaths. Although I agree that the directors might have been able to find a different way to accomplish the same things.

I love Apocalypse Now, but there is no way that they needed to show the cow being sacrificed for real in order to sustain the same mood (to tell you the truth, I actually find the juxtaposition of the sacrifice and the death of Kurtz to be one of the few weak elements - it so on the nose). A few judicious cuts, same effect.

[Mysterious Dude]

I haven't seen Walkabout, but are you saying that they absolutely needed to have been filmed the way they were? (I'm arguing blind here, of course)
It could be argued that nothing "absolutely needs" to be filmed in any way.

[Qrazy]

I love Apocalypse Now, but there is no way that they needed to show the cow being sacrificed for real in order to sustain the same mood (to tell you the truth, I actually find the juxtaposition of the sacrifice and the death of Kurtz to be one of the few weak elements - it so on the nose). A few judicious cuts, same effect.

I don't agree. I think both Rublev and many Bunuel films are much more powerful as a result of their animal deaths. They are actually much more potent and powerful condemnations of such deaths than an edit could possibly create.

[transmogrifier]

It could be argued that nothing "absolutely needs" to be filmed in any way.

Sure, but so what? How about we discuss the issue at hand?

I made the claim that killing an animal on-screen is a pretty lazy way to provoke an audience reaction. It requires no art. Ergo, I'm against it for that purpose.

If the purpose of the killing is not to provoke a reaction, but to help make a thematic point, then there is no reason not to just fake it. If we can accept an actor "dying", it's no great problem to accept an animal "dying".

If you need a shot of a dead animal, but don't have the SFX budget, well, there are plenty of pre-deadified animals lying around should you look carefully enough.

[Spinal]

I haven't seen Walkabout, but are you saying that they absolutely needed to have been filmed the way they were? (I'm arguing blind here, of course)

The 'mindless' part is easy to refute because there is clearly an effort to force the viewer to consider the link between the hunting of the aborigine boy, the wasteful indiscriminate hunting of the poachers and the preparation of meat in modern society. The 'sensationalism' part is a little more difficult because it is hard for me to deny that Roeg is trying to provoke an emotional response in the viewer. I can color that positively or negatively.

Actually, this might not be the best example to argue because, like I mentioned earlier, there was very little reason for Roeg not to film it this way. The aborigine stuff is just hunting that his non-actor lead would have been doing anyway. The meat preparation stuff looks like archive footage and although I'm not sure, I suspect the poacher stuff might be some kind of borrowed footage as well. Part of the power comes from our consideration of the images juxtaposed against each other and the mercilessness of the poachers versus the unpolished skill of the aborigine. I don't think an effort to recreate it all would have had nearly the same effect. But again, this film may be an exception.

[transmogrifier]

I don't agree. I think both Rublev and many Bunuel films are much more powerful as a result of their animal deaths. They are actually much more potent and powerful condemnations of such deaths than an edit could possibly create.

See, I don't get that. You condemn a type of death my instigating that same type of death? Color me confused. Are you saying that it is only possible to be potent if you actually truly carry out everything depicted in your film for real? Or just animal death?

Because, you know, I know of some sex scenes that would have been greatly improved.

[transmogrifier]

The 'mindless' part is easy to refute because there is clearly an effort to force the viewer to consider the link between the hunting of the aborigine boy, the wasteful indiscriminate hunting of the poachers and the preparation of meat in modern society. The 'sensationalism' part is a little more difficult because it is hard for me to deny that Roeg is trying to provoke an emotional response in the viewer. I can color that positively or negatively.

Actually, this might not be the best example to argue because, like I mentioned earlier, there was very little reason for Roeg not to film it this way. The aborigine stuff is just hunting that his non-actor lead would have been doing anyway. The meat preparation stuff looks like archive footage and although I'm not sure, I suspect the poacher stuff might be some kind of borrowed footage as well. Part of the power comes from our consideration of the images juxtaposed against each other and the mercilessness of the poachers versus the unpolished skill of the aborigine. I don't think an effort to recreate it all would have had nearly the same effect. But again, this film may be an exception.

I have this film on my computer, so after I watch it (sometime in the next 5 months!) I'll get back to you on this.

I think "mindless" was not really the right word, because I was trying to convey the impression that it is the least thoughtful route: how can I make the audience feel this? I know, let's kill the animal for real. Mindless has a much more negative effect than I was intending.

[Philosophe_rouge]

House of Mirth (2000) was surprising in a good way, Gillian Anderson is wonderful in the leading role and the film is certainly nice to look out. I feel it rides very heavily on the strength on the source material, however never truly is able to break through it into something greater? More cinematic I guess I want to say. I enjoyed it at least.

[Mysterious Dude]

Sure, but so what? How about we discuss the issue at hand?You asked if it was absolutely necessary, but now you're agreeing that nothing is absolutely necessary. If nothing is absolutely necessary, what difference does it make if killing an animal on screen is absolutely necessary?


I made the claim that killing an animal on-screen is a pretty lazy way to provoke an audience reaction. It requires no art. Ergo, I'm against it for that purpose.What do you mean that it requires no art? There are a lot of filmmaking techniques that require no art, aren't there?


If the purpose of the killing is not to provoke a reaction, but to help make a thematic point, then there is no reason not to just fake it. If we can accept an actor "dying", it's no great problem to accept an animal "dying".But there is no reason to fake it, either, if you can do it for real. Both options require work.

[Sven]

In I Am Legend, would it have been OK to actually kill a dog for Sam's death scene, just because it's a film, and therefore "art", and people would be more affected to see a real dog dying?

I think the bigger issue here (that I'm surprised nobody else brought up!) is meg's implication that all cinema is art. Surely there's a difference between Walkabout's art and I Am Legend's movieness.

Movie =/ art


They could have a disclaimer at the end of the film:

"Animals were, in fact, harmed during the making of this film, but we assure you that we devoured the entrails."

It's like John Waters, for the chickens in Pink Flamingos! He assures us that those chickens were barbecued up real good.

[transmogrifier]

You asked if it was absolutely necessary, but now you're agreeing that nothing is absolutely necessary. If nothing is absolutely necessary, what difference does it make if killing an animal on screen is absolutely necessary?

What do you mean that it requires no art? There are a lot of filmmaking techniques that require no art, aren't there?

But there is no reason to fake it, either, if you can do it for real. Both options require work.


I would assume that, if you have no functional or thematic reason to kill the animal, it's probably better to, well, not kill the animal. Believe it or not, I see a distinction between choosing not to use a tracking shot for a scene and not slitting the throat of a sheep.

But that's just me. :|

[origami_mustache]

I wish people knew better than to deem this clever. The viewer is implicitly implicated in all the violence we willfully engage in cinema.

Um yeah, that's the pretty much the thesis of the film, Haneke is mocking the genre and the audience....he makes it perfectly clear that the trivial violence is awful, yet at the same time, human nature, consciously or subconsciously, still craves the sensation...I personally love the condescension.

[Boner M]

Trans, any reason for the moderately high American Gangster rating?

[MadMan]

The Val Lewton documentary narrated by Martin Scoressee that's being re-aired right now on TCM is pretty cool. I plan on staying up all night and watching some of the Lewton flicks that will be aired later on tonight-ones that I have yet to see.

[transmogrifier]

Trans, any reason for the moderately high American Gangster rating?

I liked the loose vibe and 60s feel. I enjoyed the subtext that a lot of the things people achieve are the direct result of the desire to fuck over someone that you don't like. I thought the interaction between Washington and his brothers, and I thought Crowe gives one of his most relaxed, engaging performances, turning his Bud White for LA Confidential on his head. Great final shot too.

[Derek]

I've always thought the argument that it's OK to kill animals because they're soulless/lack conscious thought is religiously fuelled bollocks.

Totally. The "because they're tasty" line of reasoning has always struck me as far more reasonable.

[Boner M]

I liked the loose vibe and 60s feel. I enjoyed the subtext that a lot of the things people achieve are the direct result of the desire to fuck over someone that you don't like. I thought the interaction between Washington and his brothers, and I thought Crowe gives one of his most relaxed, engaging performances, turning his Bud White for LA Confidential on his head. Great final shot too.
Huh, I found it so unremarkable because Scott didn't seem to have any interest in how these people interact; plus, there's not enough of an emphasis on minutia and specifics for it to be compelling as a procedural, and there's no rhythm or feel for it's various environments. Zacharek nailed it by saying "epic that's been sliced and diced into so many little morsels that almost nothing in it has any weight"). Agree about the cast and the final shot (probably the one moment where Scott's indifferent style works), but I can't remember the last time I watched a film so passively.

[MadMan]

I happen to be a member of PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals ;)

[transmogrifier]

Huh, I found it so unremarkable because Scott didn't seem to have any interest in how these people interact; plus, there's not enough of an emphasis on minutia and specifics for it to be compelling as a procedural, and there's no rhythm or feel for it's various environments. Zacharek nailed it by saying "epic that's been sliced and diced into so many little morsels that almost nothing in it has any weight"). Agree about the cast and the final shot (probably the one moment where Scott's indifferent style works), but I can't remember the last time I watched a film so passively.

It's certainly not laced with blistering insights, but it works on a bit more of a primal level to me. A bunch of swinging dicks trying to prove themselves, and the film deftly shows that even the governement agencies that are supposed to be above board and accountable are more or less just a bunch of boys looking for someone to hate. I know, tell us something we don't know, but the film is a comfortable swim in a murky world.

[Qrazy]

See, I don't get that. You condemn a type of death my instigating that same type of death? Color me confused. Are you saying that it is only possible to be potent if you actually truly carry out everything depicted in your film for real? Or just animal death?

Because, you know, I know of some sex scenes that would have been greatly improved.

This is just an absurd argument. Tarkovsky condemning cruelty and barbarism in general and then extending that to animals. He didn't kill five thousand animals just for exploitation or to get a rise out of the viewer. He killed two animals for very pointed thematic purposes. Have you seen the film?

This has nothing to do with carrying everything out in your film for real it has to do with carrying out animal deaths so that the viewer knows explicitly what has happened and feels the truth of that moment. Your reductio ad absurdum is really half-assed. A better reductio would be to your implicit argument that nothing even remotely 'taboo' can be carried out in a film because it will open the flood gates for everything taboo. Like the death of one animal for artistic and relevant purposes is equivalent to the slaughter of an infinite number of animals. I agree with you that the killing of animals for shock value is deplorable but that is not what this is, at all.

[transmogrifier]

[/B]
This is just an absurd argument. Tarkovsky condemning cruelty and barbarism in general and then extending that to animals. He didn't kill five thousand animals just for exploitation or to get a rise out of the viewer. He killed two animals for very pointed thematic purposes. Have you seen the film?

This has nothing to do with carrying everything out in your film for real it has to do with carrying out animal deaths so that the viewer knows explicitly what has happened and feels the truth of that moment. Your reductio ad absurdum is really half-assed. A better reductio would be to your implicit argument that nothing even remotely 'taboo' can be carried out in a film because it will open the flood gates for everything taboo. Like the death of one animal for artistic and relevant purposes is equivalent to the slaughter of an infinite number of animals. I agree with you that the killing of animals for shock value is deplorable but that is not what this is, at all.

I only really want to address the point in bold, because obviously I haven't seen the movie you are talking about. What is so important about "the truth of the moment" in terms of killing an animal (and I don't even know what animal we are talking about here) in an otherwise fictional film? Maybe I'm taking it too literally, I don't know.

Could you tell me WHY the film would be less artistic if the deaths hadn't been captured on film. What exactly does killing them achieve, if not shock the audience (which I feel your "the viewer knows explicitly what has happened and feels the truth of that moment" is simply a flowery euphemism for). Put it into context for me.

I don't know why I'm arguing this actually, because I don't feel that strongly about it. After all, I found the Oldboy octopus eating scene rather funny. Still, come to think about it, the fact that an actor ate a live octopus on camera (!!!!OMG!!!) kind of overshadowed the thematic point. A discrete cut wouldn't have hurt.

[origami_mustache]

My biggest problem with American Gangster, aside for it being underwhelming overall is it's indulgence in excess. There were plenty of scenes that were unnecessary; at least 40 minutes worth.

[origami_mustache]

All the Invisible Children (Various, 2005)


This film was made to benefit UNICEF and the World Food Program. It consists of seven shorts revolving around child protagonists and deals with different social issues.

"Tanza" directed by Mehdi Chafer
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9338/bscap0003ol5.jpg
rating: 7.5
A beautifully shot story about an African boy toting a machine gun with a group of other children during civil war. The unforgettable final scene takes place in a schoolhouse as Tanza plants a bomb and longs for happier times with his family and classmates. Unfortunately the childrens' acting is poor, but luckily there isn't much dialogue.

"Blue Gypsy" directed by Emir Kusturica
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7508/bscap0010uk2.jpg
rating: 5.5
This story follows Uros, a boy regaining his freedom from a juvenile prison, bur realizing being locked up is easier than life on the outside. Kusturica's film is a too light for my taste, as much of of the comedy is slapstick and the themes have been done to death. The cultural elements are the most interesting thing to take away from this one, although they are mostly rehashings of his more worthwhile feature films.

"Jesus Children of America" directed by Spike Lee
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4318/bscap0022sb7.jpg
rating: 3
The most didactic of the bunch, Spike Lee's film plays out like an after school special. Rosie Perez and Andre Royo are cast as the drug addicted, AIDS infected parents of Blanca. The two of them deliver good performances, however the rest of the acting is embarrassingly bad.

"Bilu and João" directed by Kátia Lund
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4556/bscap0032bb0.jpg
rating: 8.5
An adorable and optimistic story about a homeless boy and girl who venture through Sao Paulo with a wooden cart collecting recyclables to sell to a local shop to scrape by.

"Jonathan" directed by Jordan and Ridley Scott
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5813/bscap0037vw7.jpg
rating: 9.5
By far the most moving and interesting piece, Ridley Scott and his daughter Jordan examine a war photographer's imagination as he is haunted by his experiences. While walking through the woods to clear his mind, the protagonist envisions himself as a child, playing a fantasy war game with his friends. The film compares the middle class bliss of friendship and camaraderie with that of the war orphans struggling for survival. I could actually see this being expanded into a feature, but probably works better as a short, although it ends abruptly as the narrator quotes something about "friendship multiplying good and dividing evil." Kelly Macdonald and David Thewlis star in this and the cinematography and score are both gorgeous.

"Ciro" directed by Stefano Veneruso
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/9650/bscap0040jk1.jpg
rating: 6
A stereotypical thieving children anecdote ending with a pretty carousel scene.

"Song Son and Lite Cattl" directed by John Woo
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5282/bscap0047xg4.jpg
rating: 5
Cliché ridden comparison of a spoiled rich child and a girl living in poverty.

[Derek]

My biggest problem with American Gangster is that that rug was 100% genuine Alpaca and the wine stain was the real deal. That means dozens of Alpaca were essentially sacrificed for a two minute scene simply to gratify Sir Ridley's massive ego.

[Rowland]

Um yeah, that's the pretty much the thesis of the film, Haneke is mocking the genre and the audience....he makes it perfectly clear that the trivial violence is awful, yet at the same time, human nature, consciously or subconsciously, still craves the sensation...I personally love the condescension.Alright, well so long as you enjoy thematically obvious, smug self-flagellation. *shrug*

Scream was more sophisticated.

[Rowland]

American Gangster was generic, but essentially entertaining. I dug the war-as-business element of the story (the drugs being hidden in the coffins is a potent metaphor), and the drug lair bust was a pleasantly coherent sequence, as compared to many action sequences last year. And who knows, maybe I was just in the mood for something that went down smooth at the time. I think I saw AG shortly after the excessively dour We Own the Night, so that may partly explain my appreciation for Scott's movie.

[Ivan Drago]

The major problem I had with American Gangster was that it was...generic. Entertaining, yes, but not much else.

[Mysterious Dude]

I haven't seen American Gangster, but I'm already biased against it because it has "gangster" in the title. Let's see. We're making a gangster movie. What should we call it? I've got it! American Gangster! It's so uninspired.

[Duncan]

Watched The Mirror for the third time last night. That is one incredible film. I'm fairly certain I even got the chronology down this time through.

[Rowland]

Reverse Shot 2007:

"Two Cents" (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/reverse_shots_two_cents_2007)

But What About...? (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/what_about_2007)

Get Over It (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/get_over_it_2007)

[NickGlass]

Reverse Shot 2007:

"Two Cents" (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/reverse_shots_two_cents_2007)

But What About...? (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/what_about_2007)

Get Over It (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/get_over_it_2007)

I say Bravo to the put-downs of Knocked Up, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Into the Wild and Gone Baby Gone, but his dismissal of King of Kong (over the fact that they didn't exploit Wiebe's apparent exhaustion and depression? It seems awfully obvious that this critic just felt like the subject matter wasn't weighty enough to justify the massive praise? Then he's missing out on what the film broadly represents, methinks.) and Day Night Day Night (so is it a criticism to say a film shouldn't be screened in theaters but would make a fantastic art installation? I don't think the form changes too mcuh meaning in that case. Can't a theater be a house for "installed video art"? He's annoyed that the film isn't "specific" even though he seems to understand the film's point of deliberately lacking context)

[Rowland]

I say Bravo to the put-downs of Knocked Up, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Into the Wild and Gone Baby Gone, but his dismissal of King of Kong (over the fact that they didn't exploit Wiebe's apparent exhaustion and depression? It seems awfully obvious that this critic just felt like the subject matter wasn't weighty enough to justify the massive praise? Then he's missing out on what the film broadly represents, methinks.) and Day Night Day Night (so is it a criticism to say a film shouldn't be screened in theaters but would make a fantastic art installation? I don't think the form changes too mcuh meaning in that case. Can't a theater be a house for "installed video art"? He's annoyed that the film isn't "specific" even though he seems to understand the film's point of deliberately lacking context)I agree that Knocked Up deserves to be taken down a peg, even if that's the increasingly prevalent attitude as of late, and while I felt that Before the Devil etc. made for some ferociously wicked trash, it doesn't deserve the accolades of profundity that many critics bestowed upon it. Otherwise, I liked GBG and ItW a lot, King of Kong is a respectably proficient crowd-pleaser (if slighter than many of the year's superior docs), and the spot for Day Night Day Night is justified, its most striking feature being Luisa Williams' facial structure.

I also have to say that Shoot 'Em Up winning the "Paul Verhoeven Award" has piqued my interest. And kudos to Koresky for recognizing Sharon Stone's fat-suit-wielding turn in Alpha Dog as one of last year's most grotesque, while slipping in a deserved dig at Travolta's revolting fat-suit performance in Hairspray.

[D_Davis]

Is "fat" the new "retarded" when it comes to attention whoring?

[Ezee E]

It's a tricky thing when talking about animal murders on screen, because in some cases, we don't even know if it is a true animal. Take Amores Perros for instance. No dogs were hurt in that movie despite what we see. Yet, it gets the same effect on us that if it truly were a real dog. So, it can be done without sacrificing an animal.

But then, go to Apocalypse Now where a cow actually is sacrificed. It's tough to watch, but Francis Ford Coppola didn't think of that scene until the tribes that were helping him were doing it for real. A crewmember told Coppola that you gotta see this, Coppola came out, and convinced the tribe to wait until night to sacrifice it so that he can film it. It was being sacrificed for food, and Coppola basically "documented" it into his fiction film. Do I have a problem with that? No. Does it get the same reaction as Amores Perros? Yes.

Then there's a movie like Godard's Weekend in which a pig's throut is slit, and it comes from nowhere, without any reason or repurcussion. What was the point of this? To shock audiences like the previous stories, but why? It wasn't covered up, nor was it going to happen anyway (to my knowledge). I think that's wrong. Plus, it's used in a way that does nothing to the story but make someone mad. Tricky it is. Because if it did benefit the story, would I still care? I'm not sure.

It's a tricky deal, and has certainly made for an interesting conversation.

[megladon8]

It's a tricky thing when talking about animal murders on screen, because in some cases, we don't even know if it is a true animal. Take Amores Perros for instance. No dogs were hurt in that movie despite what we see. Yet, it gets the same effect on us that if it truly were a real dog. So, it can be done without sacrificing an animal.



Exactly my point.

If someone told me the dogs in that film were real and were really being brutalized, I would have believed them.

But they weren't real. And it's not like that movie had a $200 million budget. So I don't think there's any excuse for someone absolutely needing to kill animals for film. It's just unnecessary.

[Benny Profane]

Then there's a movie like Godard's Weekend in which a pig's throut is slit, and it comes from nowhere, without any reason or repurcussion.

Yes, there's a scene like this in the beginning of Michael Winterbottom's In this World where a live cow is butchered out of the clear blue. It was definitely jarring, but it was a cow, so I'm sure it was to be used for food, leather, etc. after death.

[D_Davis]

Snakes and chickens get murdered left and right in a lot of older Hong Kong cinema. Pretty sad, but we have to remember it really is just an aspect of a different culture and their norms.

[megladon8]

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan has some of the largest amounts of stupid ever put on film.

The logic of the last couple of films to not show the kills and, in fact, rarely have gore just makes no sense to me at all.

And there are so many moments of completely nonsense bordering on offensive levels of stupidity that I don't think I could even list them. But here are some:

-within 30 seconds of arriving in New York, our band of characters are robbed at gunpoint by a couple of Puerto Rican...er...Mexican...er...la tino of some sort gangsters (though one of them looks like he's Native)

-New York is so obviously not New York it's almost hilarious

-when Jason falls onto the subway track and is electrocuted, our hero is lying right beside him on the track, using his bare hands to push himself up, yet he is perfectly fine - obviously electricity is too complicated a concept for this movie


It was utterly horrible, with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I feel bad for giving out more ZERO's than 10's in the last couple of months, but this really, really deserves it.

[Duncan]

Herzog has a bunch of little people tossing chickens around in Even Dwarfs Started Small. I suppose that was a bit cruel. But funny. He also has a pig killed, but it's off screen.

[D_Davis]

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan has some of the largest amounts of stupid ever put on film.



I saw this at the theatre on opening day. It sucked then, and it sucks now.

The only part I remember liking is when Jason boxes that dude's head off.

[megladon8]

I saw this at the theatre on opening day. It sucked then, and it sucks now.

The only part I remember liking is when Jason boxes that dude's head off.


Even that scene bugged the hell out of me.

I don't care if you're Mike Tyson - punching someone with a hockey mask on (whether they're Jason or not) is going to turn your hands into hamburger meat in about 1-2 punches with each hand.

Not to mention that if you even tried punching someone in the face who is wearing a hockey mask, you deserve to die for your retardation.

[D_Davis]

Even that scene bugged the hell out of me.

I don't care if you're Mike Tyson - punching someone with a hockey mask on (whether they're Jason or not) is going to turn your hands into hamburger meat in about 1-2 punches with each hand.

Not to mention that if you even tried punching someone in the face who is wearing a hockey mask, you deserve to die for your retardation.

Uhm...dude...you're talking about a series of films in which a hockey-mask wearing, zombie, serial killer wastes people for smoking pot and having sex. I don't think realism is a concern.

[megladon8]

Uhm...dude...you're talking about a series of films in which a hockey-mask wearing, zombie, serial killer wastes people for smoking pot and having sex. I don't think realism is a concern.


That's true but c'mon...sometimes it's just too much.

Anyways the movie was totally worthless and I was just pitching some of my complaints from a very, very long list.

[Mr. Valentine]

The Val Lewton documentary narrated by Martin Scoressee that's being re-aired right now on TCM is pretty cool. I plan on staying up all night and watching some of the Lewton flicks that will be aired later on tonight-ones that I have yet to see.

i DVR'd most of them last night but i missed the doc and Cat People which were the two i most wanted.

[Derek]

Then there's a movie like Godard's Weekend in which a pig's throut is slit, and it comes from nowhere, without any reason or repurcussion. What was the point of this? To shock audiences like the previous stories, but why? It wasn't covered up, nor was it going to happen anyway (to my knowledge). I think that's wrong. Plus, it's used in a way that does nothing to the story but make someone mad. Tricky it is. Because if it did benefit the story, would I still care? I'm not sure.

The pigs in Weekend were killed by professionals and used for food. This information is widely available on the internet and takes less than a minute to find.

Also, it has a lot to do with the story. The film is partly about the implosion of consumer culture and the dark, barbaric nature that underlies it once all the excesses are stripped away. The revolution which caused the end of capitalism has left them with nothing but smoke and ashes as they resort to slaughter and cannibalism in attempting to survive with the efficient means around them. It's shocking and it's meant to be, but it certainly serves a point.

I also find it hypocritical for people to condemn these acts simply because they want to distance themselves from the process that turns a living animal into prepackaged deli meats or Lunchables for our kids. If you're vegetarian, outrage is understandable, but by our nature we're carnivores which means we instinctively crave meat and animals die so we can eat them. As long as films are responsible in the way they slaughter the animals, there's absolutely nothing to be offended or angry about. As Antoine mentioned, almost nothing has to be filmed, so unless you're against animals being killed for any purpose including food, the only leg your (not you E, people in general) argument has to stand on is that you're uncomfortable witnessing the act itself. To which I say fine, don't watch the film, but until you stop eating meat and using any product which requires animals to die, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

[Qrazy]

[/B]

I only really want to address the point in bold, because obviously I haven't seen the movie you are talking about. What is so important about "the truth of the moment" in terms of killing an animal (and I don't even know what animal we are talking about here) in an otherwise fictional film? Maybe I'm taking it too literally, I don't know.

Could you tell me WHY the film would be less artistic if the deaths hadn't been captured on film. What exactly does killing them achieve, if not shock the audience (which I feel your "the viewer knows explicitly what has happened and feels the truth of that moment" is simply a flowery euphemism for). Put it into context for me.

I don't know why I'm arguing this actually, because I don't feel that strongly about it. After all, I found the Oldboy octopus eating scene rather funny. Still, come to think about it, the fact that an actor ate a live octopus on camera (!!!!OMG!!!) kind of overshadowed the thematic point. A discrete cut wouldn't have hurt.

See the film first and decide for yourself whether or not it was necessary and then we can argue after that. It seems futile for me to argue the importance of the animal deaths here in a thematic context if you're not familiar with that context. Or instead let's talk about a Bunuel film where he kills an animal.

[Qrazy]

As Antoine mentioned, almost nothing has to be filmed, so unless you're against animals being killed for any purpose including food, the only leg your (not you E, people in general) argument has to stand on is that you're uncomfortable witnessing the act itself. To which I say fine, don't watch the film, but until you stop eating meat and using any product which requires animals to die, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

Exactly.

Oh another good example of painful but thematically essential animal cruelty is the cat scene in Satan Tango.

[baby doll]

I took another look at The Lady Vanishes last night, which is definitely a film I underrated. I love how the British characters all have different reasons for denying that they saw the woman (the ambiguously gay duo is afraid of missing their connection; the lawyer doesn't want to be caught on vacation with his mistress). Not surprisingly for a propaganda film, it's the most British of all the Hitchcock films I've seen (the only really big laugh is the most understated: "You were right"), though it has a lightness of touch that alluded him in his American propaganda films like Saboteur (surely his worst movie overall) and even Lifeboat.

[baby doll]

Exactly.

Oh another good example of painful but thematically essential animal cruelty is the cat scene in Satan Tango.I haven't seen Satantango, but I remember reading that the cat wasn't harmed and Tarr subsequently adopted it.

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen Satantango, but I remember reading that the cat wasn't harmed and Tarr subsequently adopted it.

Well I'm sure it wasn't permanently harmed but it's fairly clear from the scene that it didn't want to be there.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of things that are difficult to watch. I just viewed The House is Black. A short 1960's Iranian film about a leper colony. Devastating.

[Ezee E]

The pigs in Weekend were killed by professionals and used for food. This information is widely available on the internet and takes less than a minute to find.

Also, it has a lot to do with the story. The film is partly about the implosion of consumer culture and the dark, barbaric nature that underlies it once all the excesses are stripped away. The revolution which caused the end of capitalism has left them with nothing but smoke and ashes as they resort to slaughter and cannibalism in attempting to survive with the efficient means around them. It's shocking and it's meant to be, but it certainly serves a point.

I also find it hypocritical for people to condemn these acts simply because they want to distance themselves from the process that turns a living animal into prepackaged deli meats or Lunchables for our kids. If you're vegetarian, outrage is understandable, but by our nature we're carnivores which means we instinctively crave meat and animals die so we can eat them. As long as films are responsible in the way they slaughter the animals, there's absolutely nothing to be offended or angry about. As Antoine mentioned, almost nothing has to be filmed, so unless you're against animals being killed for any purpose including food, the only leg your (not you E, people in general) argument has to stand on is that you're uncomfortable witnessing the act itself. To which I say fine, don't watch the film, but until you stop eating meat and using any product which requires animals to die, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
As long as they just aren't thrown in a trash can with take one and take two, I probably wouldn't mind. At least it went to the butcher shop.

Has there ever been a movie that's taken place in a slaughterhouse? I imagine that PETA would be picketing the hell out of the movie before they even knew what the scene was about.

[Ivan Drago]

The more I think about Weekend, the more I like it. It's the ultimate anti-movie.

[Derek]

Has there ever been a movie that's taken place in a slaughterhouse? I imagine that PETA would be picketing the hell out of the movie before they even knew what the scene was about.

Fassbinder's In a Year With 13 Moons has a pretty graphic scene in a slaughterhouse and though I haven't seen it, I believe much of Blood of Beasts takes place in one. Also, I can't remember if there's anything graphic, but Linklater's Fast Food Nation has a number of scenes taking place in one. I would think PETA would love for more movies to expose what goes on in slaughterhouses.

[Boner M]

Killer of Sheep, y'all.

[Derek]

Killer of Sheep, y'all.

Oh, duh. Although they don't show any actual slaughter do they? I mostly remember them moving around the dead sheep hanging from the hooks.

[Boner M]

Oh, duh. Although they don't show any actual slaughter do they? I mostly remember them moving around the dead sheep hanging from the hooks.
Hmm, I thought there definitely was some real slaughter at a few points (the climax?). Anyway, I finally received the DVD in the mail today and can't wait to rewatch it.

[Derek]

Hmm, I thought there definitely was some real slaughter at a few points (the climax?). Anyway, I finally received the DVD in the mail today and can't wait to rewatch it.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm almost positive you're right. It's probably not as memorable as the sequences in 13 Moons or Week End since it's in black-and-white. Plus, it has such a matter-of-fact feel to it that makes it seem such a natural part of his daily routine.

[Qrazy]

What are everyone's feelings on Mississippi Mermaid? I have some friends who think it's top tier Truffaut but I found it to be pretty average. Thoughts?

[transmogrifier]

The pigs in Weekend were killed by professionals and used for food. This information is widely available on the internet and takes less than a minute to find.

As Antoine mentioned, almost nothing has to be filmed, so unless you're against animals being killed for any purpose including food, the only leg your (not you E, people in general) argument has to stand on is that you're uncomfortable witnessing the act itself.

These two comments don't mesh. You seem to be defending the killing of animals in Weekend because they were used for food, not because of the artisitic purpose.

I'm against the killing of animals for art and only art, because (a) I don't think it offers much in terms of art in the first place, (b) it can always be faked and (c) animals aren't there to be slaughtered for aesthetic pleasure, in my opinion.

Now if the animal is being killed for food, and the camera merely captures that, sure, why not? But again, I would argue that it doesn't really offer much that other, more subtler artistic methods couldn't capture.

[Derek]

These two comments don't mesh. You seem to be defending the killing of animals in Weekend because they were used for food, not because of the artisitic purpose.

True, because you conveniently omitted the paragraph where I did defend its artistic purpose. :) The first comment was in response to E's statement that the pig slaughtered in Week End was not done professionally or used for food.


I'm against the killing of animals for art and only art, because (a) I don't think it offers much in terms of art in the first place, (b) it can always be faked and (c) animals aren't there to be slaughtered for aesthetic pleasure, in my opinion.

I disagree with (a) because I think almost anything, let alone something that occurs thousands of time a day and helps provide the world with meat, can offer some artistic value if used by the right artist. (b) Okay, but since it's happening all over the place and it can be done by professionals and the animal can still serve the same purpose it would if slaughtered off-camera in a slaughterhouse, why bother faking it? (c) Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure most directors (Coppola, Godard, Fassbinder, Burnett, etc.) are not showing the act for your aesthetic pleasure. Like I said before, if it's something you don't want to look at, then don't look it.


Now if the animal is being killed for food, and the camera merely captures that, sure, why not? But again, I would argue that it doesn't really offer much that other, more subtler artistic methods couldn't capture.

More subtle artistic methods that don't involve showing an animal getting slaughtered? Well now we're just getting back to Antoine's point that nothing HAS to be shown in a film. If the director finds this the most effective way of conveying what he wants to convey and he's going about it responsibly, I don't think anyone has the right to tell him he can't or shouldn't do it.

[Russ]

Fwiw, I have read that some notable directors, such as John Waters and Alejandro Jodorowsky, regret their part in animal killings earlier in their career. Jodorowsky claims he personally killed all the rabbits used in El Topo but who knows if that's just drug-induced boasting or not. Personally, I'm not a vegetarian, yet I'll still avoid gratuitous on-screen animal killings. However, as far as being filmed with an artistic purpose in mind, the scene with the most impact (for me) was in Arrabal's Viva La Muerte. A cow is eviscerated and cut open and a person is sewn up in the carcass. I understand the symbolism of said act in the context of his autobiographical film. Still, it doesn't make it any easier to sit through. Those wacky surrealists!

[Sven]

There's a part in Barbet Schroeder's totally wicked Maitresse where Depardieu is in a slaughterhouse and a horse gets the gun to the forehead treatment and buckles and flails. Very hard to watch.

[Spinal]

I don't buy the "it can always be faked" argument. It clearly does not inspire the same kind of emotion and thought process in a viewer. Like it or not, it does not take you to the same place simulation would.

[megladon8]

I don't buy the "it can always be faked" argument. It clearly does not inspire the same kind of emotion and thought process in a viewer. Like it or not, it does not take you to the same place simulation would.


But what about the example of Amores Perros?

I thought it was real. In fact, I actually had to look it up after the movie to see if it was.

So obviously it can be done.

[Spinal]

But what about the example of Amores Perros?

I thought it was real. In fact, I actually had to look it up after the movie to see if it was.

So obviously it can be done.

I thought it was pretty clear that those animals were not being harmed because of the editing, etc. I can't really share your reaction to this one. I don't think it's the same thing.

[transmogrifier]

I don't buy the "it can always be faked" argument. It clearly does not inspire the same kind of emotion and thought process in a viewer. Like it or not, it does not take you to the same place simulation would.

I'll outline my opinion again:

a) ARTISTIC: if you are looking for the jolt of an animal being killed onscreen, you're getting a response from the audience in a very cheap manner. I don't see the art in that. Never have.

b) MORAL: animals shouldn't be killed solely for our aesthetic pleasure. If it is being killed for food, and this is being caught on camera, sure. But I find something troubling about the fact we would kill something for art. That's just me.

I'm not particularly squeamish, and could watch such a scene relatively easily.

[Qrazy]

But what about the example of Amores Perros?

I thought it was real.

I didn't.

[megladon8]

I didn't.

OK.

[Spinal]

a) ARTISTIC: if you are looking for the jolt of an animal being killed onscreen, you're getting a response from the audience in a very cheap manner. I don't see the art in that. Never have.

b) MORAL: animals shouldn't be killed solely for our aesthetic pleasure. If it is being killed for food, and this is being caught on camera, sure. But I find something troubling about the fact we would kill something for art. That's just me.



Yes, I understand your position, but I don't think it's merely a matter of just fake it and it's the same thing. And I think your first point is a gross simplification of the way these scenes have been used. Rarely have I seen animals killed merely for a cheap jolt.

[Qrazy]

But I find something troubling about the fact we would kill something for art. That's just me.


The first paint medium was animal fat.

[Bosco B Thug]

No one's saying Amores Perros should've used real dog violence, though, right? I thiink the only reason a film becomes more effective in portraying animal violence is when it's portraying true-to-life practices (dog/cockfighting, slaughterhouse... even the snail murder in Mean Creak).


FYI, iTunes got the Inland Empire soundtrack all of a sudden (plus Ghosts of Love as a David Lynch single!). Fuuuuun.

[megladon8]

The first paint medium was animal fat.


Yes, and candles were made of animal fat. What's your point?

We're supposed to be progressing as a society with the benefits of technology and great amounts of knowledge.

Killing in the name of art is regeressive, in my opinion.

[origami_mustache]

Alright, well so long as you enjoy thematically obvious, smug self-flagellation. *shrug*

Scream was more sophisticated.

give me a break...
:crazy:

[origami_mustache]

I haven't seen American Gangster, but I'm already biased against it because it has "gangster" in the title. Let's see. We're making a gangster movie. What should we call it? I've got it! American Gangster! It's so uninspired.

Yeah, and it also strikes me as a banal attempt to capitalize on the cult popularity of Scarface, especially among young African American males, which is most obvious in the similarities between posters:

http://www.screenhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/american-gangster.png
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/153/846503~Scarface-Posters.jpg

[Qrazy]

Yes, and candles were made of animal fat. What's your point?

We're supposed to be progressing as a society with the benefits of technology and great amounts of knowledge.

Killing in the name of art is regeressive, in my opinion.

I was just responding to a statement about the death of animals in relation to the history of art, not making a generalized point as per the topic under discussion.

Your comment is a straw man. No one's talking about killing in the name of art, we're discussing the acceptability of animal death for explicit thematic purposes.

I doubt anyone here wants to see an animal brutalized on screen for our sadistic enjoyment. That is not the issue under discussion.

[megladon8]

I was just responding to a statement not making a generalized point.

That's a straw man. No one's talking about killing in the name of art, we're discussing the acceptability of animal death for explicit thematic purposes.

I doubt anyone here wants to see an animal brutalized on screen for our sadistic enjoyment. That is not the issue under discussion.


That's how the issue started - I should know, I pretty much started the discussion.

If we're discussing whether or not it's OK for animals' deaths to be shown for documentary-type purposes, then sure. I've seen plenty of animals die on Discovery Channel and National Geographic and in documentaries.

But if Steven Spielberg came out and said that he was making a film about the Holocaust (surprise, surprise) and wanted to show the actual death of a dog to echo the attrocities of the events being shown on screen involving people, I would be greatly opposed to that. It's just not necessary at all.

But this discussion has been beaten to death, raised from the dead using ancient voodoo curses, killed again, resurrected by use of the Necronomicon, then killed again in the last couple of days. This is the last I'm saying on the matter.

[Rowland]

give me a break...
:crazy:I've never read a convincing argument otherwise. But you enjoy humorlessly academic condescension, so I suppose that's where we differ. ;)

[number8]

American Gangster's title is probably the smartest thing about the movie.

[Qrazy]

That's how the issue started - I should know, I pretty much started the discussion.

If we're discussing whether or not it's OK for animals' deaths to be shown for documentary-type purposes, then sure. I've seen plenty of animals die on Discovery Channel and National Geographic and in documentaries.

But if Steven Spielberg came out and said that he was making a film about the Holocaust (surprise, surprise) and wanted to show the actual death of a dog to echo the attrocities of the events being shown on screen involving people, I would be greatly opposed to that. It's just not necessary at all.

But this discussion has been beaten to death, raised from the dead using ancient voodoo curses, killed again, resurrected by use of the Necronomicon, then killed again in the last couple of days. This is the last I'm saying on the matter.

Killing in the name of art suggests that the opposing side of the argument is insinuating that animals ought to be killed for the sake of the death itself, as a direct artistic statement, which no one is saying. We're saying that we find it acceptable to kill an animal in a non-documentary film if said death has sufficient thematic justification. You and others disagree with that and that's fine but don't distort our argument.

[origami_mustache]

I've never read a convincing argument otherwise. But you enjoy humorlessly academic condescension, so I suppose that's where we differ. ;)

I find your opinion differing with mine quite often haha.

[Qrazy]

I've never read a convincing argument otherwise. But you enjoy humorlessly academic condescension, so I suppose that's where we differ. ;)

Can everyone stop straw manning please? I would have to agree with Origami that Scream is nowhere near as complex as anything Haneke has done. There's a lot of merit in Haneke's films, as you have admitted Rowls (Time of the wolf). but Haneke's condescension bothers me too which is why most of his films irritate me.

[Qrazy]

On a completely unrelated note... Montgomery Clift is awesome.

[megladon8]

I don't exactly know what "straw manning" is, but I will say that condescension is running rampant here and I think we could definitely tone that down a bit.

[Melville]

Watched The Mirror for the third time last night. That is one incredible film.
Indeed. That ending is sublime.


To which I say fine, don't watch the film, but until you stop eating meat and using any product which requires animals to die, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
Sweet. The moral high ground is mine!


I'll outline my opinion again:

a) ARTISTIC: if you are looking for the jolt of an animal being killed onscreen, you're getting a response from the audience in a very cheap manner. I don't see the art in that. Never have.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, the on-screen killing of an animal is not always used for shock value. In Andrei Rublev, the deaths are part of large statements about the futility of life, which are themselves parts of larger statements about faith, community, etc. Their deaths are not used to induce a jolt in the audience, they meant to induce contemplation. And they're not shocking; they're sad.



b) MORAL: animals shouldn't be killed solely for our aesthetic pleasure. If it is being killed for food, and this is being caught on camera, sure. But I find something troubling about the fact we would kill something for art. That's just me.
I assume you're defining "aesthetic pleasure" in a very broad sense, allowing for intellectual insight and for emotions other than just pleasure. But even if you define it in a narrow sense, I still don't understand your opinion. Why is killing an animal for food, in a society that clearly has no need to do so, more justifiable than killing it for aesthetic pleasure? What justifies killing an animal for its meat other than the pleasure taken in eating it?

[Rowland]

I would have to agree with Origami that Scream is nowhere near as complex as anything Haneke has done. I didn't say more "complex", I said more sophisticated. Scream at least has enough sense to place itself in a relevant context, and it has a sense of the media landscape it is surveying. Funny Games feels like it was created by some alien race observing us through invisible satellites from their secret Antarctic base.

Seriously though, I don't want to get into a Funny Games discussion. Let's save that for when the useless remake is released! :pritch:

And if I'm going to reference a Haneke film with serious merit, I'd go with Caché. He grew a great deal as a filmmaker between Funny Games and that movie, which is why I find it so disappointing that he is so slavishly revisiting dated material.

[Qrazy]

I didn't say more "complex", I said more sophisticated. Scream at least has enough sense to place itself in a relevant context, and it has a sense of the media landscape it is surveying. Funny Games feels like it was created by some alien race observing us through invisible satellites from their secret Antarctic base.

Seriously though, I don't want to get into a Funny Games discussion. Let's save that for when the useless remake is released! :pritch:

Ok (and seriously the remake looks shot for shot... another Psycho?) but I still find the misery expressed by the parents after the 'incident' more powerful, affecting and valuable than any single moment in Scream.

[Melville]

On a completely unrelated note... Montgomery Clift is awesome.
Yeah, you've got to love his bottled-up rage and wounded eyes. He's awesome in The Misfits.

[megladon8]

Funny Games is a film I've actually been kind of scared to see.

It sounds brutal.

[Qrazy]

And if I'm going to reference a Haneke film with serious merit, I'd go with Caché. He grew a great deal as a filmmaker between Funny Games and that movie, which is why I find it so disappointing that he is so slavishly revisiting dated material.

I feel that Cache has the condescension too though, don't you? I felt there was an insinuation that we all ought to feel individually morally culpable for every potentially unjust act our country engages in (more specifically France/Algiers... but I think this could be extrapolated to USA/Iraq, etc, etc).

[origami_mustache]

Ok (and seriously the remake looks shot for shot... another Psycho?) but I still find the misery expressed by the parents after the 'incident' more powerful, affecting and valuable than any single moment in Scream.

Yeah, I am really unmotivated to see the remake of Funny Games. Kind of makes me wonder if the shot for shot adaptation is Haneke intentionally saying "eff you" to the audience.

[Rowland]

I still find the misery expressed by the parents after the 'incident' more powerful, affecting and valuable than any single moment in Scream.Yeah, that Haneke is a sadistic puppy, isn't he? ;)

[Qrazy]

I don't exactly know what "straw manning" is, but I will say that condescension is running rampant here and I think we could definitely tone that down a bit.

Well it's a term I just coined, but a straw man argument is one where you misinterpret what your opponent is saying or feeling, and describe a position based on that which is easier for you to refute but which they never actually claimed or stated that they felt.

[megladon8]

Well it's a term I just coined, but a straw man argument is one where you misinterpret what your opponent is saying or feeling, and describe a position based on that which is easier for you to refute but which they never actually claimed or stated that they felt.


Ah, OK.

Well, sorry, but I certainly didn't do that knowingly.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I am really unmotivated to see the remake of Funny Games. Kind of makes me wonder if the shot for shot adaptation is Haneke intentionally saying "eff you" to the audience.

Personally I think both he and Von Trier are excellent filmmakers (formally) and if they'd just get off their self-constructed and fictitious high horses they could be constructing some immensely valuable cinema.

[Qrazy]

Ah, OK.

Well, sorry, but I certainly didn't do that knowingly.

That's fine, I don't condescend on purpose either... but I just wanted to re-clarify what I thought it was that those of us on the 'animal killing as acceptable' side of things were arguing.

[Grouchy]

I loved both Caché and Funny Games, which are the only Haneke I've seen. I wouldn't call Games "dated", but I do think he approached the same thematics with more complexity in the more recent movie. I think Haneke is a modern Kubrick with a touch of Oliver Stone - he loves carefully planned audience manipulation, but he's more interested in controversial subject matter and experimenting than in creating the "perfect", armonic movie. That being said, I have no idea why the fuck is he doing this shot-by-shot remake.

I've been busy with a film project, so I haven't watched, like, anything, at all. Well, I'm lying, I saw Emannuelle, but that sucked. Way too softcore, and the artsy touches bugged me. It also has the most unrealistic fistfight ever. The most redeeming quality is a scary shot of an ugly beggar so perfectly spliced in that it made me jump on my ass.

[Rowland]

I feel that Cache has the condescension too though, don't you? I felt there was an insinuation that we all ought to feel individually morally culpable for every potentially unjust act our country engages in (more specifically France/Algiers... but I think this could be extrapolated to USA/Iraq, etc, etc).Hmm, I don't think so. Caché feels more self-aware, and it grapples with a much broader palette of interconnected themes in more engaging (and engaged) cinematic terms. He is still an angry old fud, but he gives the audience more credit while expressing himself with greater lucidity.

[Ezee E]

American Gangster's title is probably the smartest thing about the movie.
can't really think of a better title. I liked it when it was in production when Antoine Fuqua was behind it.

[chrisnu]

Funny Games is a film I've actually been kind of scared to see.

It sounds brutal.
It's not that bad. You won't be scarred for life.

Also, how can the remake be shot-for-shot if it's introduced cell phones into the story, which weren't used in the original version?

[origami_mustache]

Hmm, I don't think so. Caché feels more self-aware, and it grapples with a much broader palette of interconnected themes in more engaging (and engaged) cinematic terms. He is still an angry old fud, but he gives the audience more credit while expressing himself with greater lucidity.

It seems there is always at least a hint of condescension in all of Haneke's films, although I will concede that Funny Games is the most overt culprit.

[origami_mustache]

It's not that bad. You won't be scarred for life.

Also, how can the remake be shot-for-shot if it's introduced cell phones into the story, which weren't used in the original version?

There are plenty of subtle differences.

[Spinal]

Personally I think both he and Von Trier are excellent filmmakers (formally) and if they'd just get off their self-constructed and fictitious high horses they could be constructing some immensely valuable cinema.

As opposed to what they're producing now? :confused: Does not compute.

[Qrazy]

Hmm, I don't think so. Caché feels more self-aware, and it grapples with a much broader palette of interconnected themes in more engaging (and engaged) cinematic terms. He is still an angry old fud, but he gives the audience more credit while expressing himself with greater lucidity.

Well yeah it's better than Funny Games but I feel it shares similar problems in outlook.

[Spinal]

Haneke is smarter than us. That's not his fault. :)

[Rowland]

Haneke is smarter than us. That's not his fault. :)I don't know. I think Funny Games is in many respects remarkably naive. But he sure does give off that me-so-smart impression in those interviews of his, right? ;)

[Spinal]

I don't know. I think Funny Games is in many respects remarkably naive.

I can't do this with you again. It never ends well.

[origami_mustache]

I don't know. I think Funny Games is in many respects remarkably naive. But he sure does give off that me-so-smart impression in those interviews of his, right? ;)

It actually surprises me how much he explains his films in his interviews. It seems most directors like to leave the themes and subtext ambiguous.

[Rowland]

It actually surprises me how much he explains his films in his interviews. It seems most directors like to leave the themes and subtext ambiguous.Yeah, I believe his position is that he creates movies to elucidate, not obfuscate, or something along those lines. Unfortunately, with something like Funny Games, he forgets that our media-savvy culture isn't as black-and-white in its depictions of violence as he seems to believe, which translates its moral superiority to a feeling of condescending obviousness. This may be why I prefer Caché, because it feels so much more mysterious, and when you dig into it, I find a lot more to ponder than Funny Games.

[megladon8]

Anyone here good at coming up with clever titles?

I posted this in the "Filmmaker Thread" in OT, but that thread doesn't seem too active.

My assignment for tomorrow is to create a one-page proposal for an original TV series. I have the proposal done, but I just can't think of a title for my TV series.

It's a cheesy teenage high-school soap opera type show (think "Degrassi"), but all of the main characters are giant monsters (Godzilla, Mothra, etc.), and the situations are similarly twisted.

Any suggestions for a title? I can't think of anything more original than "Monster High".

[Winston*]

Daikaiju no Koukou