28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Pop Trash]

Top Gun is glorious, over the top Air Force propaganda. The entire movie is centered around "HEY MOFOS, THE AIR FORCE IS FUCKING AWESOME! SIGN UP NOW AND KILL GODLESS COMMIE SCUM! FLY JETS REAL FAST!"

Yeeeah...that was always my problem with it, although now that the 80s are 22 years behind us, we might be able to view it differently. Still, most of those Reagan era military recruitment films bugged me. That's why I could never fully get behind Stripes too, despite my love for Bill Murray.

[MadMan]

Yeeeah...that was always my problem with it, although now that the 80s are 22 years behind us, we might be able to view it differently. Still, most of those Reagan era military recruitment films bugged me. That's why I could never fully get behind Stripes too, despite my love for Bill Murray.Its a fully understandable problem, and I wish I could find that article covering how the 80s was all about how the military used Hollywood to embed young people with propaganda via films such as Top Gun and Red Dawn. Stripes though seems to me as if it was mocking war movies and the macho attitude of the army, although even that film could almost be seen as another advertisement for enlisting. "Hey guys, if you sign up you might be in a platoon with Bill Murray and John Candy. Plus get into plenty of hilarious hijinks and even almost start WW III. Good times!"

[Rowland]

Stripes though seems to me as if it was mocking war movies and the macho attitude of the army, although even that film could almost be seen as another advertisement for enlisting. "Hey guys, if you sign up you might be in a platoon with Bill Murray and John Candy. Plus get into plenty of hilarious hijinks and even almost start WW III. Good times!"Boy oh boy, did I dislike Stripes. How the hell did Reitman follow that turd with Ghostbusters?

[Irish]

Top Gun is glorious, over the top Air Force propaganda. The entire movie is centered around "HEY MOFOS, THE AIR FORCE IS FUCKING AWESOME! SIGN UP NOW AND KILL GODLESS COMMIE SCUM! FLY JETS REAL FAST!"

Navy. They were in the Navy in Top Gun.

(I know that's pedantic, but to anyone with family in the military, past or present, it's sorta like mixing up the Cubs and the White Sox or the Yankees and the Mets, because it's all baseball in the end.)


Boy oh boy, did I dislike Stripes. How the hell did Ramis follow that turd with Ghostbusters?

I think you mean Ivan Reitman, who directed both. The easy answer: Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis wrote Ghostbusters, but didn't write Stripes..

(I agree with you, too -- I rewatched the movie again recently after many years and found it desperate, obnoxious, and completely unfunny.)

[Rowland]

I think you mean Ivan Reitman, who directed both. The easy answer: Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis wrote Ghostbusters, but didn't write Stripes..

(I agree with you, too -- I rewatched the movie again recently after many years and found it desperate, obnoxious, and completely unfunny.)Good catch. Too many drinks tonight.

Even looking beyond the blatantly superior script, Reitman's direction seems more inspired. Maybe working with better material brought out his A-game.

[NickGlass]

Jesus, Holy Motors couldn't be more match-cut-porn if it tried.

This tweet of yours excites me more than anything in the world:


HOLY MOTORS: so crazy cuz it feels so damn right. Makes me wanna puke laserdisc copies of Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

!!!!!

[Spaceman Spiff]

Jesus, Holy Motors couldn't be more match-cut-porn if it tried.

How the hell have you seen this? This hasn't even opened in France yet!

[Pop Trash]

How the hell have you seen this? This hasn't even opened in France yet!

He's doing the Sydney Film Fest.

[Sven]

Terrific perspective on Spaghetti Westerns by Armond.

http://cityarts.info/2012/06/14/spaghetti-westerns-the-birth-of-cynicism/

[Milky Joe]

http://media.theiapolis.com/aA/cDCDCDC/d4/e4/h1KW/i1KWP/r1/s1/t4/wHX/z5K/tim-and-eric-s-billion-dollar-movie.jpg

do you wanna watch Top Gun?

[EyesWideOpen]

They just announced a Criterion blu-ray of Fincher's The Game coming in September. Can't wait. I love that movie.

[transmogrifier]

I'm afraid B-side has cause to be insecure if he is going to go around trumpeting the "qualities" of Top Gun, one of the worst movies in existence.

[Qrazy]

I'm afraid B-side has cause to be insecure if he is going to go around trumpeting the "qualities" of Top Gun, one of the worst movies in existence.

Correct.

[Russ]

They just announced a Criterion blu-ray of Fincher's The Game coming in September.
Fuck that!

Here's the really great announcement:


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff324/astrojester/eatingraoul.jpg


...along with my reaction:


h-XgvHPt1cg

[Pop Trash]

Hey Russ and EWO! I love THE GAME and EATING RAOUL. Go Criterion!

[Dead & Messed Up]

So Fairbanks's The Thief of Bagdad was good.

It was very good.

It was kinda great.

I tried to watch it a few years back and couldn't do it, on account of Fairbanks's over-the-top performance. But I powered through and eventually got used to his style, and the rest of the movie is so opulent and generous and huge and clever. And fast! The movie's paced very well for a 150-minute feature, especially once Fairbanks starts hero-questing.

I don't really have anything idiosyncratic or Match-Cutty to say about the film, except that Ahmed was silly to fall in love with the princess when he could've gotten busy with Anna May Wong. That kept distracting me while I was watching. "Bro! Stop staring at Blandy McDullington! Get with the slave-girl!"

[Sxottlan]

They just announced a Criterion blu-ray of Fincher's The Game coming in September. Can't wait. I love that movie.

Sweet.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_images/3969/627_box_348x490.jpg?1339786430

[Spinal]

That movie is so average.

[Morris Schæffer]

Random useless bit of info I found out today: The original protagonists of Dumb & Dumber were supposed to be played by:

Nicolas Cage and Gary Oldman

!!!!!!

[Pop Trash]

That movie is so average.

No.

1. Zodiac
2. The Social Network
3. The Game
4. Seven
5. Fight Club

[Sycophant]

No.

1. Zodiac
2. The Social Network
3. The Game
4. Seven
5. Fight Club

I don't know. At place number three out of five, at least in terms of Fincher's films, it LOOKS PRETTY AVERAGE TO ME!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Pop Trash]

:lol:

His four other films are tied for last place if that helps make it less average.

[Skitch]

No.

1. Zodiac
2. The Social Network
3. The Game
4. Seven
5. Fight Club

While he has yet to make a film I dislike, my levels of enjoyment would be your list upside down. :)

[Grouchy]

1. Zodiac
2. Fight Club
3. Se7en
4. The Social Network
5. The Game
6. Alien 3
7. Panic Room
8. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

[transmogrifier]

Terrific perspective on Spaghetti Westerns by Armond.

http://cityarts.info/2012/06/14/spaghetti-westerns-the-birth-of-cynicism/

He's so full of shit. If you start from the point of view that cyncism is automatically a negative attribute, then I'm sorry but your view of the film world means very little to me.

White has set-up this weird little moral fairytale land (though its actual boundaries are vague enough that he can routinely include his favourite auteurs and dismiss his most hated ones without needing to actually address the specifics of the movie in question - almost all of his reviews could be written from a synopsis and the name of the director - actually watching the thing is almost beside the point) that apparently all films must mesh with in order to be rewarded with his approbation. What a shitty, narrow way to approach an entire art form.

I can't believe someone as intelligent as you worships the guy. He is useless.

[Ezee E]

Random useless bit of info I found out today: The original protagonists of Dumb & Dumber were supposed to be played by:

Nicolas Cage and Gary Oldman

!!!!!!
I want.

[Scar]

I'm actually going to watch The Game for the first time, right now.

[transmogrifier]

I'm actually going to watch The Game for the first time, right now.

Hope you like it. It's the type of effortlessly mainstream entertainment that I don't really see all that much these days.

[Kiusagi]

I can't resist the opportunity to rank Fincher films.

1. Se7en
2. Fight Club
3. Zodiac
4. The Social Network
5. The Game
6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
7. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
8. Panic Room
9. Alien 3

[Sven]

I can't believe someone as intelligent as you worships the guy. He is useless.

:cool:

I appreciate the compliment, and want to dispel the thought that I worship him. I don't. But I do not think he's useless either. But let's not dance this tango again. The archives of Match-Cut are saturated by certain topics that too much more may create panic. I do think the linked-to Spaghetti Westerns piece is more interesting than many contemporary film writers could muster on the matter.

[transmogrifier]

1. Seven
2. Fight Club
3. Zodiac
4. Alien 3
5. The Game

Gap

6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
7. The Social Network
8. Panic Room
9. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

None of these are scored lower than 60 though.

[transmogrifier]

:cool:

I appreciate the compliment, and want to dispel the thought that I worship him. I don't. But I do not think he's useless either. But let's not dance this tango again. The archives of Match-Cut are saturated by certain topics that too much more may create panic.

Too true, too true. That was the first thing I've read of him in a while, and it reminded me how one-note and boring he had become when I decided he wasn't even worth it for entertainment value. Hence my overreaction.

[Spinal]

1. Seven
2. Fight Club
3. Zodiac
4. Alien 3
5. The Game

Gap

6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
7. The Social Network
8. Panic Room
9. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

None of these are scored lower than 60 though.

Pretty close to what I would say. I'd switch Button and Panic Room, and then move the gap up to between 2 and 3. Haven't seen Dragon Tattoo.

[Ezee E]

Alien 3 - ***
Seven - ****
The Game - ***
Fight Club - ****
Panic Room - *** 1/2
Zodiac - *** 1/2
Curious Case of Benjamin Button - **
Social Network - ****
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - *** 1/2

Pretty damn solid. I'll see anything he does at this point.

[Ezee E]

Here is The Game's special features:
New, restored digital transfer, supervised by director David Fincher and director of photography Harris Savides
Two 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio tracks:
Original theatrical 5.1 surround theatrical soundtrack
Alternate 5.1 surround mix optimized for home theater viewing, supervised by sound designer Ren Klyce and Fincher
Audio commentary by Fincher, Savides, actor Michael Douglas, screenwriters John Brancato and Michael Ferris, digital animation supervisor Richard “Dr.” Baily, production designer Jeffrey Beecroft, visual effects supervisor Kevin Haug, and visual effects producer Robyn D’Arcy
An hour’s worth of exclusive behind-the-scenes footage and film-to-storyboard comparisons for four of the film’s major set pieces, with commentary
Alternate ending
Trailer and teaser trailer, with commentary
A booklet featuring an essay by film critic David Sterritt

--

Very curious about the alternate ending, which is quite the hindrance to an almost great movie.

[Ivan Drago]

Alien 3 - 3 (but need to see the Extended Cut)
Seven - 7.5
Fight Club - 9
Panic Room - 6.5
Zodiac - 4
Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 9
Social Network - 9
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 9

I need to see The Game.

[Scar]

Hope you like it. It's the type of effortlessly mainstream entertainment that I don't really see all that much these days.

Really enjoyed it. The ending, eh....

Having him jump off the building does make sense, just how in the blue hell could you have the air bag lined up just right?

[transmogrifier]

Really enjoyed it. The ending, eh....

Having him jump off the building does make sense, just how in the blue hell could you have the air bag lined up just right?


(a) Maybe it wasn't the only air bag?
(b) Maybe they found out during the psychiatric tests that he loved the idea of falling through glass?
(c) Maybe there were giant fans that blew him onto the correct trajectory?
(d) Maybe he was in on it the whole time and was just humoring his brother?
(e) Maybe there was a sign that said "Jump here for best results"?
(f) Maybe there was no bag and the ending was simply wish-fulfillment as he plunged to his death?
(g) Maybe the people in on the game thought "Fuck it, he'll jump in the right place and survive, or he'll jump in the wrong place and die, but either way there is champagne to be drunk"
:)

[Scar]

(a) Maybe it wasn't the only air bag?
(b) Maybe they found out during the psychiatric tests that he loved the idea of falling through glass?
(c) Maybe there were giant fans that blew him onto the correct trajectory?
(d) Maybe he was in on it the whole time and was just humoring his brother?
(e) Maybe there was a sign that said "Jump here for best results"?
(f) Maybe there was no bag and the ending was simply wish-fulfillment as he plunged to his death?
(g) Maybe the people in on the game thought "Fuck it, he'll jump in the right place and survive, or he'll jump in the wrong place and die, but either way there is champagne to be drunk"
:)


:lol:

Its a great movie.

[B-side]

Seven - 7.5
Fight Club - 9
Zodiac - 4
Social Network - 9
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 9

wat

[Sxottlan]

Just cause:

Zodiac: ****
Fight Club: ****
Seven: ****

The Social Network: ***1/2
The Game: ***1/2
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: ***1/2

Panic Room: ***
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: ***

Alien 3: **1/2 (should probably revisit this)

[Skitch]

Really enjoyed it. The ending, eh....

Having him jump off the building does make sense, just how in the blue hell could you have the air bag lined up just right?

assumption based on this line..."Thank god you jumped, otherwise I was supposed to push you.". They were in some sort of control. They were watching his movements, he stumbled to the proper edge. Had he done otherwise, they would have interviened and guided him to the center of the opposing ledge, in line with the bag.

[Winston*]

Sweet.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_images/3969/627_box_348x490.jpg?1339786430
Very Mad Men-y
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/jbutler/MadMen/MadMen20070927qq00_00_16qq0001 1.jpg

[Henry Gale]

I might be the only person to think this, and maybe finally watching it in 2012 after hearing nothing but acclaim for it almost my whole life gave me unreasonably high expectations, but I'm just not sure that my mind can be changed that Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is kind of a bad movie.

I'm fine with '80s movies that show their age, I even adore the kitschiness of the outdated look and sound of a ton of movies from the decade that nicely place itself in that time with certain methods that have since died out (the style of certain visual effects, the lush and foggy cinematography, the sort of synths used in a lot of scores), but this movie has just aged terribly. There's the inconsistent tone and design of it, which sometimes seems like it wants to be whimsical (especially in its early scenes), before playing like a very straight, sometimes randomly gritty and dark, road movie without much actual comedy, all the way down to the scripting, where any individual scene feels reduced to whichever single emotional beat it wants to get across. But nothing feels more out of place than the score. There might be two scenes where it isn't completely terrible and out of place (or, doesn't sound like slowed-down 8-bit video game music), and that's when it dials itself down for two of its melodramatic hotel room scenes. It still manages to be distracting though, since I stopped to think, "Hey, the score isn't shitty here!", although it wasn't too long before the completely bizarre dialogue remix song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_83nWw4cO0) showed up while Martin made his way back from the airport parking lot and all was unfortunate again. It doesn't help that it also supplies loud cues for when one of the character discovers something wacky(!) or shocking(?)...

I don't think I've ever seen a John Hughes movie I disliked (though recently Sixteen Candles came close, mainly for the stunningly out-of-touch and fairly offensive character Gedde Watanable played), and as a kid, even lesser efforts like Home Alone, Dennis the Menace, Baby's Day Out were things I'd watched all the time. I really like everything else I've seen from Martin from around that time, especially the films he wrote, and I think Candy was great in his own right back then, and I even think he does a fine job with the more dramatic stuff here, but overall as a team they just don't do much to elevate the material because there's not much given to work with beyond "Unfortunate Event #12" and "Ensuing scene where they fight about it" (repeat).

This type of awkward humour seems like it's evolved nicely over time with to allow actual development and levity when characters make foolish decisions that have reprecussions longer than just the moments where things have gone awry for them (the best of either version of The Office, Eastbound & Down, Veep, Borat and Da Ali G Show, Parks and Recreation, the many Apatow written or produced films of late, are examples that operate very differently that all come to mind). They have plot points and unexpected turns that actual intend to have satisfying payoffs for the viewer. But in PT&A, every miserable thing that happens to the characters all seem stem from them being either unbelievably selfish or completely oblivious to their surroundings before the camera reveals what's gone wrong in redundantly telegraphed ways. They're simply not likable people, so when things worked out for them in the end, I can't say I cared, especially since the journey the film put them on just made them worse, not any more vulnerable or relatable.

The movie seems to make its mission statement to just push the two main characters through an assembly line of unpleasant, contrived events without thinking about how it may actually find a way to be amusing, funny, unexpected character moments that help Martin and Candy become sympathetic along the way. And that's why I think it absolutely fails to earn its overwhelmingly sentimental reversal at the end, regardless of Candy's best efforts in his performance, and no matter how much they let the script slowly work towards it.

And I just didn't laugh, which should be an underlying test for any comedy, but it was just so disappointing to realize that there wasn't much for me to appreciate beyond that either.

[B-side]

Days of Thunder is certainly a pseudo-sequel to Top Gun. Same narrative of a young and unpredictable daredevil learning his place in the world of veterans. Same lighting schemes and blood-red sunsets. Just swap the Navy with NASCAR and you've got Days of Thunder. Cary Elwes is even made to look identical to Val Kilmer. Granted, much of this could be said about just about every Tony Scott film, but anyone who's seen these two would assuredly vouch for this comparison. Days of Thunder is no Top Gun, but it holds a similar classical appeal.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-06-17-02h12m11s159_700x289.png

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-06-17-03h34m00s97_700x289.png

[baby doll]

I can't resist the opportunity to rank Fincher films.Se7en seems to me his most successful film (even the girlfriend subplot feels well integrated and purposeful, rather than an obligation) followed by The Social Network and Zodiac. Fight Club is the sort of interesting failure that's more fun to talk about than to actually watch, as it becomes progressively less interesting--both as social commentary and as storytelling--with each successive reel change. Similarly, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo starts out with an eye-popping credit sequence and then goes steadily downhill from there (I find this to be the case with a lot of the classic noirs that this one aspires to, although it's hardly The Big Sleep). And while The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has its moments, on the whole, it's Oscar-baiting claptrap. Overall, he's made a number of interesting films, but none that strike me as completely satisfying.

Rated:

Se7en (1995) / ***1/2
Fight Club (1999) / ***
Zodiac (2007) / ***
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) / **1/2
The Social Network (2010) / ***
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011) / ***

[Raiders]

I'm going to watch Top Gun sometime this week and offer a full appraisal to B-side. I think it is only fair to meet the madness head-on.

[EyesWideOpen]

Fincher is one of the most consistently great filmmakers out there. Even his lesser films like The Social Network, Panic Room and Benjamin Button are still really good films.

[Morris Schæffer]

Fincher Rated:

Se7en (1995) / ••••
Fight Club (1999) / ••
Zodiac (2007) / ••••
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) / ••
The Social Network (2010) / •••½
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011) / •••
The Game (1997) / ••½
Alien 3 (1992) / ••
Panic Room (2001) / ••½

Alien 3 is due for another appraisal, The Game might be a ••• if I see it again. Fight Club did nothing for me except that the filmmaking is pretty strong.

[Spinal]

Days of Thunder is certainly a pseudo-sequel to Top Gun. Same narrative of a young and unpredictable daredevil learning his place in the world of veterans. Same lighting schemes and blood-red sunsets. Just swap the Navy with NASCAR and you've got Days of Thunder. Cary Elwes is even made to look identical to Val Kilmer. Granted, much of this could be said about just about every Tony Scott film, but anyone who's seen these two would assuredly vouch for this comparison. Days of Thunder is no Top Gun, but it holds a similar classical appeal.


That's not called a sequel. That's called a formula.

[dreamdead]

Tom Noonan's What Happened Was...

:eek:

Damn, I remember Boner loving it sometime back when we did the non-administrative top 50. It's on InstantView here, and man, but it's brutal. Need to take some time away and process it all, but right now, this was just devastating.

[Boner M]

Tom Noonan's What Happened Was...

:eek:

Damn, I remember Boner loving it sometime back when we did the non-administrative top 50. It's on InstantView here, and man, but it's brutal. Need to take some time away and process it all, but right now, this was just devastating.
:pritch:

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just to chime in, I think Fincher's pretty rad as a director, and I think most of his movies are pretty tubular.

[Rowland]

Just to chime in, I think Fincher's pretty rad as a director, and I think most of his movies are pretty tubular.Bodacious.

[Spinal]

Fincher, to me, is a skilled craftsman. An artisan more than an artist. He's as good or bad as the material he's working with.

[Qrazy]

Fincher, to me, is a skilled craftsman. An artisan more than an artist. He's as good or bad as the material he's working with.

Hrm I don't know, I feel like he's pretty good even when the material is bad. His skill elevates weak material. That said the material is still weak so the final film still suffers.

But yeah I think he's made a number of good films but they always feel like they're posturing to me. I don't think he's ever made an emotionally naked film that says something about himself as an artist or as a human being.

[Derek]

I'm going to watch Top Gun sometime this week and offer a full appraisal to B-side. I think it is only fair to meet the madness head-on.

I dunno, I think it's past the point of being fair. As much as I thought B-side went a bit overboard with the Tony Scott love in the past, it at least felt like he was engaging with them. At this point, it seems pretty clear he's going Armond White-level rogue and just praising the hell out of anything the man had his hands on regardless of quality. Even the Tony Scott lovers in the blogosphere know to pick their battles.

[Qrazy]

I dunno, I think it's past the point of being fair. As much as I thought B-side went a bit overboard with the Tony Scott love in the past, it at least felt like he was engaging with them. At this point, it seems pretty clear he's going Armond White-level rogue and just praising the hell out of anything the man had his hands on regardless of quality. Even the Tony Scott lovers in the blogosphere know to pick their battles.

Don't ever doubt the veracity of Brightside's shitty taste.

[Ezee E]

But yeah I think he's made a number of good films but they always feel like they're posturing to me. I don't think he's ever made an emotionally naked film that says something about himself as an artist or as a human being.

Perhaps, but not too concerned about that anyways.

[Pop Trash]

There's so many "well crafted" films that come out in a particular year (esp. during the Oscar derby) that no matter how good the filmmaking is, I think a so-so story/script can sink it a bit for me. Prometheus, Shutter Island, or even Dragon Tattoo (which is certainly entertaining/watchable at least) are like this for me.

[Ezee E]

So, the latest Adam Sandler opened with only $14 mill. It costed $75 million. Are the stupid Sandler movies over with?

[Kiusagi]

So, the latest Adam Sandler opened with only $14 mill. It costed $75 million. Are the stupid Sandler movies over with?

Probably not. He's currently filming Grown Ups 2, which will probably be inexplicably successful.

I think Sandler would branch out more if more people went to see his past attempts (Funny People, Punch-Drunk Love). It's a shame, because he's good at those.

[Pop Trash]

So, the latest Adam Sandler opened with only $14 mill. It costed $75 million. Are the stupid Sandler movies over with?

No. Eddie Murphy has made a few bombs and he still brings the crap every year. Sandler might just have to lower his salary a bit.

[Pop Trash]

So, the latest Adam Sandler opened with only $14 mill. It costed $75 million. Are the stupid Sandler movies over with?

I think the R rating hurt it a lot as well. I mean does anyone over 15 actually want to see this?

[dreamdead]

I think the R rating hurt it a lot as well. I mean does anyone over 15 actually want to see this?

I'd wager that That's My Boy does crazy stupid well in rentals later this year, though. And that that's where it'll make most of its money.

[Pop Trash]

I'd wager that That's My Boy does crazy stupid well in rentals later this year, though. And that that's where it'll make most of its money.

People underestimate how much name recognition matters. Even if something bombs in theaters, name recognition gives you leverage in the DVD market, cable, international, VOD, etc. All you have to do is put a photo of Sandler's (or Murphy, or Larry the Cable Guy, or...) face looking goofy and you're golden.

[dreamdead]

Help! I have this playing, and know that I typically identify it with some film (Asian?) but can't place it. It's not the Royal Tenanbaums, I know that (which is the only film listing that Wiki shows for it)... does Joe Hisaishi use it in A Scene at the Sea or something similar?

S-Xm7s9eGxU

[StanleyK]

Help! I have this playing, and know that I typically identify it with some film (Asian?) but can't place it. It's not the Royal Tenanbaums, I know that (which is the only film listing that Wiki shows for it)... does Joe Hisaishi use it in A Scene at the Sea or something similar?

S-Xm7s9eGxU

Man on Wire, maybe?

[Pop Trash]

According to imdb its been used in a few films. Man on Wire? My Dinner With Andre?

[Ezee E]

I think the R rating hurt it a lot as well. I mean does anyone over 15 actually want to see this?
Didn't even realize it was rated R.

[dreamdead]

Man on Wire, maybe?

Hmmm, that definitely sounds right. Seems like the right kind of cue that would have been used during the WTC walk. Thanks to you and Pop Trash (I still haven't seen My Dinner with Andre :sad:)

[B-side]

That's not called a sequel. That's called a formula.

That's mostly why I used the term "pseudo-sequel". It's not a continuation of the same narrative thread within the same universe, but it's damn close.


I dunno, I think it's past the point of being fair. As much as I thought B-side went a bit overboard with the Tony Scott love in the past, it at least felt like he was engaging with them. At this point, it seems pretty clear he's going Armond White-level rogue and just praising the hell out of anything the man had his hands on regardless of quality. Even the Tony Scott lovers in the blogosphere know to pick their battles.

I was merely explicating how this particular film fits in with Tony's pet themes and overall approach to the medium. I did enjoy it, though.

[Spinal]

That's mostly why I used the term "pseudo-sequel". It's not a continuation of the same narrative thread within the same universe, but it's damn close.


Man, I hate to go all Sarah Palin, but this is what is called putting lipstick on a pig. You're pointing out things that we would normally call 'cliched', 'formulaic' and 'hackneyed' and making an effort to convince me that it's all part of some grand auteurist vision. I'm not buying it.

[B-side]

Man, I hate to go all Sarah Palin, but this is what is called putting lipstick on a pig. You're pointing out things that we would normally call 'cliched', 'formulaic' and 'hackneyed' and making an effort to convince me that it's all part of some grand auteurist vision. I'm not buying it.

I call it a classical framework. Tony doesn't write a great majority of his movies, he just elevates standard material. Anyway, I'm not really interested in dismissing films. I like to contextualize them and analyze them through an auteurist lens -- if the label fits -- like it does with Tony Scott. His films aren't masterpieces, but I enjoy them well enough to grant them more credit than happy accidents.

[Spinal]

I call it a classical framework. Tony doesn't write a great majority of his movies, he just elevates standard material. Anyway, I'm not really interested in dismissing films. I like to contextualize them and analyze them through an auteurist lens -- if the label fits -- like it does with Tony Scott. His films aren't masterpieces, but I enjoy them well enough to grant them more credit than happy accidents.

Well, ok. I mean, there's 'not dismissing films' and then there's 'dumpster diving'. If you get pleasure out of it, so be it.

[Winston*]

Cheaper by the Dozen marks a particular transitional point in Shaun Levy's oeuvre from the neo-romanticism of Just Married into the more mature insights of Night at the Museum and the Pink Panther remake. In the sly casting of once 'wild and crazy guy' Steve Martin as a harried suburban father, Levy offers commentary both on the incapacitating effects of aging and rapid cultural change in a post-postmodern America. Martin's silver follicles provides a poignant contrast to the fresh-faced exuberance of his Disney channel co-stars, lending the farce an underlying melancholy. Martin's father of 12, Tom Baker, is a man literally overrun by the next generation.

Levy's camera remains as probing as ever. He cannily utilises the gaze of the television situation comedy in order to illustrate the blurred media boundaries that exist in an increasingly entertainment-saturated landscape.

http://blogs.amctv.com/future-of-classic/cheaper-by-dozen-560.jpg
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2003_Cheaper_by_the_Dozen/2003_cheaper_by_the_dozen_001. jpg

[Russ]

I would wager that the landscape isn't the only saturated thing related to that post. ;)

[Pop Trash]

B-side is simply sketching out notes that will inevitably lead up to his epic tome, Tony Scott: Erotic Steel.

[Derek]

Levy's camera remains as probing as ever. He cannily utilises the gaze of the television situation comedy in order to illustrate the blurred media boundaries that exist in an increasingly entertainment-saturated landscape.

Definitely. The use of yellows and blues in the film is remarkable, slyly symbolizing the latent male and female adolescent impulses that linger in the adult mind. Your second screen cap reminds me of how visually powerful Levy renders Martin's recapturing of these instinctual urges, the Id literally exploding back into existence through pure cinematic form, color and movement reawakening the aging middle-aged male. Levy truly has redefined the art form in the 21st century.

[Winston*]

Definitely. The use of yellows and blues in the film is remarkable, slyly symbolizing the latent male and female adolescent impulses that linger in the adult mind. Your second screen cap reminds me of how visually powerful Levy renders Martin's recapturing of these instinctual urges, the Id literally exploding back into existence through pure cinematic form, color and movement reawakening the aging middle-aged male. Levy truly has redefined the art form in the 21st century.

As his third major work, one could comfortably call this his 'Levy-ticus'.

[Chac Mool]

They just announced a Criterion blu-ray of Fincher's The Game coming in September. Can't wait. I love that movie.


I can't resist the opportunity to rank Fincher films

Ditto.

[***½]

1. Zodiac

One of the best -- and really, one of the only -- true procedurals I've seen, a film interested as much in the nature, minutiae and consequences of the procedure as on the story itself. And some of the sequences are flat-out brilliant.

2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Hugely underrated, both for its glorious old-timey, heart-on-the-sleeve romanticism and for its intelligence and humanity. It's commonly criticized for being opaque, for not giving us a true glimpse of Benjamin Button's psyche -- but in keeping him opaque, it emphasizes that the value of the life we live is in the things we experience and the people we tangle with.

3. The Social Network

A sharp, cold, intelligent film in which is embedded a core of yearning -- a great example of form meets content.

4. Se7en
5. The Game

Surprisingly, two movies that (a) have aged quite well and (b) are not underrated at all, despite the hype.

[***]

6. Fight Club

I do think this one has aged a bit worse -- maybe it's the over-exposure -- but it remains a smart, dynamic statement on how hollow the consumer-centric, career-centric modern life can be, and a very funny movie to boot.

7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

In retrospect, a little too cold -- it could have used a dose of fire, a little less formality and control -- but its expert construction still makes it a pleasure to watch.

[**½]

See #7, but with less thematic and character heft.

[Unrated]

8. Alien 3

Didn't like it when I first saw it many a blue moon ago, but it probably deserves a re-watch.

[Winston*]

Has anyone seen the Hungarian film Fateless btw? The site search gives no results. Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Probably the best film I've seen this year.

[Sven]

Man on Wire, maybe?

...or Another Woman, perhaps? One of my favorites.

[B-side]

B-side is simply sketching out notes that will inevitably lead up to his epic tome, Tony Scott: Erotic Steel.

It'll be written in Latin on the back of a leather jacket.

[Izzy Black]

Fincher is a cinematic master of paranoia and anxiety. He's at his best when he's in this mode. No other filmmaker evokes these ideas like him. His best film is clearly Zodiac. Not too far behind is Fight Club, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Alien 3, and The Game. To me, Curious Case is an anomaly. The Social Network is nice to look at but fairly uninteresting. Se7en I need to see again, but I remember not being super impressed. Panic Room is actually an interesting film and better than it's given credit.

[Izzy Black]

B-side is simply sketching out notes that will inevitably lead up to his epic tome, Tony Scott: Erotic Steel.

:lol:

[B-side]

Defend my Tony Scott praise for me, Izzy. They respect your opinion!

[transmogrifier]

To be fair Robert Altman could have come out and said Top Gun was a masterpiece and I would have thought him a crackpot. Top Gun! A masterpiece! Aren't masterpieces supposed to make you NOT want to claw your own face off in boredom? Top Gun! My goodness.....

[B-side]

I was just being silly. But I also never said Top Gun was a masterpiece. It might be close, though.

[Qrazy]

Fincher is a cinematic master of paranoia and anxiety. He's at his best when he's in this mode. No other filmmaker evokes these ideas like him. His best film is clearly Zodiac. Not too far behind is Fight Club, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Alien 3, and The Game. To me, Curious Case is an anomaly. The Social Network is nice to look at but fairly uninteresting. Se7en I need to see again, but I remember not being super impressed. Panic Room is actually an interesting film and better than it's given credit.

Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac are his best imo.

Alien 3, The Game and Panic Room are all visually/atmospherically engaging but have some major script problems. Alien 3 I would say also has some huge structural issues.

Curious Case and The Social Network have different kind of script problems. The entire experience just feels very watered down and much more Hollywoody than his other work, but again he does a decent job with them. They are very slick films which is both a good and bad thing at the same time.

[Qrazy]

I was just being silly. But I also never said Top Gun was a masterpiece. It might be close, though.

You should watch Johnnie To's The Eighth Happiness tonight. Just cause.

[B-side]

You should watch Johnnie To's The Eighth Happiness tonight. Just cause.

I quite enjoy Johnnie To. I need to watch Mad Detective before I download anything else of his.

[Izzy Black]

Don't ever doubt the veracity of Brightside's shitty taste.

In my view, he has one of the best tastes on this forum. In his defense with respect to Scott, his background as graphic artist and painter is what enables his self-styled poetics and visual play. In terms of Top Gun, it's not one of his most mature films in terms of style, since his aesthetic had not really evolved away from that of his contemporaries until around The Last Boy Scout and True Romance. I find Top Gun (and by proxy Days of Thunder) interesting mostly as a point of departure in Scott's career with his late work. As Brightside notes, it embodies a classical, or neoclassical aesthetic, the kind of film Scott has been responding to, and in many ways, reacting against, both politically and aesthetically, his entire career. It's interesting to contrast its neoconservative grandstanding and capitalist celebration of heroic cutthroat individualism with the disaffected and largely disabled anti-heroes of his subsequent late work; the politics of success and glamor for rebellious individuals in contrast to the paranoia, lack of control, and personal tragedy of his late career individualist outsiders. His career trajectory has been slowly tearing down the cultural myths of Top Gun, reflecting increasingly post-Reagan, post-9/11, post-Katrina, and more generally, post-modern sensibilities. This is simultaneously consistent with the increasing fragmentation and disorientation of his aesthetic, the disintegrating narrative structures and frenetic subjective formal effects set against the glossy clean sheen of his classical high-concept work in the 80s. But such an analysis doesn't render Top Gun a great film, or even a very good film, but in line with Brightside's approach, it gives it an auteurist and aesthetic import and interest, irrespective of our hyper tendency to cast quick and ready value-judgments on the fly and go.

[B-side]

Well put. Why can't you speak for me all the time, Izzy?

<3

[Izzy Black]

Defend my Tony Scott praise for me, Izzy. They respect your opinion!

Believe it or not, I was planning to weigh in before I read this.

[B-side]

Oh. Well, that's much less flattering. Thanks for ruining my night.

[Izzy Black]

Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac are his best imo.

Alien 3, The Game and Panic Room are all visually/atmospherically engaging but have some major script problems. Alien 3 I would say also has some huge structural issues.

You know I tend to be more (maybe over?) charitable with script concerns when the visual has sufficient merit, but in general, we mostly agree on all accounts here.


Curious Case and The Social Network have different kind of script problems. The entire experience just feels very watered down and much more Hollywoody than his other work, but again he does a decent job with them. They are very slick films which is both a good and bad thing at the same time.

Agreed.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Thanks for ruining my night.

Or as the rest of us call it, "Tony Scotting."

[Izzy Black]

Oh. Well, that's much less flattering. Thanks for ruining my night.

Haha, yeah right. I'm just saying I wanted to come to your defense soon as I read the onslaught of hate. I share in your sense of Tony Scott isolation. You only motivated me.

[B-side]

Or as the rest of us call it, "Tony Scotting."

Oh, you.


Haha, yeah right. I'm just saying I wanted to come to your defense soon as I read the onslaught of hate. You only motivated me.

:pritch:

[Pop Trash]

His career trajectory has been slowly tearing down the cultural myths of Top Gun, reflecting increasingly post-Reagan, post-9/11, post-Katrina, and more generally, post-modern sensibilities.
http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bjork-post.jpg

[Kiusagi]

Panic Room is actually an interesting film and better than it's given credit.

I agree, it definitely has problems, but it's a very entertaining thriller. I'm a bit baffled at how many people think it's terrible. Perhaps they were simply expecting something more for Fincher's follow up to Fight Club.

[Pop Trash]

I agree, it definitely has problems, but it's a very entertaining thriller. I'm a bit baffled at how many people think it's terrible. Perhaps they were simply expecting something more for Fincher's follow up to Fight Club.

It's been too long, but I remember it being a fairly standard Hollywood thriller (which Fincher tends to transcend). It's also practically a remake of Wait Until Dark.

[Kiusagi]

It's been too long, but I remember it being a fairly standard Hollywood thriller (which Fincher tends to transcend). It's also practically a remake of Wait Until Dark.

It is a standard Hollywood thriller, but I don't think it was trying to be more than that. It sure looks out of place in Fincher's filmography, but he said he did it because the idea of making a film in a single location appealed to him after needing hundreds for Fight Club. The script has a lot of issues, but the key is in the atmosphere and imagery, which I thought was done to near perfection. So much so that I didn't notice the holes in the script until they were pointed out to me.

Haven't seen Wait Until Dark. Will fix that.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Haven't seen Wait Until Dark. Will fix that.

It's a heck of a lot better than Panic Room, but Alan Arkin's groovy villain is pretty goddamn silly.

[Boner M]

Final Sydney Film Festival ratings. Only reviewed four on my blog, not in any great detail. Brain went to mush by the end.

Safety Not Guaranteed (Trevorrow, 2012) **½
Neighboring Sounds (Filho, 2012) ***½ (rpt after Rotterdam)
Wuthering Heights (Arnold, 2011) **½
Being Venice (Milborough, 2012) *
The Cinema According to Bernardo Bertolucci (Amellio, 1976) **
Barbara (Petzold, 2012) ***
Dead Europe (Krawitz, 2012) *½
Holy Motors (Carax, 2012) ****
Just the Wind (Fliegauf, 2012) **
The Warped Forest (Ishii, 2011) **
Amour (Haneke, 2012) ***½
Lore (Shortland, 2012) **
The Spider's Stratagem (Bertolucci, 1970) ***½
Whores' Glory (Glawogger, 2011) ***½
Season of the Sun (Furukawa, 1956) **
Side by Side (Kenneally, 2012) **½
Monsieur Lazhar (Falardeau, 2011) ***
Faust (Sokurov, 2011) ***
OK, Good (Martinico, 2012) ***

[dreamdead]

Care to post thoughts on Andrea Arnold's films in the Wuthering Heights thread, Boner? I'm interested in how people respond to the last thirty minutes of that one...

[Boner M]

Care to post thoughts on Andrea Arnold's films in the Wuthering Heights thread, Boner? I'm interested in how people respond to the last thirty minutes of that one...
I posted this elsewhere:

"This movie's overriding revisionist approach is so obvious and stupid, but damned if Arnold doesn't frequently achieve moments of Grandrieux-esque sensory envelopment. Protracted runtime becomes numbing and the use of Mumford & Sons at the end kills a lot of goodwill, but it's still her best film to date"

The grown-up actors in the latter section are pretty awful, although the film isn't really aiming for naturalism so much as the experiential/tactile so it's not so bothersome. The final 30 minutes is pretty agonising, and I guess it's supposed to be though that doesn't make it any more rewarding. It was my fifth film of the day and I'd hit a wall so take these thoughts with a grain of dirt. Should note I haven't read the book either.

[Sycophant]

Help! I have this playing, and know that I typically identify it with some film (Asian?) but can't place it. It's not the Royal Tenanbaums, I know that (which is the only film listing that Wiki shows for it)... does Joe Hisaishi use it in A Scene at the Sea or something similar?

S-Xm7s9eGxU

Anno Hideaki uses it at a key moment or two in his first live action feature Love & Pop, which is what I most associate with it.

I feel like maybe it pops up in an Iwai Shunji film, but I can't place which, so I'm skeptical (I'm probably getting it confused with all the Debussy in All About Lily Chou-Chou. I know I've heard it in something else, maybe not too long ago. Maybe it pops up in Anno's animated series His and her Circumstances as well.

[Sycophant]

I might be the only person to think this, and maybe finally watching it in 2012 after hearing nothing but acclaim for it almost my whole life gave me unreasonably high expectations, but I'm just not sure that my mind can be changed that Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is kind of a bad movie.

This was simply too long and thoughtful a post to leave unanswered. My memory tells me I love the film, and it's been probably about four or five years since I last saw it, so I feel a bit unequipped to respond to much in detail.

I can't say that I feel any of your complaints about aging. But I've got a severe fondness for synthy soundtracks (truly, give me a soundtrack like PTA's before another comedy soundtrack with a 16-piece orchestra and goofy oboe music). Aging just doesn't tend to be something I'd ever much fault a film for, and I can't remember the last time I felt that way about anything.

Essential to my preference for the film is that I find it terribly funny. I think Martin and Candy are both great in their roles and playing off each other. I don't think either character ever becomes fully unlikable or unsympathetic, even when they're being horrible to each other and others, because their aims are inherently sympathetic and identifiable. On top of that, for my own personal reaction, I'm perhaps notorious for not buying into likability as a grounds for finding fault with a film, because I rarely feel like arts and entertainment need to convince me to care about a character's plight. PTA plays with the distance and dissonance of individual wants in its characters and the audience, and my memory is that it does so fairly intelligently.

Anyway, just wanted to offer what I see in it. I wish I had seen it more recently to offer you a better conversation.

[Sycophant]

Please forgive me if this is a terribly insensitive thing to say, but I swear Long Duk Dong's character could almost have been something more than an uncomfortable element of backwards racism without even shifting his fundamental role in the film. What makes him so terrible is so much in his presentation (the gong hits, the way he pops into frame like a horny Roger Rabbit) and the fact that his name is fucking Long Duk Dong. To my knowledge, the only thing really stereotypical about Long Duk Dong is the way he talks, which in a kinder overall portrayal could be perhaps not so bad, as everything else about his behavior seems pretty distant from American stereotypes of Chinese persons or Asians. A story about a foreign exchange student who gets lost in a strange new world that's familiar to all the other characters seems like it could be a good fit for a John Hughes film. It's a pity that in practice it's really just awful on many levels.

[Pop Trash]

I'm tempted to say the Long Duk Dong character is a clever parody of how Asians have long been stereotyped in movies, but that would be giving way too much credit/intelligence to what's actually up on the screen.

Anybody ever read Walter Chaw's reviews of Uncle Buck and The Goonies? They are pretty right on (very positive towards UB and really negative towards The Goonies). Also, lots of vitriol (Chaw being Asian-Am) towards how Asians were treated in "feel good" 80s comedies.

[Qrazy]

I quite enjoy Johnnie To. I need to watch Mad Detective before I download anything else of his.

The Eighth Happiness is not one of his 'good' films in a formal sense. It's quite funny though.

[Qrazy]

In my view, he has one of the best tastes on this forum.

I was just ribbing him. Although more generally I do at times dislike films he likes (he's much more partial to overly erotic cinema than I am), in general he has adequate taste. However I do find that he does at times suffer from the syndrome of overpraising a film in relation to it's relative obscurity in a filmmaker's catalogue. That is he will frequently champion a film's underdog status as much as praise it's actual aesthetic merits.

Not that his taste is on trial here or anything, but just responding to your above statement.

[Sycophant]

I'm tempted to say the Long Duk Dong character is a clever parody of how Asians have long been stereotyped in movies, but that would be giving way too much credit/intelligence to what's actually up on the screen.

Yeah. I can see why you'd be tempted to say that. One can maybe even sniff out some decent supporting evidence for it. But just absorbing what happens leaves that defense feeling a little slight. Perhaps it was done by people who should've known better and could've done better, but what we have is what's actually up there.


Anybody ever read Walter Chaw's reviews of Uncle Buck and The Goonies? They are pretty right on (very positive towards UB and really negative towards The Goonies). Also, lots of vitriol (Chaw being Asian-Am) towards how Asians were treated in "feel good" 80s comedies.

Gonna go seek this out right now.

[Sven]

in general he has adequate taste.

:lol: Oh, Qrazy.

[Derek]

:lol: Oh, Qrazy.

Sorry you weren't singled out and deemed adequate? It's one thing, of course, to know you're adequate, but, to have a fellow member of the boards stand up and say 'Yes, you sir are adequate.' Let me tell you it is a very special feeling. We'll finish this later, after I fulfill my duties with my customary adequaucivity.

[/NewsRadio]

[Qrazy]

:lol: Oh, Qrazy.

I take it as writ that we all judge our own taste as the best (unless we were cinematic neophytes and bow to the whims of those who have seen more films than we have). So in relation to my own preferences he has adequate taste.

I prefer the taste of say soitgoes, Melville or Derek.

[Izzy Black]

I was just ribbing him. Although more generally I do at times dislike films he likes (he's much more partial to overly erotic cinema than I am), in general he has adequate taste.

He's more partial to that variety than I think almost anyone (except maybe Bear). They're a couple of pervos.


However I do find that he does at times suffer from the syndrome of overpraising a film in relation to it's relative obscurity in a filmmaker's catalogue. That is he will frequently champion a film's underdog status as much as praise it's actual aesthetic merits.

I think the issue tends to be more that he approaches film appraisal differently from you. That aside, Top Gun isn't exactly obscure Tony Scott, so I'm not sure I follow the train of thought here.

[Qrazy]

He's more partial to that variety than I think almost anyone (except maybe Bear). They're a couple of pervos.

I think the issue tends to be more that he approaches film appraisal differently from you. That aside, Top Gun isn't exactly obscure Tony Scott, so I'm not sure I follow the train of thought here.

Ehh no, the issue is I believe exactly what I described it to be. I've known Brightside for years and mentored him at one point (along with others such as Bear and perhaps you) to his current viewing state. I'm not talking about this Tony Scott discussion. I have frequently recommended him films from directors and he'll go off and not watch that recommended film but watch the first film created by or the most obscure film that director has produced and praise it instead. Often times he will not even watch the well reputed film and thus has massive blind spots in his cinematic patchwork quilt and other times when he does he will be much more critical of it given it's well reputed nature... although certainly still other times he will simply like the film. But my point is I feel he does give extra points to a film in relation to it's obscurity. Usually I too have seen the obscure film from said director and do not agree with his level of praise.

Clearly there is no connection between Top Gun and what I am describing.

[Derek]

I think the issue tends to be more that he approaches film appraisal differently from you. That aside, Top Gun isn't exactly obscure Tony Scott, so I'm not sure I follow the train of thought here.

It certainly fits in the "underdog" status Q mentions. Even the cult of Tony Scott that's been building since around Domino doesn't go around touting Top Gun as a personal favorite with remarkable formal qualities.

EDIT: Btw, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on B-side too much. I enjoy most of his posts and his willingness to dig into obscure foreign cinema that's not typically viewed around these parts. It's just...you start talking about Top Gun becoming a personal favorite and analyzing it academically and you have to expect people to react to the sheer absurdity of it.

[transmogrifier]

Top Gun!

The only good thing to come out of that cinematic travesty is the awesome Hot Shots!

[Izzy Black]

Ehh no, the issue is I believe exactly what I described it to be. I've known Brightside for years and mentored him at one point (along with others such as Bear and perhaps you) to his current viewing state.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? You're right I don't know your relationship with Brightside, but I also don't know what exactly your supposed to mean by "mentoring" and how I potentially may or may not fit that bill.


I'm not talking about this Tony Scott discussion. I have frequently recommended him films from directors and he'll go off and not watch that recommended film but watch the first film created by or the most obscure film that director has produced and praise it instead. Often times he will not even watch the well reputed film and thus has massive blind spots in his cinematic patchwork quilt and other times when he does he will be much more critical of it given it's well reputed nature...

How about an example? Going on selections alone, I don't sense any major "blind spots" in his "cinematic patchwork quilt."


although certainly still other times he will simply like the film. But my point is I feel he does give extra points to a film in relation to it's obscurity. Usually I too have seen the obscure film from said director and do not agree with his level of praise.

That he has the tendency to appreciate what's understood as a filmmaker's "obscure" film isn't to say that he does so merely because it's obscure. You've at best spotted a correlation, and the deeper motive you're reading into his taste suggests something like a disingenuous bias for the obscure rather than quality, which may reflect your opinion of BS based on your experience, and that's fine, but I'll go ahead and say that in my experience, I sense nothing of the sort.


Clearly there is no connection between Top Gun and what I am describing.

I assumed you were explaining your jab at him. If not, no problem. My mistake.

[transmogrifier]

How about an example? Going on selections alone, I don't sense any major "blind spots" in his "cinematic patchwork quilt.".

See, I think this needs re-framing: who cares if someone has "blindspots" in their viewing experience in the first place?. Life is short, and I've long discovered that I find documentaries generally quite boring (I much prefer reading about real-life stories, which allows me to focus on the aspects of the case I find interesting, do my own research, cross-check, get straight to the point etc) so I watch very, very few of them and couldn't care less if someone saw me as less of a cinema fan because of it.

Watch what you want to watch.

[Izzy Black]

It certainly fits in the "underdog" status Q mentions. Even the cult of Tony Scott that's been building since around Domino doesn't go around touting Top Gun as a personal favorite with remarkable formal qualities.

Neither did Brightside for that matter, but I don't think commenting on Top Gun's value is showing some obvious bias for an underdog or obscure film when you're talking about Tony Scott at large, especially since, for non-Tony Scott fans, it's better reviewed than his more traditionally loathed films (Domino being an instance, probably better fitting the bill of "obscure" or underdog Tony Scott, if such a thing exists. The cult, I take it, is defined in virtue of its appreciation of these kinds of films.)


EDIT: Btw, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on B-side too much. I enjoy most of his posts and his willingness to dig into obscure foreign cinema that's not typically viewed around these parts. It's just...you start talking about Top Gun becoming a personal favorite and analyzing it academically and you have to expect people to react to the sheer absurdity of it.

Not really since Top Gun has been analyzed by academics since the 1980s. Plus, Brightside's comments on it were pretty modest. Describing it as "classical" and noting its relation to Scott's other early work doesn't strike me as especially controversial.

This is what I've tried to point out to Qrazy about appreciating film differently. I take it that Brightside is a lot like me, where filmgoing is more like a conversation, an active endeavor rather than a passive one. It's more of a give-and-take of feeling, reflection, and interpretation, less a take-all experience of fulfilling some personal desire and then merely passing judgment on it. Brightside was probably made a Tony Scott fan by his later work and not his earlier work.

Thus, appreciating Top Gun and attempting to place its significance within the larger context of Tony Scott's career doesn't bespeak a bias for crappy movies, it just shows a Tony Scott fan revisiting some canon Scott films and providing an interpretation of it. There's more of a resistance on this approach to say "Hey yeah man I give it a 7.5 out of 10 but the screenplay was shotty at times" and a greater tendency to try and understand the significance of a film within an artist's cannon. Obviously this indicates a strong appreciation for auteur theory, but it doesn't suggest that we're just nothing more than contrarian hipster's opting for the "obscure" because it makes us look cool. That's about the most disrespectful thing a fellow filmgoer could say to me, and I feel partly implicated here since I share Brightside's appreciation of Scott's overall body of work, not to mention a lot of his aesthetic interests very generally.

[Qrazy]

See, I think this needs re-framing: who cares if someone has "blindspots" in their viewing experience in the first place?. Life is short, and I've long discovered that I find documentaries generally quite boring (I much prefer reading about real-life stories, which allows me to focus on the aspects of the case I find interesting, do my own research, cross-check, get straight to the point etc) so I watch very, very few of them and couldn't care less if someone saw me as less of a cinema fan because of it.

Watch what you want to watch.

It only matters if you pretend to pass yourself off as supremely knowledgeable about film and that your viewing habits are better than those of others because you seek out these obscure works. He doesn't do this all the time but on occasion... again though I didn't mean this to become a criticism of Brightside really I'm just explaining my earlier comments at this point.

He's a great guy though and I like his taste.

[Izzy Black]

See, I think this needs re-framing: who cares if someone has "blindspots" in their viewing experience in the first place?. Life is short, and I've long discovered that I find documentaries generally quite boring (I much prefer reading about real-life stories, which allows me to focus on the aspects of the case I find interesting, do my own research, cross-check, get straight to the point etc) so I watch very, very few of them and couldn't care less if someone saw me as less of a cinema fan because of it.

Watch what you want to watch.

It's really not so much that people disagree with my taste that bothers me. I don't expect everyone to like what I like (although they should damnit!!), but what bothers me is the suggestion that I only like what I like out of some superficial motive or agenda. That's what's being suggested of BS here, and even if it's only suggested on a minor level, to me it's a severe charge (it's basically calling someone inauthentic), and I just can't say that I see it in his case, or that I agree with that assessment

[Izzy Black]

It only matters if you pretend to pass yourself off as supremely knowledgeable about film

What about someone who casually claims to "mentor" others on film?

[Qrazy]

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? You're right I don't know your relationship with Brightside, but I also don't know what exactly your supposed to mean by "mentoring" and how I potentially may or may not fit that bill.

Maybe you didn't mentor, I was just speculating there. But in the RT days I spoke to him a great deal and provide him with many, many lists and recs of films and filmmakers to check out by PM or otherwise.


How about an example? Going on selections alone, I don't sense any major "blind spots" in his "cinematic patchwork quilt."

You'd have to ask him for specifics as I haven't charted every viewing he's had in the last 5 years, but I know there are many major films out there that he hasn't seen, which is fine of course.


That he has the tendency to appreciate what's understood as a filmmaker's "obscure" film isn't to say that he does so merely because it's obscure. You've at best spotted a correlation, and the deeper motive you're reading into his taste suggests something like a disingenuous bias for the obscure rather than quality, which may reflect your opinion of BS based on your experience, and that's fine, but I'll go ahead and say that in my experience, I sense nothing of the sort.

I am suggesting a bias, I am not suggesting it is disingenuous. But such a bias to me does not speak to the relative quality of a film. And yes this is my opinion based on personal experience which in relation to Bside I feel is more robust than yours.


I assumed you were explaining your jab at him. If not, no problem. My mistake.

To be clear also part of my ribbing was about the frequent conversations we have here when someone is labelled a reactionary or what have you and then complains that their taste is genuine and that people should accept that. So my joke was that his 'shitty' (joke) taste is genuine.

[Qrazy]

What about someone who casually claims to "mentor" others on film?

What about someone who actually did mentor? You ass. :P

[Qrazy]

This is what I've tried to point out to Qrazy about appreciating film differently. I take it that Brightside is a lot like me, where filmgoing is more like a conversation, an active endeavor rather than a passive one. It's more of a give-and-take of feeling, reflection, and interpretation, less a take-all experience of fulfilling some personal desire and then merely passing judgment on it. Brightside was probably made a Tony Scott fan by his later work and not his earlier work.


:rolleyes:

[Izzy Black]

Maybe you didn't mentor, I was just speculating there. But in the RT days I spoke to him a great deal and provide him with many, many lists and recs of films and filmmakers to check out by PM or otherwise.

I thought you were saying you mentored me. Hence the incredulity.

In any case, I'd be reluctant to call those kinds of exchanges mentoring.


I am suggesting a bias, I am not suggesting it is disingenuous. But such a bias to me does not speak to the relative quality of a film. And yes this is my opinion based on personal experience which in relation to Bside I feel is more robust than yours.

Because you've known him for years? So have I. Big deal.

[Izzy Black]

:rolleyes:

Thanks for your contribution. A C+ would've been fine.

[Qrazy]

I thought you were saying you mentored me. Hence the incredulity.

In any case, I'd be reluctant to call those kinds of exchanges mentoring.


Because you've known him for years? So have I. Big deal.

Well anyway he came to me wide eyed and bushy tailed back in the day and I gave him lots of reading and films to view. If that's not mentoring I don't know what is. I have not only known him passively for years though, we spoke a great deal outside the message boards. Maybe you did as well, I don't know.

[Qrazy]

Thanks for your contribution. A C+ would've been fine.

Sorry but you've been making these film hippy comments a lot lately. 'Woah man I like to hug the films I watch and really try to feel their inner spirit'. I just find it a bit difficult to take seriously.

If you think I'm trying to position the two of you as obscure film loving hipsters I could just as easily say you're trying to peg me as a cinematic philistine who only approaches the surface level of a film, expresses a gut reaction and moves on.

Personally I don't think either of us are doing either of these things but whatever.

[Izzy Black]

Well anyway he came to me wide eyed and bushy tailed back in the day and I gave him lots of reading and films to view. If that's not mentoring I don't know what is. I have not only known him passively for years though, we spoke a great deal outside the message boards. Maybe you did as well, I don't know.

I've probably given hundreds of people recommendations on film, readings, and so on, but I don't think that makes me a "mentor," because I've had many great companions who've done the same in return (you, traditionally, being one of them). I just look at it more as a community of peers where everyone has something to bring to the table, 'mentoring' has an air of superiority and seniority that I think can be condescending, but if Brightside and no one else minds it, fine, whatever.

As for your personal knowledge of him, I can only say that his taste for a lot of obscure cinema approximates my own, and his interpretations of them are very similar to own, and his theoretical attitude about cinema mirrors my own, so it should probably be pretty clear to you why I have difficulty spotting a bias but why I also feel a bit implicated in the criticism.

[elixir]

I would like to hug some films.

[elixir]

Also, sometimes I like watching directors' films in (somewhat) chronological order. It can be interesting/fun. Easier to do with small filmographies, of course...

[Qrazy]

I've probably given hundreds of people recommendations on film, readings, and so on, but I don't think that makes me a "mentor," because I've had many great companions who've done the same in return (you, traditionally, being one of them). I just look at it more as a community of peers where everyone has something to bring to the table, 'mentoring' has an air of superiority and seniority that I think can be condescending, but if Brightside and no one else minds it, fine, whatever.

As for your personal knowledge of him, I can only say that his taste for a lot of obscure cinema approximates my own, and his interpretations of them are very similar to own, and his theoretical attitude about cinema mirrors my own, so it should probably be pretty clear to you why I have difficulty spotting a bias but why I also feel a bit implicated in the criticism.

I only meant I used to mentor way back when, not any more. He has certainly introduced me to a number of good films since.

I like hidden gems also I just think it is a bit limiting to watch say as an example Buffet Titanik from Kusturica and not check out Underground or Time of the Gypsies (this is something Brightside did... either that one or Kusturica's other TV film).

[Izzy Black]

Sorry but you've been making these film hippy comments a lot lately. 'Woah man I like to hug the films I watch and really try to feel their inner spirit'. I just find it a bit difficult to take seriously.

That's fine. Don't. I'll follow suit and not take you seriously.


If you think I'm trying to position the two of you as obscure film loving hipsters I could just as easily say you're trying to peg me as a cinematic philistine who only approaches the surface level of a film, expresses a gut reaction and moves on.

I don't have a problem with acknowledging different approaches (and for the record, I don't think you're either a philistine or merely a surface critic), but I do have a problem with mischaracterizing the motivation as a bias for obscure cinema rather than a tendency or sensibility for auteurism and certain aesthetic principles that might, as a matter of accident, result in more appreciation for obscurer films (and besides, you like ridiculously obscure cinema just as much as the next person).

[Qrazy]

That's fine. Don't. I'll follow suit and not take you seriously.

I don't have a problem with acknowledging different approaches (and for the record, I don't think you're either a philistine or merely a surface critic), but I do have a problem with mischaracterizing the motivation as a bias for obscure cinema rather than a tendency or sensibility for auteurism and certain aesthetic principles that might, as a matter of accident, result in more appreciation for obscurer films (and besides, you like ridiculously obscure cinema just as much as the next person).

I know! Which is why this conversation is not hitting upon my focus... I think I clarified what I meant with the Kusturica comment above.

[Derek]

Neither did Brightside for that matter, but I don't think commenting on Top Gun's value is showing some obvious bias for an underdog or obscure film when you're talking about Tony Scott at large, especially since, for non-Tony Scott fans, it's better reviewed than his more traditionally loathed films (Domino being an instance, probably better fitting the bill of "obscure" or underdog Tony Scott, if such a thing exists. The cult, I take it, is defined in virtue of its appreciation of these kinds of films.)

Did you not read his post. He specifically said "Top Gun is quickly becoming a favorite" and mentions "remarkable aerial battles", "I've hardly seen much better photography in an action film" and "That prime time photography really only lends the film an even grander sense of scope and romanticism".

How again is that not touting it as a personal favorite with great formal qualities?

And yes, I'm not referring to the average Joe, but rather cinephiles. There is a cinephilic cult of Tony Scott over the past decade (containing people who otherwise normally have good taste). Those people prop up his more recent films, usually from Man on Fire on, though of course there are fans of True Romance. There are few, if any, serious cinephiles, even Tony Scott fans, that prop up Top Gun as a truly great film.


Not really since Top Gun has been analyzed by academics since the 1980s. Plus, Brightside's comments on it were pretty modest. Describing it as "classical" and noting its relation to Scott's other early work doesn't strike me as especially controversial.

True, academic was a poor description on my part. Obviously academics have been engaging with bad films in interesting ways for decades now. It's not that I don't think that interesting things can be said about Top Gun with regards to its homoeroticism, relation to 80s action cinema, etc. You simply seem to be ignoring the fact that his post specifically mentioned that it's becoming a personal favorite and that it's photography is among the best of any action film ever. Personally I see nothing modest about those claims whatsoever.


This is what I've tried to point out to Qrazy about appreciating film differently. I take it that Brightside is a lot like me, where filmgoing is more like a conversation, an active endeavor rather than a passive one. It's more of a give-and-take of feeling, reflection, and interpretation, less a take-all experience of fulfilling some personal desire and then merely passing judgment on it. Brightside was probably made a Tony Scott fan by his later work and not his earlier work.

I agree with all that and I appreciate that B-side almost always takes something positive away from whatever he watches. Unfortunately, it also leads to the occasional defending of duds. I too have noticed what Qrazy has as far as defending the lesser, more obscure works of directors.

Watching Nicholas Ray's Run for Cover, a film I've never read much about in relation to Ray, before In a Lonely Place. Maybe he was in the mood for a western, etc. but fact is, when I saw the post, that's immediately what I thought because it's a pattern I've noticed over the past few years.

I want to make it clear that I do NOT think B-side is disingenuous, but I don't think what Q said is off base.


Thus, appreciating Top Gun and attempting to place its significance within the larger context of Tony Scott's career doesn't bespeak a bias for crappy movies, it just shows a Tony Scott fan revisiting some canon Scott films and providing an interpretation of it. There's more of a resistance on this approach to say "Hey yeah man I give it a 7.5 out of 10 but the screenplay was shotty at times" and a greater tendency to try and understand the significance of a film within an artist's cannon. Obviously this indicates a strong appreciation for auteur theory, but it doesn't suggest that we're just nothing more than contrarian hipster's opting for the "obscure" because it makes us look cool. That's about the most disrespectful thing a fellow filmgoer could say to me, and I feel partly implicated here since I share Brightside's appreciation of Scott's overall body of work, not to mention a lot of his aesthetic interests very generally.

Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that B-side's original post on Top Gun said NOTHING about it's place within the Tony Scott canon. It was solely defending it as a great film and also suggesting that other people's approach to the film is "silly" and "dismissive" rather than appreciating it for being "ahead of its time". Again, his words, not mine.

I am an auteurist myself and I love plenty of more obscure titles from great directors, some even more than their more widely accepted masterpieces. If you, for instance, were to say that Story of a Love Affair was your favorite Antonioni, I would think that's great. I would disagree, but I would find your defense of it, most likely, intriguing. BUT, had you seen and loved Story of a Love Affair before ever seeing L'Avventura or L'Eclisse, I would find that odd. And were you to do the same thing with several other directors, I would start noticing a pattern of this oddness and wonder why that pattern exists. I wouldn't think you were being disingenuous, but an agenda of some sorts would not be out of the question. Of course, plenty of film critics do have an agenda, so I don't mean than as a derogatory term.

[Izzy Black]

Not at home, I'll be back later tonight probably to respond.

[Derek]

Also, I recently watched Angelopoulos' Voyage to Chythera before having seen Eternity and a Day or Ulysses' Gaze...

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lighter_at_concert.jpg

[Boner M]

True Romance is so fucking awful.

[Derek]

True Romance is so fucking awful.

Somehow I've never seen it, but it is one of Tony's that I do plan to watch at some point.

[transmogrifier]

I'm from the "gut reaction and move on" school of thought.

Actually, when it comes down to it, I think you could find valid thematic resonance in almost every single film you ever watched, but unless it hits you squarely in the more primitive pleasure centre head-on (i.e. entertains you in some way, emotionally, physically or intellectually) then most of us don't bother to search for, let alone address thematic concerns.

That's why I'll tend to wax lyrical about the beautifully expressed themes of films I like, but that's hardly the primary reason I like them. They hit me in the gut, and made me want to think about them a bit more. That's all, really.

[dreamdead]

Right, so, What Happened Was...; I went into this expecting a character study disguised as a romance film. I didn't realize how incisive Noonan would be with his characters, where Michael and Jackie continually struggle to find commonality, to find the proper flow and rhythm to their first date. He successfully moves these characters from pathetic to tragic through the gradual revealing of their dreams, so that their static lives become elegaic rather than caricatures. It's a subtle shift, but the dimensions and back-history are thoroughly incorporated. Further, while it cannot escape the trappings of being a play entirely, it is remarkably fluid in its camera movements, taking time to move between characters and moods.

And the way in which Karen Sillas (anything else she's great in?) uses her body in that drab red dress is quietly revealing, lifting the hem of the dress at times to tentatively flirt with Michael, sitting forward and leaning herself into Noonan's vision, to the childlike introspection when she reads aloud her children's story. And also, that story is scarier than most horror films. A hidden marvel, this film, and one that is an instant fave.

[B-side]

I feel like a troubled child listening in on his parents' conversation about how he's the reason they're getting divorced.

[Spinal]

I feel like a troubled child listening in on his parents' conversation about how he's the reason they're getting divorced.

:lol:

[Derek]

I feel like a troubled child listening in on his parents' conversation about how he's the reason they're getting divorced.

:lol:

I was actually laughing while I wrote my post realizing that you hadn't posted during any of this and would likely be horrified once you checked in again.

And who'd have thunk? It wasn't your drug addiction or promiscuous sex that drove Qrazy and Izzy apart. It was calling Top Gun a great film. Some day you can speak at middle schools warning teens of the dangers of Tony Scott.

[B-side]

Since my taste is already the topic of extensive conversation, I won't feel as weird defending it. It genuinely bothers me that people may or may not think I pick and choose my films based on obscurity level just so I can be "different". My process of picking a film isn't very complicated: I filter by country or director and check out various films and download what appeals to me based on how the synopsis reads, or a trustworthy friend's opinion or the look of the screencaps. Since I'm such a visual person when it comes to cinema, I can easily be suckered in by some attractive shots. I don't deliberately ignore canon films or filmmakers. I just don't place much stock in popular opinion, so I don't prioritize something simply because it's popular. That goes for audiences or critics. I don't care if it has a 100% Tomatometer and every renowned film historian thinks it's a masterpiece. If it doesn't appeal to me, why would I be so quick to watch it? I also have a strong interest in broadening my horizons in film for both purely cinephilic reasons and for whatever cultural value I can glean from viewing a certain country or individual's cinema. This would be why I have been known to watch films from countries most people didn't even know produced cinema. That very fact alone makes me wanna see what that country has to offer the world of film. I'll readily admit to finding pleasure in being the guy that "discovers" someone or something, but its obscurity alone does not have an effect on how I qualify it after.

[Qrazy]

Everyone having different taste is what makes talking about film interesting anyway. I'm glad B has the taste he does, I just don't always agree with it. And I trust that he watches what he watches because he wants to watch it. But damn it if it doesn't annoy me when he starts with (by my estimation) the worst film(s) by some of my favorite directors. :P

---

And there's always couples counseling. Maybe with time... I can learn to love Top Gun.

[Dillard]

Enjoying the back and forth. Keep going.

Also: Top Gun is the shit.

[B-side]

And there's always couples counseling. Maybe with time... I can learn to love Top Gun.

That magic hour photography, maaaan.

[Qrazy]

That magic hour photography, maaaan.

I changed my mind, I can never learn to love it, death is the only viable option. My life insurance will provide for you my son in ways I never could.

[Derek]

I changed my mind, I can never learn to love it, death is the only viable option. My life insurance will provide for you my son in ways I never could.

Psh, Top Gun cinematographer Jeffrey L. Kimball went on to a storied career, DPing such greats as Curly Sue, Four Christmases and Old Dogs, the pseudo-sequel/spiritual successor to the undervalued Wild Hogs. I think you just don't know great cinematography when you see it.

[Qrazy]

Psh, Top Gun cinematographer Jeffrey L. Kimball went on to a storied career, DPing such greats as Curly Sue, Four Christmases and Old Dogs, the pseudo-sequel/spiritual successor to the undervalued Wild Hogs. I think you just don't know great cinematography when you see it.

This post reminds me that I have a vague interest in seeing...

Vértigo en Manhattan (1981)
... aka "Jet Lag" - USA
David (1979)

The only two non-Cassavetes films Al Ruban DP'd.

[Dillard]

Screw cinematographers. It's all about our favorite Scientology munchkin. And Val Kilmer when he wasn't fat. He knew how to chew gum. That's what made him the ice man.

[Qrazy]

Screw cinematographers. It's all about our favorite Scientology munchkin. And Val Kilmer when he wasn't fat. He knew how to chew gum. That's what made him the ice man.

I preferred him as Madmartigan.

[Derek]

This post reminds me that I have a vague interest in seeing...

Vértigo en Manhattan (1981)
... aka "Jet Lag" - USA
David (1979)

The only two non-Cassavetes films Al Ruban DP'd.

David sounds interesting...almost as if Cassavetes made a Holocaust film. Jet Lag doesn't even have 5 votes on Imdb, so that might be a little tougher to track down. :)

[Qrazy]

David sounds interesting...almost as if Cassavetes made a Holocaust film. Jet Lag doesn't even have 5 votes on Imdb, so that might be a little tougher to track down. :)

Yeah, someone put it up on KG but there are no seeders.

[Boner M]

Everything Must Go (Rush, 2011) ½
Yeah, I couldn't even finish this one.

[Dillard]

No love for Will Ferrell? Y'all are Shlub haters.

[Derek]

Yeah, I couldn't even finish this one.

I wanted something light from Netflix Instant and only made it all the way through since I was exercising during the first hour. The whole thing is so painfully contrived and pre-packaged to be this edgy yet feel-good indy hit that just about every note rings completely false. When the little neighborhood black kid asked him to teach him how to play baseball within 3 minutes of meeting him, I just about lost it. In what universe do the interactions between Ferrell, Rebecca Hall and the little kid even remotely resemble anything human? Sad thing is I like Ferrell in that type of role (at least in theory...I thought Stranger than Fiction was pretty weaksauce) which is really the only reason I gave it even a half-star.

[Irish]

In what universe do the interactions between Ferrell, Rebecca Hall and the little kid even remotely resemble anything human. Sad thing is I like Ferrell in that type of role

You're absolutely right about this. Both characters are far too narratively convenient, in that they are obvious opportunities for catharsis.

I didn't think much of the movie beyond the premise (which is pretty much the limits of Carver's short), but I did marvel at the evenness and honesty of Farrell's performance, and the way he seems to effortless evoke a specific kind of emotional exhaustion.

It's not a good movie, but I still think it's worth seeing just for him.


(at least in theory...I thought Stranger than Fiction was pretty weaksauce) which is really the only reason I gave it even a half-star.

Stranger Than Fiction struck me as the kind of script that must've been amazing to read, but ends up not playing well on the screen. Probably because this concept has a lot of legs on the page, but photographing it removed almost all the stakes.

[baby doll]

So I watched The Game last night. Pretty enjoyable stuff. I didn't hate the ending as much as everyone else seems to--maybe because I'd heard so much about how awful the ending was before seeing the film. It's definitely impossible, but then, so is the whole movie. (At different points, the plot reminded me of North by Northwest, House of Games, Total Recall, and this movie I saw as a kid where a millionaire pretends to be homeless for a month, and then it turns out that his partners have cleaned him out and he really is poor--Life Stinks, maybe.)

On the Fincher scale, I'd rate it lower than Se7en and higher than Fight Club. Here, there's a certain ambiguity about how much is part of the conspiracy (was the pen supposed to leak in his pocket?), whereas in Fight Club everything and everyone is unambiguously part of Project Mayhem; in other words, one could make the case that this film is about paranoia, while the last half-hour or so of Fight Club merely is paranoid.

[Pop Trash]

^^^THIS.

[Derek]

You're absolutely right about this. Both characters are far too narratively convenient, in that they are obvious opportunities for catharsis.

I didn't think much of the movie beyond the premise (which is pretty much the limits of Carver's short), but I did marvel at the evenness and honesty of Farrell's performance, and the way he seems to effortless evoke a specific kind of emotional exhaustion.

It's not a good movie, but I still think it's worth seeing just for him.

It's an interesting performance that's marred beyond recognition by the script. I could perhaps recommend a recut version of the scenes where Ferrell in the yard by himself. It could be tolerable as a 10-minute short. :)


Stranger Than Fiction struck me as the kind of script that must've been amazing to read, but ends up not playing well on the screen. Probably because this concept has a lot of legs on the page, but photographing it removed almost all the stakes.

Yeah, it's the kind of overly clever script whose basking in its own wink-winkness could be impressive on the page, but it felt too forced and the effect was kinda watered down. It doesn't help that Marc Forster, the cover boy for Hollywood averageness, directed it.

[Derek]

^^^THIS.

Except for the fact that The Game is actually about paranoia and Fight Club isn't, so that's a missed shot at the latter.

[Pop Trash]

Except for the fact that The Game is actually about paranoia and Fight Club isn't, so that's a missed shot at the latter.

He didn't say Fight Club was about paranoia.

[Derek]

He didn't say Fight Club was about paranoia.

He said "in other words, one could make the case that this film is about paranoia, while the last half-hour or so of Fight Club merely is paranoid" as a slight against Fight Club, the "merely" signifying that it failed to be about paranoia and instead only ends up being paranoid. My point is that Fight Club isn't attempting to be about paranoia, so saying that something fails to be something it isn't trying to be isn't exactly a strong argument against it. In other words, I don't think the comparison between the conspiracy in The Game and Project Mayhem in Fight Club makes a lick of sense. Capiche?

[Pop Trash]

Capiche?

No, but I'll let baby doll clarify his writing.

[baby doll]

He said "in other words, one could make the case that this film is about paranoia, while the last half-hour or so of Fight Club merely is paranoid" as a slight against Fight Club, the "merely" signifying that it failed to be about paranoia and instead only ends up being paranoid. My point is that Fight Club isn't attempting to be about paranoia, so saying that something fails to be something it isn't trying to be isn't exactly a strong argument against it. In other words, I don't think the comparison between the conspiracy in The Game and Project Mayhem in Fight Club makes a lick of sense. Capiche?From the point where the Edward Norton character realizes that he is (spoiler alert, although at this point do we really need to bother?) Tyler Durden, he goes from city to city finding traces of Project Mayhem wherever he goes (the bartender, the waiter at the coffee shop where he takes Helena Bonham-Carter, the police). I don't know about you, but the idea of a vast, secret organization in which anybody could be a potential threat to the hero (excepting girls, of course) strikes me as just a little paranoid.

However, unlike The Game, which I find interesting in direct proportion to its ambiguity, in Fight Club, there is no such ambiguity. Everybody he thinks is part of Project Mayhem certainly is a member. Hence, I find the Norton character's paranoia (which I suppose you could argue isn't really paranoia at all, since it's entirely well founded) less interesting than the paranoia of the Michael Douglas character in this film, as the film leaves the question at least partially open how much is of the conspiracy in his head.

[Watashi]

This is pretty cool. (http://imgur.com/a/SS6V5#0)

Pixar artist Josh Cooley created a "children's book" made up of famous movie stills.

[Chac Mool]

I'm from the "gut reaction and move on" school of thought.

Actually, when it comes down to it, I think you could find valid thematic resonance in almost every single film you ever watched, but unless it hits you squarely in the more primitive pleasure centre head-on (i.e. entertains you in some way, emotionally, physically or intellectually) then most of us don't bother to search for, let alone address thematic concerns.

That's why I'll tend to wax lyrical about the beautifully expressed themes of films I like, but that's hardly the primary reason I like them. They hit me in the gut, and made me want to think about them a bit more. That's all, really.

I actually had a fairly lengthy conversation with a few people about this a few days ago, and you've expressed my position better than I did at the time.

[Sven]

This is pretty cool. (http://imgur.com/a/SS6V5#0)

Pixar artist Josh Cooley created a "children's book" made up of famous movie stills.

My favorite is the Rosemary's Baby one.

[MadMan]

No love for Will Ferrell? Y'all are Shlub haters.I'm a pretty big fan of him, although I refused to see Land of the Lost. I actually thought that Everything Must Go, his latest, is his best film out of all of his work. Although Anchorman is still a close second.

[B-side]

I don't wanna say much since I'll be doing a podcast on him in the coming days, but if Our Daily Bread is any indication, Mani Kaul was a wholly unique and fantastic presence in cinema.


http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-06-20-04h34m28s250_400x267.jpg

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-06-20-05h00m15s135_400x267.jpg

[Izzy Black]

as the film leaves the question at least partially open how much is of the conspiracy in his head.

Wouldn't you say that it's also a question in Fight Club how much of it is in his head? I mean, it's as much about mental instability and neurosis as it is paranoia.

In any case, I agree with your remarks about paranoia. I think it's a running theme in Fincher's best (and mostly earlier) work. Fight Club definitely included. I'm beginning to think that by the completion of Zodiac he'd done all that he could do with the theme and genre of psychological thriller, the latter representing his most deliberate and rigorous exercise of it, and that he had finally decided to try new, less focused material (Social Network, Benjamin Button, etc).

[baby doll]

Wouldn't you say that it's also a question in Fight Club how much of it is in his head? I mean, it's as much about mental instability and neurosis as it is paranoia.Which part do you think is just his imagination? In The Game, the red herrings are tantalizing because they could be part of the conspiracy or they could be perfectly innocent. In Fight Club, the cops hold him down and try to cut his balls off, so whether or not the scene is really happening or if it's all in his imagination doesn't make much difference to me.

[Izzy Black]

As for Panic Room, I've often argued that an auteur's "worst" or most divisive film is in many cases their most thematically aggressive, transparent and/or simplistic (Cf. Zabriskie Point, Tout va Bien, Antichrist, Pola X), typically indicated by a failure or lack of intention to secure the subtlety, subtext, and nuance of the theme. In the case of Panic Room, we get perhaps the most literal representation of Fincher's ideas. But it nonetheless (in my opinion) contains, as Kiusagi also notes, some very absorbing atmosphere and execution of its theme.

Now I'll open the floor to debate what everyone really wants which is whether or not Fincher is actually an auteur, for those that even care.

[Izzy Black]

Which part do you think is just his imagination? In The Game, the red herrings are tantalizing because they could be part of the conspiracy or they could be perfectly innocent. In Fight Club, the cops hold him down and try to cut his balls off, so whether or not the scene is really happening or if it's all in his imagination doesn't make much difference to me.

I don't know, the conclusion of the film makes me doubt pretty much everything. I was also pretty skeptical when he's treated like a legend and a mastermind but he has no conception of why. The whole suggestion of mistaken identity shattered any sense of confidence I had over anything that was occurring. But that's just me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Fincher's an auteur, of course. So is Wong Kar Wai. So is Dennis Dugan. How useful the auteur "stamp" is varies from person to person, but I think every director is an auteur.

[DavidSeven]

I think every director is an auteur.

Favreau?

[Pop Trash]

I think every director is an auteur.

I dunno about this. I watched Red Letter Media's takedown of Adam Sandler yesterday, and I can't see how anyone could say the guy who made Jack & Jill is an 'auteur' when this movie and so many others have very little (if any) intelligence behind the camera.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Favreau?

Sure, why not?

[Irish]

Sure, why not?

Brett Ratner? McG?

I've always hated the auteur theory because it denies movies' biggest strength and greatest weakness -- collaboration.

And in most cases, it makes no sense. It's gottn stretched and expanded to the point of absurdity. I can see making the case for Hitchcock or Tarantino, but Rob Reiner? Ron Howard? Not so much.

Edit: Status also changes over time. I can see calling Scorcese and Allen auteurs during the 70s and 80s, but now? More master craftsman than anything.

[Raiders]

I hate the use of the word "auteur" anymore. It has been misconstrued so much to the point I think it is largely meaningless anymore. The theory as set forth by Cahiers du Cinema was an idea of film criticism, of looking at the work of specific filmmakers through a lens of them being the primary "author" of their films and shaping a view and opinion about that work within this arena of thought. It was, as Truffaut originally wrote, focused as much on screenwriters as directors and focused around literary adaptations. His argument was that filmmakers, particularly in the arena of adaptations, who did not further that work or who only staged the written work were always going to be less interesting than filmmakers, good or bad, who had a personal style and distinctive voice that would run through all their films and make them definitely more interesting to view and critique than the larger but more impersonal films.

It's just a viewpoint, a form of criticism of cinema. It does not intrinsically hold any qualitative rubric, just the assertion that as films go, those that fit the auteur model will always be of greater interest than those that do not.

Nowadays, people get up in arms over the phrase as though the term holds some kind of badge of honor. It's a theory, plain and simple. Same as the Schreiber theory which asserts screenwriters as the primary authors of their films, which is actuality is kind of ancillary to the auteur throery as it never distinguished directors only. I'm sure someone could do one for editors as well.

[Izzy Black]

Brett Ratner? McG?

I've always hated the auteur theory because it denies movies' biggest strength and greatest weakness -- collaboration.

Maybe those that don't really know the theory well, or the watered-down mainstream conception of the theory, but Truffaut was the first to acknowledge that film was an industrial practice. Auteur theory only acknowledges that the director is the creative director of a creative team, where the team creatively assists and enables the directors main ideas. Also, a director isn't always an auteur. I consider some actors and screenwriters auteurs as well (Daniel-Day Lewis and Charlie Kaufman, for instance).

Secondly, you needn't necessarily think auteur theory makes a particular auteur (say Neil LaBute for instance) superior to others artists (like Charlotte Gainsbourg). It's a way of distinguishing certain kinds of directors from other directors (those with thematic preoccupations and creative command and those without). The evaluative component is secondary.


And in most cases, it makes no sense. It's gottn stretched and expanded to the point of absurdity. I can see making the case for Hitchcock or Tarantino, but Rob Reiner? Ron Howard? Not so much.

That's only if you accept the notion that every director is an auteur. I personally don't. All we have is evidence to go on. In some cases, evidence for auteurism is much stronger (Godard, Tarantino) than others (Ron Howard, John Turtletaub).


Edit: Status also changes over time. I can see calling Scorcese and Allen auteurs during the 70s and 80s, but now? More master craftsman than anything.

How do you understand auteur theory? I don't see that reasoning at all.

[Izzy Black]

It's just a viewpoint, a form of criticism of cinema. It does not intrinsically hold any qualitative rubric, just the assertion that as films go, those that fit the auteur model will always be of greater interest than those that do not.

Truffaut and company actually were a bit more aggressive about the qualitative element than I think modern auteur theorists are. They really wanted to emphasize the superiority of auteurism to conventional filmmaking, but as I said, this is a secondary component of the theory. The primary component is the mere distinction between auteurs and non-auteurs. You can accept the reality of the latter without accepting Truffaut's qualitative conclusions about the implications and value of auteurism.


Nowadays, people get up in arms over the phrase as though the term holds some kind of badge of honor. It's a theory, plain and simple. Same as the Schreiber theory which asserts screenwriters as the primary authors of their films, which is actuality is kind of ancillary to the auteur throery as it never distinguished directors only. I'm sure someone could do one for editors as well.

'Socialism' as a term and theory has been equally distorted if not worse than auteur theory, but that doesn't mean those who subscribe to the theory should just give up on it. Rather, we should reclaim it and defend its original merit.

[Irish]

It was, as Truffaut originally wrote, focused as much on screenwriters as directors and focused around literary adaptations. His argument was that filmmakers, particularly in the arena of adaptations, who did not further that work or who only staged the written work were always going to be less interesting than filmmakers, good or bad, who had a personal style and distinctive voice that would run through all their films and make them definitely more interesting to view and critique than the larger but more impersonal films.

This is interesting, and thinking about it, it's probably part of the reason why movies like Willy Wonka and American Psycho play on a higher level than stuff like Misery or Stand by Me.

[Raiders]

You can accept the reality of the latter without accepting Truffaut's qualitative conclusions about the implications and value of auteurism.

This is what I meant. It is a theory which can be applied to a criticism of cinema, from one film to many. It does not hold a specific qualitative statement beyond the ability to offer criticism or substantiate an opinion.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Guys, they're just movies.

[Izzy Black]

Guys, they're just movies.

Yeah, and we're just hanging out here talking about them. What of it? I enjoy these kinds of discussions.

[Pop Trash]

Interesting we are talking about the auteur theory on the day of Andrew Sarris' death.

[Irish]

Maybe those that don't really know the theory well, or the watered-down mainstream conception of the theory, but Truffaut was the first to acknowledge that film was an industrial practice. Auteur theory only acknowledges that the director is the creative director of a creative team, where the team creatively assists and enables the directors main ideas. Also, a director isn't always an auteur. I consider some actors and screenwriters auteurs as well (Daniel-Day Lewis and Charlie Kaufman, for instance).

I'd argue it doesn't matter because, at least in the United States, you can't quite separate auteur theory from the cult of celebrity. This is further complicated by the colloquial definition, which is the only one that can be talked about outside a classroom.

[Izzy Black]

I'd argue it doesn't matter because, at least in the United States, you can't quite separate auteur theory from the cult of celebrity. This is further complicated by the colloquial definition, which is the only one that can be talked about outside a classroom.

No it's not. We're on a message board and we're talking about. Again, the term 'socialism' has been equally distorted. That doesn't mean give up on the theory and abandon the term. That's letting the idiots win. I say fuck that. Speak truth to stupid.

[Izzy Black]

Interesting we are talking about the auteur theory on the day of Andrew Sarris' death.

True.... RIP

[Irish]

No it's not. We're on a message board and we're talking about. Again, the term 'socialism' has been equally distorted. That doesn't mean give up on the theory and abandon the term. That's letting the idiots win. I say fuck that. Speak truth to stupid.

Socialism has been distorted, again only in the United States, for specific political purposes and only recently (it's essentially used as a red-baiting term).

I think that's a little different than the colloquial use of "auteur," because the common definition seems very different than what Raiders referenced about Truffaut.

The New York Times' obituary for Andrew Sarris reads, in part, "Mr. Sarris played a major role in introducing Americans to European auteur theory, the idea that a great director speaks through his films no less than a master novelist speaks through his books."

While anyone doing any creative act is going to leave a unique stamp, I think this definition is problematic in something as volatile and collaborative as moviemaking.

In other words, while films like Raging Bull and Shutter Island may represent a singular voice as individual films, there's really nothing connecting them that makes slapping "A Martin Scorcese Film" onto the title credits into anything meaningful. It's not a useful distinction.

Compare this to novelists like Fitzgerald and Hemingway, who shared he same publisher and the same editor. I could probably slap a few paragraphs from those guys, at different points in their careers, and most undergrads would have no trouble picking out who wrote what.

But outside cinema studies classes, I don't think most would be able to pinpont and differentiate, on any meaningful level, the individual voice of She's Gotta Have It and Miracle at St Ana or Alien and Kingdom of Heaven.

[elixir]

That's one of the wrongest things I've read.

[Raiders]

I think it is important to remember that the Cahiers critics were in general taking the stance of personal and idiosyncratic work was to be praised while the prestige films that France kept turning out were to be maligned. That was their viewpoint and it bled certainly into their filmmaking and also into something like the auteur theory. They were all about personal creative statements, whether that be in the realm of American noir or in a director like Bresson who made distinctive work but who also was able to adapt beyond simply staging the written material.

Sarris, RIP, is largely responsible for making it known in the west but also, through his duel with Kael, for conflating its importance in being the barometer for filmic quality as opposed to a barometer for critiquing films and finding interesting material in perhaps unexpected places and for valuing the "unwritten" moments of a film and their place in a larger picture of a specific filmmaker or even genre.

[Izzy Black]

Socialism has been distorted, again only in the United States, for specific political purposes and only recently (it's essentially used as a red-baiting term).

I think that's a little different than the colloquial use of "auteur," because the common definition seems very different than what Raiders referenced about Truffaut.

I'm not sure that there is an exact "colloquial" use or definition of the term 'auteur.' I know there's a real definition, the one used by academics, Truffaut, and many informed film buffs, and then there's some distorted uses of it in pop culture or in mass media, just like there's distorted uses of most sophisticated academic theories or ideas, like socialism, evolution, capitalism, existentialism, and any other -ism you want. That's because the mainstream media tends to be a bit dumb. That shouldn't stop me from using the term properly.


The New York Times' obituary for Andrew Sarris reads, in part, "Mr. Sarris played a major role in introducing Americans to European auteur theory, the idea that a great director speaks through his films no less than a master novelist speaks through his books."

While anyone doing any creative act is going to leave a unique stamp, I think this definition is problematic in something as volatile and collaborative as moviemaking.

Not really. The NYT didn't exactly give a precise definition there, but I don't find the accessible explanation so troublesome to be honest. It implies great directors ought to be respected in the way novelists do, not that everyone else involved in the films should be disrespected.


But outside cinema studies classes, I don't think most would be able to pinpont and differentiate, on any meaningful level, the individual voice of She's Gotta Have It and Miracle at St Ana or Alien and Kingdom of Heaven.

Sure they do. On message boards, in the lobby of arthouse theaters, at film festivals, in private film screenings with friends, and so on. I've encountered plenty of peers outside the classroom who are familiar with auteur theory that use the term accurately and can meaningfully discuss films in this way. But regardless, even if they couldn't, that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop doing it or that I'm not going to encourage others to use it more and appreciate it more. That's what Andrew Sarris did when he first introduced the idea to the States. Very quickly, a whole community of American film buffs could talk about a theory that rarely anyone knew about here. That's his legacy and we ought to carry it on, not trash it and abandon it.

[Irish]

I think it is important to remember that the Cahiers critics were in general taking the stance of personal and idiosyncratic work was to be praised while the prestige films that France kept turning out were to be maligned. That was their viewpoint and it bled certainly into their filmmaking and also into something like the auteur theory. They were all about personal creative statements, whether that be in the realm of American noir or in a director like Bresson who made distinctive work but who also was able to adapt beyond simply staging the written material.

Good point, and I think that touches on what you and I were talking about a little earlier -- the term has grown to the point of being bloated.

I don't really feel it should apply to mass market films, but people habitually seem to use it that way.

[Izzy Black]

I don't really feel it should apply to mass market films, but people habitually seem to use it that way.

Cahiers du Cinema critics did apply it to mass market films (Hitchcock and Howard Hawks). You can't get any more mass market than Hitchcock.

[Irish]

Sure they do. On message boards, in the lobby of arthouse theaters, at film festivals, in private film screenings with friends, and so on.

Google the term "filter bubble."


That's his legacy and we ought to carry it on, not trash it and abandon it.

What? Huh? Whoever talked about trashing his legacy?

On one point, I'm suggesting that if a reasonably educated viewer cannot see Scorcese's unique fingerprints on Shutter Island and cannot connect them to Raging Bull, then the auteur theory, as Sarris posits it, makes no sense.

On another point, I'm saying that language changes. People misuse academic terms all the time. They say 'deconstruction' or 'deconstrucionist' to mean 'breaking down a work into its component parts,' when the original term, in literary theory, has a very different definition. Continually pointing this out, or insisting that the language be used in only one way, would be somewhat boorish, and possibly distract from the larger conversation.

Personally, I find Raider's approach the most useful -- referencing the origins while acknowledging the meaning may have changing over the last fifty years.

[Irish]

Cahiers du Cinema critics did apply it to mass market films (Hitchcock and Howard Hawks). You can't get any more mass market than Hitchcock.

Yes, and further down the road we have title cards that read, "A Film by Kevin Smith," which is where I was going with that.

Also, arguably, from their point of view, foreign films might not have been quite as "mass market" as they were to American viewers.

[Izzy Black]

On one point, I'm suggesting that if a reasonably educated viewer cannot see Scorcese's unique fingerprints on Shutter Island and cannot connect them to Raging Bull, then the auteur theory, as Sarris posits it, makes no sense.

That isn't true. If an artist can be connected to themes extending across various films, but with one particular film he gets lazy and phones in the direction, that doesn't make him a non-auteur, or his other films non-auteurist films. It just means that one film isn't a reflection of his thematic preoccupations. Again, we go on evidence to base these judgments. What's on the screen, interviews, movie comparisons, and so on.


On another point, I'm saying that language changes. People misuse academic terms all the time. They say 'deconstruction' or 'deconstrucionist' to mean 'breaking down a work into its component parts,' when the original term, in literary theory, has a very different definition. Continually pointing this out, or insisting that the language be used in only one way, would be somewhat boorish, and possibly distract from the larger conversation.

Two points that I've made.

(1) I'm not convinced there's a colloquial use of the term 'auteurism.' Rather, there's misuse of the term in commercial media like there is of the terms 'evolution' and 'socialism'

(2) There are groups outside of the classroom that accurately use the term.

Here's another.

(3) The term 'deconstruction' varies in the way that it's used, but it doesn't compete with the meaning of the literary term (like a misuse of the word 'socialism' or 'auteurism' does). If the literary theory were threatened to be monopolized by misuse, then we should change our practices to protect the term from abuse and misuse.


Personally, I find Raider's approach the most useful -- referencing the origins while acknowledging the meaning may have changing over the last fifty years.

And I've presented arguments against this view that you've yet to successfully address. The term hasn't "changed in meaning," it's been misused and abused. We shouldn't bow down to people who distort the term, usually on grounds of dismissal (a caricatured, straw-man version of the term conveniently enables the critic of the theory).

[Izzy Black]

Yes, and further down the road we have title cards that read, "A Film by Kevin Smith," which is where I was going with that.

OK, and? Where are you going again?


Also, arguably, from their point of view, foreign films might not have been quite as "mass market" as they were to American viewers.

To the contrary. Godard spent most of his career criticizing the Hollywood machine, mass-marketing, and American consumerism, particularly of American cinema, but they also acknowledged the diamonds in the rough, those auteurs that managed to find a voice within the corporate system.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm fairly certain that I'm the lone voice of dissent regarding Jacques Tati's Mon Oncle, the 1958 movie that won the Best Foreign film Oscar.

I approached the movie as if it were comedy. Sophisticated comedy, but comedy all the same. I laughed maybe once and a nearly inaudible type of laugh at that. The art direction is quite strong as I was straining to believe this was a 1958 movie such is its relative contemporary look. Beyond that, I've got very little. Its satire was quaint (but might have been more piercing 54 years ago), the movie was quite long at 110 minutes given that it lacks interesting characters (which may be the point, but doesn't result in engaging characters) as well as a compelling narrative. It's really just a series of vignettes. Mr. Hulot enters his building (nicely framed, but not funny), Mr. Hulot goes to a job interview etc...

Perhaps the genius is in the details as I'm aware this is not a traditional comedy, but I'm hoping that Playtime and The Holidays of Mr. Hulot are a bit more engaging as I blind bought a special collector's DVD. I don't even mind Mr. Hulot as a sort of silent observer, but on the whole it didn't leave much of an impression. The soundtrack was very hummable though.

[Raiders]

I've never said the meaning has changed. I stated it has been misused and/or misunderstood and that Truffaut's original intentions with his polemic have little to do with what is often attributed to the term.

[Irish]

OK, and? Where are you going again?

Back to the beginning -- not all directors are 'auteurs' simply by virtue of directing a movie. If there's a special status to be gained from that, it has to be earned. It doesn't come with the job description.


To the contrary. Godard spent most of his career criticizing the Hollywood machine, mass-marketing, and American consumerism, particularly of American cinema, but they also acknowledged the diamonds in the rough, those auteurs that managed to find a voice within the corporate system.

Fair enough. It was a stab in the dark.

[Izzy Black]

I've never said the meaning has changed. I stated it has been misused and/or misunderstood and that Truffaut's original intentions with his polemic have little to do with what is often attributed to the term.

Right, I didn't mean to include you in that.

[Irish]

I've never said the meaning has changed. I stated it has been misused and/or misunderstood and that Truffaut's original intentions with his polemic have little to do with what is often attributed to the term.

A good distinction, but in my mind that comes out to the same thing -- if people start using a word or a term a certain way, consistently, that use then becomes valid.

[Mr. McGibblets]

I don't think Kevin Smith is a good example of someone whose films don't all have the same voice. Except for maybe Cop Out, they're all the same.

[Izzy Black]

Back to the beginning -- not all directors are 'auteurs' simply by virtue of directing a movie. If there's a special status to be gained from that, it has to be earned. It doesn't come with the job description.

I agree and never denied this. I think it's a mistake to think of all directors as an auteur.

[Raiders]

A good distinction, but in my mind that comes out to the same thing -- if people start using a word or a term a certain way, consistently, that use then becomes valid.

So "irony" now means an unfortunate turn of events and not what the word actually means?

How... ironic.

[Irish]

I don't think Kevin Smith is a good example of someone whose films don't all have the same voice. Except for maybe Cop Out, they're all the same.

True, but I don't think that's because of any specific artistic sensibility. I think it's because Smith works within tight budgetary constraints and he is incurious and lazy.

In one of his filmed lectures, he talks quite a bit about how much of a hard time Bruce Willish gave him on Cop Out, and related a story revealing he didn't know the difference between camera lenses (and Willis did!).

This is a guy who has been working in the industry for close to twenty years now, so I have trouble with the idea that he's some kind of 'auteur' with a unique, consistent voice and "A Film by Kevin Smith" is anything but an absurd vanity.

[Izzy Black]

A good distinction, but in my mind that comes out to the same thing -- if people start using a word or a term a certain way, consistently, that use then becomes valid.

Well for one, a majority can consistently misuse a term (a majority might consistently misuse the term socialism). That's because they intend the term to retain its oringial meaning, whether deceptively or genuinely, when in fact, it doesn't. That's how you get your Fox News brand of misinformation. Neverheless, I've been denying the consistency of misuse of the term, as several of us in here are using the term correctly.

[Irish]

So "irony" now means an unfortunate turn of events and not what the word actually means?

How... ironic.

Unfortunately -- over time -- yes. My point is that language and ideas aren't static. They're always moving.

[Izzy Black]

I'll make no effort to defend Kevin Smith's artisty. I'll leave that to someone else.

[Mr. McGibblets]

True, but I don't think that's because of any specific artistic sensibility. I think it's because Smith works within tight budgetary constraints and he is incurious and lazy.

In one of his filmed lectures, he talks quite a bit about how much of a hard time Bruce Willish gave him on Cop Out, and related a story revealing he didn't know the difference between camera lenses (and Willis did!).

This is a guy who has been working in the industry for close to twenty years now, so I have trouble with the idea that he's some kind of 'auteur' with a unique, consistent voice and "A Film by Kevin Smith" is anything but an absurd vanity.

He can't have a unique consistent voice because he isn't appropriately knowledgeable about film-making? That doesn't make any sense. Whatever the reasons (and I agree that it's because he's incurious and lazy) his output (the actual films as we see them) have a remarkably consistent voice. The only way he's not an auteur is if you have a quality-threshold for the term.

[Milky Joe]

http://cityarts.info/2012/06/20/the-sandler-memo/

Speaking of misunderstood auteurs....

[Mysterious Dude]

I thought Kevin Smith hated the phrase "a film by..." Note that the Criterion cover for Chasing Amy does not say "a film by Kevin Smith."

[Sven]

More Israfel is the best thing to happen to the boards in a while.

[Irish]

He can't have a unique consistent voice because he isn't appropriately knowledgeable about film-making?

I'm not sure plunking a camera down in one spot and never moving it qualifies as 'voice.'

All of his movies are consistent in that they share z-grade production values. Some of them are consistent in casting, tone and writing (Clerks, Chasing Amy, etc).

So I think some of the scripts have a specific voice, but the movies, by and large, do not.

Going back to the original idea, if you showed someone, without prior knowledge, out takes of Clerks and Red State, would they be able to tell it was made by the same guy? Is there enough of a connection there to make this kind of distinction?


The only way he's not an auteur is if you have a quality-threshold for the term.

If there isn't, then anyone who posts regularly to their own YouTube channel is an 'auteur.'

Not to mention McG and Rattner and that kind of 'filmmaker.'

[Spinal]

I'll make no effort to defend Kevin Smith's artisty. I'll leave that to someone else.

It'll most likely be Kevin Smith. Just fyi.

[Sven]

Not to mention McG and Rattner and that kind of 'filmmaker.'

You don't have to put quotes around filmmaker. They are filmmakers.

[Mr. McGibblets]

If there isn't, then anyone who posts regularly to their own YouTube channel is an 'auteur.'

Not to mention McG and Rattner and that kind of 'filmmaker.'

McG has no consistent voice or anything running through his movies. I've only seen two Ratner films, but X-Men is such a blatant work-for-hire with nothing personal in it, that I doubt he does either.

There are other equally reviled filmmakers, Michael Bay for example, who clearly do have voices and styles and themes that they keep coming back to.

[Irish]

You don't have to put quotes around filmmaker. They are filmmakers.

I can pound rusty, bent nails into two-by-fours all day long. This doesn't make me a carpenter.

[Raiders]

I can pound rusty, bent nails into two-by-fours all day long. This doesn't make me a carpenter.

This is hardly analogous. These guys do more than take pictures with a video camera. They work in conjunction with a huge crew, go over scenes with actors, work through ideas on set, review the dailies, work through a production schedule with the crew for shooting... you're being absurd.

[Irish]

This is hardly analogous. These guys do more than take pictures with a video camera. They work in conjunction with a huge crew, go over scenes with actors, work through ideas on set, review the dailies, work through a production schedule with the crew for shooting... you're being absurd.

And you're being too literal. It was a humorous analogy to make a point.

Being a project manager (which is exactly what you described) is not quite operating at the same level as a 'filmmaker' or 'auteur,' terms which seem to me to suggest status and meaning beyond job description.

[Izzy Black]

Well they're directors. That's their job title. Whether or not they're "filmmakers" I guess depends on whether you ascribe an honorific status to the term 'film' as opposed to 'movie.' Which I take it that Irish does. I'm rather indifferent, personally.

[Raiders]

And you're being too literal. It was a humorous analogy to make a point.

You gotta admit, with your posting history some level of doubt is only natural.


Being a project manager (which is exactly what you described) is not quite operating at the same level as a 'filmmaker' or 'auteur,' terms which seem to me to suggest status and meaning beyond job description.

It's what a director does. Nowhere in what I said is there no room for either writing or selecting material that furthers the personal or distinctive traits of the films of the respective director or is there no room to create through working with the DP or editor visual styles and motifs or thematic structures to incorporate.

Some directors can do that, some (like Ratner or McG) do not. They merely manage the film they are currently on to the best they can.

[Izzy Black]

I think Irish wants to say 'filmmaker' has an honorific status like the term 'film' (if you think it does).

But semantic quibbling aside, This Means War is awful.

[Pop Trash]

This Means War is awful.

Why'd you even bother?

[Izzy Black]

Why'd you even bother?

Because I'm a cinematic masochist. That and the leads were hot.

[Irish]

You gotta admit, with your posting history some level of doubt is only natural.

Whatever do you mean? I've been charming, funny, and lovable from day one!

*walks away whistling*

[Russ]

Hey, I can vouch for Irish if necessary.

*runs away screaming*

http://i1.ifrm.com/2898/7/emo/flaminghead.gif

[Spun Lepton]

After being told for years to watch Primer, I did. Can somebody explain to me why this film is so highly regarded? Fucking voiceover.

[B-side]

More Israfel is the best thing to happen to the boards in a while.

Agreed!

[Qrazy]

But outside cinema studies classes, I don't think most would be able to pinpont and differentiate, on any meaningful level, the individual voice of She's Gotta Have It and Miracle at St Ana or Alien and Kingdom of Heaven.

I do not understand the desire that crops up in many discussions of auteur theory for a director to have the same style over the course of their entire career.

For instance the early, middle and late periods of Picasso are all extremely different. I do not think he would have been a better painter or a greater artist had he churned out cubist masterpieces his entire life.

I like artists who change their style with time.

[Izzy Black]

I do not understand the desire that crops up in many discussions of auteur theory for a director to have the same style over the course of their entire career.

For instance the early, middle and late periods of Picasso are all extremely different. I do not think he would have been a better painter or a greater artist had he churned out cubist masterpieces his entire life.

I like artists who change their style with time.

That's why I've tried to argue that Soderbergh is an auteur :)

[Qrazy]

Perhaps the genius is in the details as I'm aware this is not a traditional comedy, but I'm hoping that Playtime and The Holidays of Mr. Hulot are a bit more engaging as I blind bought a special collector's DVD. I don't even mind Mr. Hulot as a sort of silent observer, but on the whole it didn't leave much of an impression. The soundtrack was very hummable though.

I like it more than you but personally I do find Mon Oncle the most dated of his films. Traffic and Playtime are the best with Holiday not far behind. So definitely don't write him off.

[Qrazy]

That's why I've tried to argue that Soderbergh is an auteur :)

I don't disagree he's an auteur I just don't think any of his films are great. :P

[Izzy Black]

Agreed!
=D

[Izzy Black]

I don't disagree he's an auteur I just don't think any of his films are great. :P

I know >_<

[Dead & Messed Up]

After being told for years to watch Primer, I did. Can somebody explain to me why this film is so highly regarded? Fucking voiceover.

I'll try to assemble some thoughts later in the evening, should time permit. I keep trying to type out why it's awesome and thoughts keep interrupting each other.

Suffice to say, I love it. I think it's one of the best sci-fi films ever made.

[transmogrifier]

It's all just an argument about semantics, isn't it? Some of you use the label "auteur" as an honorific, indicating a unique artisitc vision, while others just take it as meaning, literally, "author" and are trying to establish, in a collaborative artform, who best to label as the author. In the latter case, the best answer, IMO, is always the director.

Every director can be analyzed across their filmography for common factors, no matter how much you hate them.

[Qrazy]

It's all just an argument about semantics, isn't it? Some of you use the label "auteur" as an honorific, indicating a unique artisitc vision, while others just take it as meaning, literally, "author" and are trying to establish, in a collaborative artform, who best to label as the author. In the latter case, the best answer, IMO, is always the director.

Every director can be analyzed across their filmography for common factors, no matter how much you hate them.

Ish. Plenty of film directors are really just director for hire who are only directing the actors and that's it. This is much more clear if you look at directors who have done a lot of television work, with the majority of television directors it's almost impossible to find clear cut common features.