28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Izzy Black]

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.

I don't think this is correct. Yes, it is a semantic dispute in the sense that we are arguing the meaning or definition of the term, but it's not merely the case that some of us are using the term as honorific and some of us are using the term to denote author, or something like that. It's a case where the term itself is used by some to correctly reference a particular theory or a collection of ideas and where others fail to use it in this way. That's the claim that I have been making (and I think Raiders as well).


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

This isn't what we are calling auteur theory.

[transmogrifier]

This isn't what we are calling auteur theory.

Then tell me.

[transmogrifier]

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.

I distinguish between TV and movies as different mediums. So you are right, but doesn't affect what I was meaning.

[Chac Mool]

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

It's a puzzle, and one that appeals to fans of sci-fi because it fits into a number of scientific (or pseudo-scientific?) frameworks. It's also impressive in that it's totally uncompromising. And the aesthetics, while strange, are not unpleasant -- one might even called them inspired.

[Dead & Messed Up]

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.

But it's generally understood that the "auteurs" of television are the showrunners, not the directors. Someone like an Ernest Dickerson has some interesting through-lines in his feature work (placing downtrodden black protagonists in heightened thriller/horror contexts) that basically vaporizes when he becomes a gun-for-hire on something like Dexter or The L Word.

In short: Brad Anderson sometimes directs for David Simon's The Wire. Brad Anderson directs Brad Anderson's Transsiberian.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah the auteurs of television are definitely the showrunners and creators (who sometimes both write and direct episodes), i.e. Aaron Sorkin, Gene Roddenberry, David E. Kelly, Josh Swartz, David Chase, and Matthew Weiner.

[Qrazy]

But it's generally understood that the "auteurs" of television are the showrunners, not the directors. Someone like an Ernest Dickerson has some interesting through-lines in his feature work (placing downtrodden black protagonists in heightened thriller/horror contexts) that basically vaporizes when he becomes a gun-for-hire on something like Dexter or The L Word.

In short: Brad Anderson sometimes directs for David Simon's The Wire. Brad Anderson directs Brad Anderson's Transsiberian.

That's precisely my point about TV directors. However my comment about TV was an illustrative example of how pushed to the fringes a director can be, this is also true on some feature films. There are plenty of features where the director only directs the actors and doesn't do much else.

And let's not forget that plenty of film directors either started in TV or moved back into it later in their careers... Peter Medak for example.

[Dead & Messed Up]

That's precisely my point about TV directors. However my comment about TV was an illustrative example of how pushed to the fringes a director can be, this is also true on some feature films. There are plenty of features where the director only directs the actors and doesn't do much else.

Fair enough. I was just trying to clarify that the "director" on a TV show is a different kind of job. It's not purposefully minimized or pressured downward the way it might be for someone like Dennis Dugan. It's its own thing. As a point of comparison, yeah, I gotcha.

[Boner M]

This Dan Sallitt post is relevant to both this discussion and Sarris' passing: Auteurism Is a taste, Not a Theory (http://sallitt.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/trying-to-make-act-of-directing.html)

[Morris Schæffer]

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.

Won't do so. I should get to the other films soon.

[MadMan]

As long as auteur theory is centered around whether or not a director is an auteur and doesn't care about whether or not a director is any good, I'll continue to not take it seriously. Some good or even great directors are not auteurs, where as someone like Ed Wood Jr., who made terrible movies, would probably fall under auteur criteria.

Anyways this whole debate has been done to death before.

[Wryan]

I think the Kung-Fu Panda movies are pretty damn fun. Harmless, quick and light on their feet. I derive more enjoyment from watching them animate a crocodile or rhino martial artist than I care to admit. Gary Oldman's Shen villain in the sequel is great and gets some big laughs despite being a relatively reasonable and complex villain, plus it's nice that they made such a departure from McShane's Tai Lung character in the first one. I admit your enjoyment probably hinges on whether you like Jack Black's style, but I think he's pretty perfect for carrying the movies. I would totally watch further Pandas. Also...James fucking Hong.

[Sycophant]

I've watched hundreds of hours of Mad About You.

Aliens was a weird experience.

[baby doll]

I've watched hundreds of hours of Mad About You.

Aliens was a weird experience.The first Saturday Night Live sketch I can recall seeing was the parody Mad About You Aliens, although I didn't understand the connection at the time, not having seen Cameron's film.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just watched The Color of Pomegranates for the first time. Haven't seen anything else by the director. Searching this forum, apparently Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors is superior.

Color was interesting, and the images were often lovely. I liked how the flick alternated between more overt sacramental images and more subtly-staged Christian symbolism (the child breaking bread, the sheep surrounding the monk). At the same time, it was a tough film to watch in one sitting, given that, apart from the intertitles that essentially separate movements, the flick was very repetitive with its images, and there was only intermittently a sense of building from shot to shot.

I don't think the flick's necessarily failing at what it's trying to do, but what it's trying to do isn't something that's terribly interesting to me. I think watching it on Netflix at home is wrong. It might be better approached in a museum or a church, where you can dip in and out.

[B-side]

The Color of Pomegranates is a wonderful series of tableaux vivants. Parajanov's style evolved quite significantly after Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors. From more dynamic and kinetic Soviet-style filmmaking to his own unique brand of somewhat static staged paintings. The Legend of Suram Fortress seems to have a bit more of a narrative than Pomegranates, though both are very similar in approach. Shadows remains my favorite of his, but Pomegranates and Suram Fortress are both great.

[Grouchy]

So our next Ramona Reyes is movies about writers (THE TALE OF THE GOOD FEATHER / EL CUENTO DE LA BUENA PLUMA) and the line-up so far looks like this:

July, Mondays

2 - In the Mouth of Madness
9 - Deconstructing Harry
16 - Naked Lunch
23 - The Flower of my Secret
30 - Barton Fink

There's talk of replacing Deconstructing Harry with Adaptation, which I think is too widely seen, but whatever.

Discarded Movies: Kafka, Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters, The Invisible Woman, Le Magnifique, Barfly, In a Lonely Place, The Prize

[Ezee E]

The first Saturday Night Live sketch I can recall seeing was the parody Mad About You Aliens, although I didn't understand the connection at the time, not having seen Cameron's film.
I'll have to find this sketch.

[MadMan]

I've watched hundreds of hours of Mad About You.

Aliens was a weird experience.Heh yeah I also watched some of Mad About You before I saw Aliens. It was just weird viewing Paul Reiser acting like that: him playing the asshole who almost gets people killed when he's supposed to be this nice guy husband on a sitcom was quit strange and unexpected.

[Rowland]

A Matt Zoller Seitz video essay (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/on-the-qt-1-reservoir-dogs) that expounds upon the opening of Reservoir Dogs in a most thoughtful and illuminating manner.

[Winston*]

Found that really interesting.

[Winston*]

Got most of the big Cannes films at the NZ Film Festival next month. Looking forward to that.

[Irish]

A Matt Zoller Seitz video essay (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/on-the-qt-1-reservoir-dogs) that expounds upon the opening of Reservoir Dogs in a most thoughtful and illuminating manner.

Interesting & well articulated, but I'm not buying it. It's tough to parse Reservoir Dogs that way (the whole "Like a Virgin" thing becomes ridiculous when you consider the last act of City on Fire).

Thought the line about "airquotes," the idea behind that, and Tarantino's imitators was spot on. But there again, it's not surprising as Tarantino himself stumbles a bit outside their use (Jackie Brown) and encourages a focus on them at other times (Kill Bill).

[MadMan]

Sonatine (1993) at times made me wonder if this is what a gangster movie directed by Terrence Malick would be like. The film's excellent score underlines its many twists and turns, and midway through I realized just how engaging the entire movie truly is. The scenes of violence are properly utilized and some of them came as a surprise due to the amount of pure calm occurring shortly before the shooting starts. Really impressive first Takeshi Kitano film viewed, and its rather terrible that only one of his other directorial efforts is available on Netflix Instant Viewing. I especially want to see Violent Cop and Fireworks.

[Qrazy]

Sonatine (1993) at times made me wonder if this is what a gangster movie directed by Terrence Malick would be like.

Good lord no, that film looks like ass.

Do check out Fireworks though, it's good.

[Watashi]

Thought people like Irish would find this article interesting. (http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-what-makes-a-movie-good/)

[Qrazy]

Wow, that guy really opened my eyes there to thoughts I had never had before. I think it was the all caps that clarified things for me.

[Watashi]

Wow, that guy really opened my eyes there to thoughts I had never had before. I think it was the all caps that clarified things for me.
You're welcome.

[Irish]

Thought people like Irish would find this article interesting. (http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-what-makes-a-movie-good/)

Wow, that is a great essay. I have to somewhat grudgingly thank you for posting the link.

I say "grudgingly" because I'm reading a bit of snark into your post, and if that was intentional I think you may have misunderstood where I've been coming from all this time. Either that, or you didn't read the essay in its entirety (if you didn't, I don't blame you. The ALL CAPS HULK gag is off putting).

His insights into film criticism and art are spot on, although I think he wanders dangerously close to bullshit when he leans towards the same, tired anti-intellectual idea that all opinions are valid simply because people have them and are able to express them.

Again, I'm assuming a criticism into your post as you are often critical of mine, but if you did read all the way to the end then you had to choke on this:


SO IF SOMEONE JUST SITS AROUND APPRAISING THE ARTISTRY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP ABOUT X, Y AND Z OF FILM, MAKING SCALE JUDGMENTS AND SCRUTINIZING GRADING CURVES OF A REVIEWER... WELL... HULK CAN'T STOP YOU, BUT YOU'RE TOTALLY MISSING OUT ON THE VERY PURPOSE OF ALL THIS STUFF.

It seems to me that this is a refutation of 90% of the posts on Match-Cut, every "X > Y" gag, and almost everyone's signatures .

[transmogrifier]

It seems to me that this is a refutation of 90% of the posts on Match-Cut, every "X > Y" gag, and almost everyone's signatures .

Why yes, one person's subjective opinion on the matter certainly does refute every discussion we have had on this site. Thank God you are not a scientist.

Maybe we can get him to make a judgement on the Israel-Palestine conflict, clear that up as well?

And I'm dying for the final definitive answer to the Elvis vs. the Beatles debate. Has he made his decision on that yet?

The Tree of Life is boring. Hey, I just refuted everyon else's opinion! Way to go me!

[transmogrifier]

All I want to add is that it is such a pointless, sself-aggrandizing article. Basically he is saying "Don't judge films by specific criteria, you dumbies! Judge them by emotional connection (aka the specific criterion that I happen to approve of)"

[Irish]

Why yes, one person's subjective opinion on the matter certainly does refute every discussion we have had on this site. Thank God you are not a scientist.

All I was attempting to point out is that if Watashi sought to criticize my viewpoint, that essay comes back and bits him on the rear.

But you'd have to read and reflect about what was said to understand that, and I suspect you haven't so much as glanced at the essay.

A good attempt at snark, though. I'd give that a solid 7 out of 10.

[transmogrifier]

All I was attempting to point out is that if Watashi sought to criticize my viewpoint, that essay comes back and bits him on the rear.

But you'd have to read and reflect about what was said to understand that, and I suspect you haven't so much as glanced at the essay.

A good attempt at snark, though. I'd give that a solid 7 out of 10.

The essay is a rambling bunch of nonsense framed by a tiresome gimmick. But that aside, it is the subjective opinion of a random person and doesn't change any parameters of whatever discussion you think this pertains to. It is just another person with just another opinion, railing against other people having other opinions. That you take it as some sort of "proof" of anything says more for your misunderstanding of logic and arguments than anything else.

[Watashi]

There was no snark in that post at all. I just thought of you when I was reading that article.

[Watashi]

Doesn't every person here have a gimmick? I mean we adopt a certain online persona for a reason. I like HULK's gimmick because it's funny and I like the idea of rampaging green monster getting serious about film analysis. I've been a big fan of his writing. I don't always agree with his tastes, but I think he can certainly write analysis up there with the professionals (just read his previously posted Mulholland Dr. article).

[transmogrifier]

Doesn't every person here have a gimmick?

No.

[Irish]

There was no snark in that post at all. I just thought of you when I was reading that article.

Oh, jeez. Well, I'm a dick. I apologize for that.

And thanks again for posting the link. Your instincts were right; I got a lot out of it.

[Watashi]

No.
You have the gimmick of being wrong all the time.

[Irish]

Doesn't every person here have a gimmick? I mean we adopt a certain online persona for a reason. I like HULK's gimmick because it's funny and I like the idea of rampaging green monster getting serious about film analysis. I've been a big fan of his writing. I don't always agree with his tastes, but I think he can certainly write analysis up there with the professionals (just read his previously posted Mulholland Dr. article).

It's the nature of online journalism -- ie, you've got to have a gimmick and you've got to post in a more ad hoc fashion.

The HULK persona definitely follows that line, but I think it gets a bit thin when he wants to post serious, thoughtful 10,000 word essays in ALL CAPS.

[Irish]

The essay is a rambling bunch of nonsense framed by a tiresome gimmick. But that aside, it is the subjective opinion of a random person and doesn't change any parameters of whatever discussion you think this pertains to. It is just another person with just another opinion, railing against other people having other opinions. That you take it as some sort of "proof" of anything says more for your misunderstanding of logic and arguments than anything else.

I agree that the essay is malformed and rambling. I also agree that, to steal from Fitzgerald, "life is most successfully viewed from a single window, after all." Meaning that the most successful insights and criticism come from a decided place and an almost singular viewpoint. (To put it another way: I'm all for story, Qrazy is a formalist, Izzy is an academic and Raiders is just batshit crazy ;)).

What's interesting to me is that you're doing exactly what HULK is decrying, ie using the essay's bad form and gimmicky nature to criticize its actual content.

While he does go overboard towards the end, calling for unabashed subjectivity, I do think the parts where he talks about art, personal experience, storytelling, and approaches to film criticism are interesting and worth reading.

[Ivan Drago]

You have the gimmick of being wrong all the time.

I have the gimmick of being a mid-20s male with the mind of a 13-year-old boy. Hence why I think everything is AWSUM!!!1

[transmogrifier]

What's interesting to me is that you're doing exactly what HULK is decrying, ie using the essay's bad form and gimmicky nature to criticize its actual content. .

The form and content works together. To me, the way that he delivers the message actively diminishes the power (in theory, seeing as I think his theory is crap) of said message. If content was everything, he is better off rambling into a microphone and posting it on YouTube. Quicker, easier and the content remains "true"

And the very fact that he states that MIB3 could be considered technically "flawless" is evidence, to my mind, that he has no idea what he is talking about.

[Irish]

The form and content works together. To me, the way that he delivers the message actively diminishes the power (in theory, seeing as I think his theory is crap) of said message. If content was everything, he is better off rambling into a microphone and posting it on YouTube. Quicker, easier and the content remains "true"

And the very fact that he states that MIB3 could be considered technically "flawless" is evidence, to my mind, that he has no idea what he is talking about.

I suspect -- and Watashi would know this better, being a fan -- that he agreed to the gimmick early on and subsequently got trapped by it. And now he's boxed in a corner, because to write about the things he wants to write about, he's got to abuse the gimmick. That's bad planning on his part, but I'm not sure we should dismiss, out of hand, everything he says.

The parts about MIB3 would have been clearer and more succinct if he had just used the words "je ne sais quois" or the more 'murican friendly "x factor." But those aren't very Hulkish turns of phrase and probably would have confused his audience.

With MIB3, I don't think he was using "technically flawless" the way some folks around here might use it. I think he was saying that MIB3 looked good "on paper," and had all the disparate parts to be successful, but still failed as a movie. In other words, the chemistry just wasn't there.

This goes towards his idea that movies have "souls" and are more than the sum of their parts, and no matter how much we can meaningfully talk about craft and precision, no one can really say why.

[MadMan]

Good lord no, that film looks like ass.

Do check out Fireworks though, it's good.What? I thought the cinematography was pretty good, actually...

Clearly I lack a gimmick. Unless you consider being a lazy reviewer who puts off seeing movies on a regular basis counts :P

My friend purchased three of the Women In Cages type films. I had already seen and liked The Big Doll House, and a second viewing was rather kind to it. The film is just really fun and entertaining, and of course there is plenty of sexist nudity to satisfy its clearly male audience. However, Women In Cages was actually disappointing, as the film spends only half of its time in the prison camp. The rest is on a boat. So basically this is the Jason Goes To Manhattan case where the audience is promised something, only to not get it and be angry or annoyed. Plus this entry is actually dull. Which is something The Big Bird Cage is not. If you want to view a film where a homosexual guy gets raped by a woman (I'm not making this up) and also see a film that is as much a self-parody of the genre as it is another solid entry in this particular field, than this movie is for you. I prefer it over The Big Doll House just for sole entertainment value alone.

Also I'm curious in checking out the really cheesy/awful Women of the SS movies they made in the 70s. Why the hell the decade was obsessed with Nazis, I'll never know.

[transmogrifier]

This goes towards his idea that movies have "souls" and are more than the sum of their parts, and no matter how much we can meaningfully talk about craft and precision, no one can really say why.

To me, he's taking a very anti-intellectual stance, mixed with the typical Argument from Personal Incredulity (where you can't comprehend how something could be true, so assume that it isn't). Basically, it's a case of "Don't look too deeply, because you're wasting your time trying to understand the construction of the product; instead just enjoy the magic!"

The only reason "no-one can really say why" is because we are all arguing from different viewpoints of what that "soul" actually is (really, soul here is just an emotive way of saying the film has a specific effect on us as a viewer). But that doesn't mean we are wrong to try and explain our reactions using the form of the movie; in fact, it is the only rational path to take if you are truly interested in investigating how and why particular films appeal to you.

All films are a set of decisions that interact and lead to the final form and content of the film, which is then filtered through our own biases and preferences to generate a response. This is a fascinating three step process, and to insist that the only useful step to analyze is the last one is incredibly egocentric and completely boring, because it is an infinitely fragmented rubric through which to try and find a common connection when discussing a film. It's also the easiest and least intellectually taxing as well.

In other words, I think his way of viewing film is rudimentary, reactive and totally incurious. It is how most casual movie-goers react to the films they see. Movie buffs and reviewers should be expected to be a little more invested in the process.

[Irish]

My friend purchased three of the Women In Cages type films.

Your "friend." Sure. :P


Also I'm curious in checking out the really cheesy/awful Women of the SS movies they made in the 70s. Why the hell the decade was obsessed with Nazis, I'll never know.

Back when Virgin opened its superstore, I saw a bunch of these on the shelf ("She-Wolf of the SS!") but never did it.

Best guess about the obsession: Easy confluence with S/M stuff, a generation and a half removed from the war, and the success of Hogan's Heroes.

[Derek]

To me, he's taking a very anti-intellectual stance, mixed with the typical Argument from Personal Incredulity (where you can't comprehend how something could be true, so assume that it isn't). Basically, it's a case of "Don't look too deeply, because you're wasting your time trying to understand the construction of the product; instead just enjoy the magic!"

The only reason "no-one can really say why" is because we are all arguing from different viewpoints of what that "soul" actually is (really, soul here is just an emotive way of saying the film has a specific effect on us as a viewer). But that doesn't mean we are wrong to try and explain our reactions using the form of the movie; in fact, it is the only rational path to take if you are truly interested in investigating how and why particular films appeal to you.

All films are a set of decisions that interact and lead to the final form and content of the film, which is then filtered through our own biases and preferences to generate a response. This is a fascinating three step process, and to insist that the only useful step to analyze is the last one is incredibly egocentric and completely boring, because it is an infinitely fragmented rubric through which to try and find a common connection when discussing a film. It's also the easiest and least intellectually taxing as well.

In other words, I think his way of viewing film is rudimentary, reactive and totally incurious. It is how most casual movie-goers react to the films they see. Movie buffs and reviewers should be expected to be a little more invested in the process.

All this.

[MadMan]

Your "friend." Sure. :PActually he's very real, and he's one of my best friends. I don't own a blu ray player or blu rays, dumbass.


Back when Virgin opened its superstore, I saw a bunch of these on the shelf ("She-Wolf of the SS!") but never did it.Those movies looks shittastic, really. Cool.


Best guess about the obsession: Easy confluence with S/M stuff, a generation and a half removed from the war, and the success of Hogan's Heroes.That all makes sense, somewhat. I've noted that a lot of punk music references the Nazis one way or another, too.

[Irish]

To me, he's taking a very anti-intellectual stance, mixed with the typical Argument from Personal Incredulity (where you can't comprehend how something could be true, so assume that it isn't). Basically, it's a case of "Don't look too deeply, because you're wasting your time trying to understand the construction of the product; instead just enjoy the magic!"


I think he wanders dangerously close to bullshit when he leans towards the same, tired anti-intellectual idea that all opinions are valid simply because people have them and are able to express them.

See? Where were you a couple of hours ago? We don't seem to be disagreeing here.


The only reason "no-one can really say why" is because we are all arguing from different viewpoints of what that "soul" actually is (really, soul here is just an emotive way of saying the film has a specific effect on us as a viewer). But that doesn't mean we are wrong to try and explain our reactions using the form of the movie; in fact, it is the only rational path to take if you are truly interested in investigating how and why particular films appeal to you.

He's saying such right there in the essay -- that asking whether a movie is "good" or not is the wrong question, and instead we should be asking why a movie works. He is, in part, making a plea to let go your own ego and not be tied so steadfastedly to personal opinion. (And again, granted, this is muddled because other parts of the same essay would seem to contradict him).


All films are a set of decisions that interact and lead to the final form and content of the film, which is then filtered through our own biases and preferences to generate a response.

This is a rather robotic, factory like way to look at anything approaching art. I think HULK's point was that you can't plug elements into a spreadsheet, or plot them on a double axis graph, and come up with anything meaningful.

If the process were really as simple and clear as you describe, Hollywood would have nailed it down decades ago (not that they haven't tried) and every picture in the theaters would be a smash success and an Oscar nominee.

There are countless examples of work produced, in many cases, by the same people and in the same genres, that varies widely in quality.

For example, contrast the movies Dreamcatcher and Misery, or Rio Bravo and El Dorado. Or the novels Catcher in the Rye and A Separate Peace, or Go and On the Road, Appointment in Sammara and The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit and Something Happened, or The Stars My Destination and Neuromancer.

All of those were produced by people with no small amount technical skill and experience and while we could talk at some length about their various merits, it's very hard to nail down exactly why some of them are classics and near classics and others have been competely forgotten or turned out to be dismal failures.

To put it another way: I'm sure Michael Bolton has the skill and experience to play Miles Davis tune for tune, note for note, and pause for pause but do you think he could ever produce Kind of Blue?

[transmogrifier]

This is a rather robotic, factory like way to look at anything approaching art. I think HULK's point was that you can't plug elements into a spreadsheet, or plot them on a double axis graph, and come up with anything meaningful.

If the process were really as simple and clear as you describe, Hollywood would have nailed it down decades ago (not that they haven't tried) and every picture in the theaters would be a smash success and an Oscar nominee.

It's only robotic if you want to frame it as robotic to make it an easier argument to defeat. I'm not plugging anything into a spreadsheet, or plotting anything on a graph.

The process is simple. In fact, it is undeniable.

1. (Artistic/Economic/Aesthetic/Intellectual) Decisions

which lead to

2. A finished work of a particular form and content that reflects the decisions that were made and the skill with which they were carried out

which leads to

3. A response from the viewer

The process is clear and simple and easy and beautiful. But don't think that a simple process will lead to simple results.

This is because each step in the process has myriad possible inputs that can be expressed in a million different ways, and they interact with each other, and then with the viewer to produce a response of some sort. There is no way to predict accurately the cumulative impact all of those decisions will have in the final product.

HOWEVER, once the film is made, and my response elicited, why wouldn't I, if I was interested in the artform, go back and try to establish how I got that response? If I work backwards through the process, there aren't now a million possible decisions that could have been made, but only the ones that were made, and it is fascinating to analyze these decisions to see how they generated my response.

But the bit you quoted to Wats, which was the whole reason I even got into this in the first place, had this guy, whoever he is, criticize that very analysis:


SO IF SOMEONE JUST SITS AROUND APPRAISING THE ARTISTRY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP ABOUT X, Y AND Z OF FILM, MAKING SCALE JUDGMENTS AND SCRUTINIZING GRADING CURVES OF A REVIEWER... WELL... HULK CAN'T STOP YOU, BUT YOU'RE TOTALLY MISSING OUT ON THE VERY PURPOSE OF ALL THIS STUFF.

That's crap. That's someone not interested in the filmmaking process. That's someone who wants everything to come down to "Well, I liked it, so that's that. Next!"


He's saying such right there in the essay -- that asking whether a movie is "good" or not is the wrong question, and instead we should be asking why a movie works.

To me, there is absolutely no difference in these two goals.



He is, in part, making a plea to let go your own ego and not be tied so steadfastedly to personal opinion. (And again, granted, this is muddled because other parts of the same essay would seem to contradict him).

No, he's not. he's making a please for others to stop judging films in one subjective way (by looking at specific aspects of the film-making process) and start judging films in his preferred subjective way (by measuring the scale of emotional response)

But, really, it's a terrible essay, full of contradictions and not very illuminating at all.

EDIT: Actually, having skimmed through it again (I can't read the whole thing because the all-caps conceit is annoying), the main problem is his general thesis, that people judge films on a pre-prescribed checklist, which I think is totally and utterly wrong. Seriously, is there anyone on this site who literally has a list of technical things a film must to to be considered good? Anyone? He's attacking a ghost, so it's no wonder is essay makes no sense.

[Irish]

It's only robotic if you want to frame it as robotic to make it an easier argument to defeat. I'm not plugging anything into a spreadsheet, or plotting anything on a graph.

I'm not trying to "defeat" anything, merely trying to sell you on an idea. I'm not interested in an off brand Internet pissing match.

Either you came at this at a bad angle, or your reading comprehension was thrown off by the ALL CAPS, or a bit of both, I don't know. Because things you suggest in this last post are many of the the same things this guy is talking about in the essay.

And while the writing rambles and contradicts and is badly written in places, there's some good stuff there. It also seems like a direct response to something off the page -- another website, a review, a way of thinking.

So I think there's something to what he's saying -- the idea of voice, soul, expression that goes beyond the technical, and that far too often there's a personality missing behind attempts at film criticism -- even if you, apparently, don't. (As an aside, I find your stance contradictory, because you recently plugged Hot Shots twice in one week (without backing that up at all) and responded to posts about what's valuable with "Who cares? Watch what you want to watch." Both of those point to someone who is very comfortably sitting in the chair of personal opinion and not coming from anyone with a bent for reflective, analytical thought.)

The trouble with getting too technical and hyper focusing on disparate elements is that it's a "game show" approach to art (and here I'm going to crib an idea from Ray Bradbury[1]).

Answers on a game show never change, and you're either right or you're wrong. If you're too invested in the technical end and that is tied to your ego, you are, in a sense, being intellectually lazy, because the "right" answers have already been provided to you beforehand. In another sense, you're risking nothing of yourself and carefully protecting that ego.

To put it another way: I don't know about you, but the first time I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars, I didn't turn to my buddies and pontificate on Spielberg's clever use of deus ex machine and Lucas's brilliant incorporation of Joseph Campbell's ideas. I was running around pumped on adrenaline (and probably sugar), my mind taken over by thoughts of far away galaxies and evil, desert dwelling Nazis.

You don't have to be interested in the "film making process" all of the time for a film to resonate, be meaningful, and succeed.

EDIT PS: I have to commend you. It takes serious BALLS to argue over this when you HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE TEXT (oops, did I lose you because portions of that were in all caps? Sorry!)

[1] From Fahrenheit 451:

"Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change. Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won’t be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I’ve tried it; to hell with it."

[transmogrifier]

I'm not trying to "defeat" anything, merely trying to sell you on an idea. I'm not interested in an off brand Internet pissing match.


Ditto. You have no idea what I'm talking about, so we have to just agree to disagree.

The end.

[Qrazy]

You're welcome.

In case it wasn't clear I think the article is a piece of shit.

[Izzy Black]

Last Year at Marienbad a 69???? :confused:

[transmogrifier]

Last Year at Marienbad a 69???? :confused:

There was no emotional connection. That's all you need to know.

[Boner M]

There was no emotional connection. That's all you need to know.
Then go watch the billion other movies that offer 'emoshunal connekshun', ya softie.

[Qrazy]

I'm a big fan of Last Year visually/conceptually but man I can not take that grating soundtrack.

[Izzy Black]

Top 10 favorite of mine. How you can be a fan of classic movies and NOT love that movie? It's so awesome ya know. But OK fine, diff strokes, diff folks.

[Qrazy]

Top 10 favorite of mine. How you can be a fan of classic movies and NOT love that movie? It's so awesome ya know. But OK fine, diff strokes, diff folks.

I can see some people not enjoying it that much, it's very unique, it lives in it's own world even in relation to Resnais filmography.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Last Year at Marienbad a 69???? :confused:

It's no Bridesmaids.

[Watashi]

In case it wasn't clear I think the article is a piece of shit.
I know, which is why I snarkingly replied with "You're welcome".

[Qrazy]

I know, which is why I snarkingly replied with "You're welcome".

I know you knew but I thought it would be funny to me to spell it out and it was.

[Watashi]

I know you knew but I thought it would be funny to me to spell it out and it was.
I knew you were trying to be funny, but in reality, you were not.

[Watashi]

I knew you were trying to be funny, but in reality, you were not.
That post was full of snark btw.

[transmogrifier]

It's no Bridesmaids.

Well, that's obvious.

[transmogrifier]

(As an aside, I find your stance contradictory, because you recently plugged Hot Shots twice in one week (without backing that up at all) and responded to posts about what's valuable with "Who cares? Watch what you want to watch." Both of those point to someone who is very comfortably sitting in the chair of personal opinion and not coming from anyone with a bent for reflective, analytical thought.)


Thought I better just add that you are right, I often don't engage in detailed analysis of a film, but who does, with every single film they watch? That takes a lot of time and dedication.

I actually wrote a couple of weeks back in this thread somewhere that I'm a "Get hit in the gut and move on" type of person, not one to really to deconstruct every reaction I have to film, unless I really have a strong reaction one way or the other.

The difference is, I would never dream to write a multi-paragraph essay positing this as the basis of sound film appreciation.

[Qrazy]

That post was full of snark btw.

I said funny to me. I easily amuse myself.

[B-side]

It's no Bridesmaids.

haha

[Watashi]

I think the fact that we are arguing over the positioning of Bridesmaids and Last Year in Marienbad using a 100 point scale makes HULK's article more relevant.

[Irish]

Thought I better just add that you are right, I often don't engage in detailed analysis of a film, but who does, with every single film they watch? That takes a lot of time and dedication.

I actually wrote a couple of weeks back in this thread somewhere that I'm a "Get hit in the gut and move on" type of person, not one to really to deconstruct every reaction I have to film, unless I really have a strong reaction one way or the other.

The difference is, I would never dream to write a multi-paragraph essay positing this as the basis of sound film appreciation.

Right, but I don't think it's always an either/or proposition. One of the things I liked about the essay is that it serves as a reminder, especially to people who are thinking and writing about film, that there's actual people sitting in front of those screens.

Too often with quasi-professional reviews on the web, people try and sound how they think a journalist should sound, or they adopt an overly academic language, or they try and tick off points like the reader is keeping score and if they make enough of them, they "win" by being right. (And I'm guilty of all of those things myself).

When reading the bits of the essay about film criticism, I couldn't help but think of Pauline Kael. Regardless of the merits of her opinion on one film or another, she was always deeply present, and looked at movies as a visceral event, one where the viewer isn't just sitting there but actively participating in the experience. I loved that about her.

So the TL;DR is, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that "getting hit in the gut" is a fine way to go a lot of the time, and I wish more people would go that way.

(PS: I also think that if you did write such an essay, it'd be more coherent and intelligent than what the HULK posted. If such a thing ever existd, I'd enjoy reading it.)

[Spinal]

Forget Bridesmaids. Putting it on par with Horrible Bosses is a worse crime.

[Skitch]

You have the gimmick of being wrong all the time.

Your idea deserves a thread where you break down everyones gimmicks.

[transmogrifier]

I think the fact that we are arguing over the positioning of Bridesmaids and Last Year in Marienbad using a 100 point scale makes HULK's article more relevant.

I don't know, doesn't it encourage people to treat Bridesmaids as something of lasting value?

I mean, put simply, the number I assign to a film is basically a measure of my response to it.

0 = absolutely detested every single second of it
100 = totally wowed from start to finish, totally consumed and engaged and in tune with the thing

It's pretty easy to imagine both situations in theory (even if they never happen in practice), and thus it is relatively easy to gauge a percentage value for the impact the film had on me. (Remember, impact is a intentionally vague term: it could be intellectual, emotional, physical impact)

So that's what the number represents. Now, it doesn't take into account the reasons why (from the construction point of view AND my own personal biases) I had that reaction to the film. Good film reviewers need to get into that.

But my goal with a signature like mine is just to get people thinking "Okay, that movie had some sort of value for that guy, maybe it will for me as well". That's all.

If people want to question why I rank one film over another, then they have every right to ask. Of course, depending on my mood (or, more importantly, how long ago it has been since I saw the movies in question, because I have a far from photographic memory, and I forget things easily) I may explain or I may not.

But the number is an accurate gauge of my connection to the film. I liked Bridesmaids better than Last Year at Marienbad. I think it is the better film.

*shrugs*

[MadMan]

I still haven't bothered to see Bridesmaids. I loved Last Year in Marienbad, though, and I own it on Criterion.

Everyone should just rate movies using Roman numerals. Or coconuts.

[Qrazy]

I still haven't bothered to see Bridesmaids. I loved Last Year in Marienbad, though, and I own it on Criterion.

Everyone should just rate movies using Roman numerals. Or coconuts.

Carried by an African or European swallow?

[soitgoes...]

I was just looking at my calender, and I noticed that is indeed time to talk about ratings again here at Match-Cut. Good job guys!

[MadMan]

I was just looking at my calender, and I noticed that is indeed time to talk about ratings again here at Match-Cut. Good job guys!Since there is actually a real Match-cut calender someone should have put on this date "FDT argues about ratings again for the 50 millionth time."


Carried by an African or European swallow?Damn, there's always a catch (nice reference btw).

Oh and June 27th, 2012 was the date that Doc in Back To The Future set on the time machine. We're in the future, now, people. So where the hell is my flying car? We were promised awesome things and whitey in charge failed to deliver.

[Mr. McGibblets]

Oh and June 27th, 2012 was the date that Doc in Back To The Future set on the time machine. We're in the future, now, people. So where the hell is my flying car? We were promised awesome things and whitey in charge failed to deliver.

I've seen this around the internet, and I don't understand it. They traveled to October 21, 2015.

[Raiders]

I've seen this around the internet, and I don't understand it. They traveled to October 21, 2015.

Yeah, it was either a hoax or a mistake, but it has been confirmed as wrong. Gotta think it was a mistake since it would be the most random and silly hoax ever.

[transmogrifier]

Watched an old favorite, Little Shop of Horrors today. Wish I could give it the full-on four stars, because it is has such a particular personality and is often so well-done. (The use of the chorus is outstanding and the leads are impeccable.) However, the film's resolution is kind of unsatisfying and messy. And, I hate to say it, but Steve Martin's performance doesn't quite jive with the rest of the cast.

It's clear he understands the style, but his dentist character contains a lot of nods and winks that the rest of the ensemble doesn't really have. Moranis and Greene are cartoonish, to be sure. But they work so well because they're earnest. What's great about the film is that a song as goofy as 'Suddenly, Seymour' is so utterly sincere and believable. Martin is often quite funny, but doesn't, for me, hit the right tone. It's a presentation of a character, rather than a character that is truly lived in. And, as a result, his Dentist is never quite the menace he should be. Imagine someone like Oliver Reed in the role. That's what I want.

Still, on the whole, a movie musical treasure that brings back fond memories.

Side-note: In the scene where Seymour takes the plant to the radio station, he is in the waiting room with Audrey II on his lap. The plant leans over to nearly bite the butt of a shapely secretary nearby. Maybe that's all there is to it. But watching it this time, it occurred to me for the first time that it might also be a menstruation joke.

Yes! Just rewatched this, a favourite from childhood, and it's still sweetly, cartoonishly awesome. It helps that the songs are great.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, it was either a hoax or a mistake, but it has been confirmed as wrong. Gotta think it was a mistake since it would be the most random and silly hoax ever.

Never underestimate peoples desire to trick people however minutely.

[MadMan]

Yeah, it was either a hoax or a mistake, but it has been confirmed as wrong. Gotta think it was a mistake since it would be the most random and silly hoax ever.Oh. Nuts.


I've seen this around the internet, and I don't understand it. They traveled to October 21, 2015.What I think is the case is that Doc just randomly choose a date to travel to, and that was July 27th, 2012. They didn't travel to that date, though. So now I'll have to watch the damn movie again to find it out for sure.

This is what I get for relying on the Back To The Future fan page on Facebook :sad:

[Mysterious Dude]

Every year they travel to in that series is a year ending in five: 1885, 1955, 1985 and 2015.

[Skitch]

I've seen this around the internet, and I don't understand it. They traveled to October 21, 2015.

As I recall, that was part 2. In part one he had it set for 2012, then got shot by Lybians, then Marty went back to past. I could be wrong.

[dreamdead]

Line of the month:

"There's something really sexy about Scrooge McDuck."

The Last Days of Disco

[B-side]

Stars in My Crown is kind of an unusual western in that not a single shot is fired at another individual. It is, above all, a spiritual drama. A morality drama. Before the ending that wraps everything up in a nice, condescending bow, the film seeks to find a place for both the preacher and the doctor in small, rapidly modernizing town. This modernization is best exemplified when the new, young doctor -- the son of the older, more renowned and revered doctor -- courts a local school teacher on a coach ride and has to stop at an ersatz modern railroad crossing. The white horse stops short, slightly frightened by the iron horse speeding in front of it. Josiah, the preacher, is a war veteran, and his old war buddy seems to have had his faith -- if he ever had any -- stripped away with the gruesome war he barely survived. Neither him nor the new young doctor have faith, but they're both decent men. The doctor is situated as a sort of antagonist for the preacher since he represents a scientific persona unswayed by matters of religion, and perhaps unfairly accuses the preacher of possibly helping spread the "slow virus" throughout town after his foster child acquires it. This battle of faith and the lack thereof constitutes much of the film's low key drama. Most fascinating, and perhaps the best invocation of the film's pro-religious leanings if only due to its relative subtlety vis a vis the aforementioned heavy-handed ending, is a sequence in which a magician comes to town and fails to recruit the preacher as an official backer of his show. The show is imbued with a certain inevitability and eeriness due to the slow pans across the oil lamp-lit children's faces as they watch his black magic in awe. The preacher's foster child is immediately put off, but goes to the show anyway, quiet and reserved the entire time until he collapses near the stage after assisting in an on-stage gag. The message is painfully obvious, but Tourneur's craft is great throughout, and the film's folksy warmth is incredibly inviting.


http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-06-29-04h58m35s115_400x300.jpg

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-06-29-05h20m13s26_400x300.jpg

[Raiders]

As I recall, that was part 2. In part one he had it set for 2012, then got shot by Lybians, then Marty went back to past. I could be wrong.

I don't remember that. Doc had already set it to 1955 because that was when he invented time travel. Then he got shot and Marty went to that date.

He did type in a bunch of dates when he was showing it off, but I don't remember him even putting a future date in (I only remember signing of the Dec. of Independence and birth of Christ but I am sure there are others).

[Irish]

Soooooooo .. Divorce.

[Pop Trash]

Soooooooo .. Divorce.

I wonder how much of these are Scientology related.

[Skitch]

Irreconcilable height differances.

[B-side]

Burton's Beetlejuice does The Cabin in the Woods shtick 24 years prior, and better. (http://reeltimepodcast.org/2012/06/30/retro-cinema-beetlejuice-tim-burton-1988/)

[MadMan]

Line of the month:

"There's something really sexy about Scrooge McDuck."

The Last Days of DiscoHah, I liked that line. Last Days of Disco isn't as great as a Criterion release should be, but it has heart, style, and wit. I liked it a lot.

B-Side I've never heard of that Tourneur, B-Side, so I'll have to check that one out. And how do you make such awesome screen shots?


Irreconcilable height differances.:lol:

Probably...

[baby doll]

Last Days of Disco isn't as great as a Criterion release should be...Elaborate, please.

[elixir]

Hah, I liked that line. Last Days of Disco isn't as great as a Criterion release should be, but it has heart, style, and wit. I liked it a lot.
I guess heart, style, and wit just isn't enough these days.


B-Side I've never heard of that Tourneur, B-Side, so I'll have to check that one out. And how do you make such awesome screen shots?
Yes, B-Side's talents know no bounds, but I'm going to assume he takes pictures in VLC or something like that in the same way almost everyone else does.

[elixir]

Nadja (Michael Almereyda, 1994) [7.5]
Hip, deadpan, yet still filled with a strange tension (or rather, it's because of these previous two things? Probably, actually), Almereyda's take on a vampire story runs out of steam with 20 or so minutes left but remains compelling throughout nonetheless. I adore Martin Donovan and Elina Lowensohn, which helps a lot, and I do really like the use of Pixelvision, which is perhaps slightly overused but still quite effective. Funky stuff.

A Zona (Sandro Aguilar, 2008) [7.5]
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb187/ears550/Screencaps/a%20zona/azona7.png
A dreamy, floaty film filled with narrative strands that seem to collide and wrap around with each other, it's the formal qualities alone that entice--a desaturated blue color scheme where things seamlessly slip out of focus into near abstraction, rendering familiar objects a dark haze. Has a office party scene which elevates the entire thing in not merely its weirdness, but in its departure from the more melancholic and haunted portions of the narrative.

City of Pirates (Raul Ruiz, 1983) [9.0]
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb187/ears550/Screencaps/city%20of%20pirates/CoP3.png
Nearly every frame is composed with a sense of imaginative fervor that left my mouth gaping in awe, the fantastical and surreal obviously stemming from an outrageously creative mind, as Ruiz's imagination alone overwhelmed my senses. I do prefer the first half to the second by a bit, but the whole thing is just a visual and aural wonder (the way the score works with/against the film is a thing of beauty) that this hardly even matters. The whole thing is just pretty incredible and kind of exhilarating. So awesome!

[B-side]

Yep, City of Pirates is a masterpiece.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Burton's Beetlejuice does The Cabin in the Woods shtick 24 years prior, and better. (http://reeltimepodcast.org/2012/06/30/retro-cinema-beetlejuice-tim-burton-1988/)

This article seems awfully spurious, given that the only connections are two loose ideas, trope parodying and a "monster revue," and Beetlejuice has an entirely different M. O.

[B-side]

This article seems awfully spurious, given that the only connections are two loose ideas, trope parodying and a "monster revue," and Beetlejuice has an entirely different M. O.

Well, I wrote it, and I think the comparison is perfectly apt. The Cabin in the Woods' entire M.O. is trope parodying, whereas Beetlejuice does the same thing in similar fashion while also retaining heart and more ingenuity.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well, I wrote it, and I think the comparison is perfectly apt. The Cabin in the Woods' entire M.O. is trope parodying, whereas Beetlejuice does the same thing in similar fashion while also retaining heart and more ingenuity.

Similar fashion? Beetlejuice is an outsized imaginatorium of Boschian vision - even the "normal" family owns joyfully grotesque artwork - with its chief focus the imposition of a ghoul who has more in common with Tex Avery cartoons than movie demons (a head-spinning nod to Pazuzu doesn't tweak an idea so much as acknowledge a progenitor). What's the banana boat mocking? What's the wedding at the end commenting on? I grant that the film is a comedy in horror clothing, like The Cabin in the Woods, but it is barely parody.

The Cabin in the Woods is very different. It has none of Burton's suburban preoccupations, it has no interest in Burton's heightened sense of style, and its horror inspirations are of a very different mode (the post-TCM horror-slasher formula and aesthetic). As a result, it looks like those films. The film is predominantly about unpacking the rules of convention one-by-one, choice-by-choice, character-by-character, with extra emphasis on filmmaker involvement (via the "directors").

I don't think the two films are attempting the same thing at all, and I think they go about their different goals in distinct ways. Saying they have the same "shtick"? I don't know, man.

Sidenote: I never watched the film as a child. I watched it as an adult two or three years ago. I thought Michael Keaton was grating, intrusive, and unfunny (though not for lack of trying).

[Qrazy]

Here's my first full length mix. Clocks in at roughly 3 hours. Hope ya like it!

http://www.mixcloud.com/DJQrazy/jailbreak-dance-mix/

[dreamdead]

Hah, I liked that line. Last Days of Disco isn't as great as a Criterion release should be, but it has heart, style, and wit. I liked it a lot.


Yeah, I echo baby doll and elixir in their dismay. This is one of the best-written screenplays I've seen in a while, and the camera work, while not superlative, is far better than Metropolitan. While I'll likely remain sentimental about the latter since it was my first Stillman, I find the craftmanship in Last Days of Disco to be immaculate. The range of characters and the depth provided in such a wide canvas can't be ignored; I'm excited to watch Barcelona down the road.

[Izzy Black]

But is MadMen talking about the quality of the film or the overall package?

Brightside, how do you take screenshots? :X

[Qrazy]

But is MadMen talking about the quality of the film or the overall package?

Brightside, how do you take screenshots? :X

VLC Media Player.

Under Video -> Snapshot. The image will be saved in "My Pictures" or ~/.vlc/

[Izzy Black]

thnx

[Pop Trash]

Rewatched Raimi's Spider-Man for the first time in 10 years, to compare with the new one. It still holds up really well, especially the first hour, which is one entertaining/creative scene after another. The mix of Raimi's giddy filmmaking with the origin story of SM is really charming. Plus spotting all the small supporting roles: Bruce Campbell! Octavia Spencer! Randy Savage! JK Simmons!

The second half isn't quite as good, and it really has to do with the Green Goblin stuff. The oft talked about suckiness of the costume (that really does look like it was bought at a strip mall Halloween store in late October) is distracting. I'm also not sure how much I like Willem Dafoe's (who is normally great) nut job haminess in general. Or it at least doesn't fit in with the tone of the rest of the film.

I also don't really get why Parker rejects MJ in the final scene. Anyone want to explain this to me? Is it because she might find him out? By what? His crazy spidey sex with her?

Also: Kirsten Dunst > Emma Stone

[Spinal]

I also don't really get why Parker rejects MJ in the final scene. Anyone want to explain this to me? Is it because she might find him out? By what? His crazy spidey sex with her?


Been a while since I've seen it, but isn't it because he views it as a part of stepping into new responsibilities? That he wants to devote his full attention to his new calling and also that he doesn't want to put her at risk?

[Dead & Messed Up]

He doesn't want to risk her safety.

[Pop Trash]

He doesn't want to risk her safety.

Hmm...I suppose that makes sense.

It still seems that after going through "changes" and spraying white sticky "webbing" all over the place he might want a girlfriend, or at least a FWB, who would all be put in jeopardy by would-be archvillains. Parker is going to be mighty sexually frustrated, but such is the life of a teenager I guess.

[EyesWideOpen]

Also: Kirsten Dunst > Emma Stone

In no dimension is this statement true.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Hmm...I suppose that makes sense.

It still seems that after going through "changes" and spraying white sticky "webbing" all over the place he might want a girlfriend, or at least a FWB, who would all be put in jeopardy by would-be archvillains. Parker is going to be mighty sexually frustrated, but such is the life of a teenager I guess.

It would be great if like Rhino or someone was holding a girl off the side of a building and Peter had to struggle to remember who she was. "Oh yeah...Denise...from Trevor's party in spring. Uh...noooooo, how dare you. Rhino."

[Pop Trash]

Also, is there a reason why they keep casting guys in their late 20s as the teenage Peter Parker? First Maguire and now Garfield? Early 20s is fine, but past 25 it starts to get a bit 90210-ish.

[B-side]

Similar fashion? Beetlejuice is an outsized imaginatorium of Boschian vision - even the "normal" family owns joyfully grotesque artwork - with its chief focus the imposition of a ghoul who has more in common with Tex Avery cartoons than movie demons (a head-spinning nod to Pazuzu doesn't tweak an idea so much as acknowledge a progenitor). What's the banana boat mocking? What's the wedding at the end commenting on? I grant that the film is a comedy in horror clothing, like The Cabin in the Woods, but it is barely parody.

The Cabin in the Woods is very different. It has none of Burton's suburban preoccupations, it has no interest in Burton's heightened sense of style, and its horror inspirations are of a very different mode (the post-TCM horror-slasher formula and aesthetic). As a result, it looks like those films. The film is predominantly about unpacking the rules of convention one-by-one, choice-by-choice, character-by-character, with extra emphasis on filmmaker involvement (via the "directors").

I don't think the two films are attempting the same thing at all, and I think they go about their different goals in distinct ways. Saying they have the same "shtick"? I don't know, man.

Sidenote: I never watched the film as a child. I watched it as an adult two or three years ago. I thought Michael Keaton was grating, intrusive, and unfunny (though not for lack of trying).

par·o·dy [par-uh-dee] noun, plural par·o·dies, verb, par·o·died, par·o·dy·ing.

1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet's soliloquy.
2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.
3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.
4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.

Seems to fit the definition pretty well, if you ask me. "Humorous imitation" is a perfect descriptor. Beetlejuice himself isn't necessarily a source of parodic intent, but rather the underworld in which monsters are reduced to waiting room residents and/or shut inside rooms befitting their trope. The Cabin in the Woods sought to humorously categorize monsters as well, and place them at the hand of a bureaucratic regime a la Beetlejuice's government underworld. And Beetlejuice's Handbook for the Recently Deceased is a gag with the same intent as the control room in The Cabin in the Woods. It's how the outsiders ensure that those in the game are playing by the rules. Of course they're not the same film, but to deny their similarities seems willfully naive.

[Izzy Black]

In no dimension is this statement true.

Dunst is the more accomplished actress.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My point is not that the two films do not have similarity. My point is that those similarities are minimal.

Maybe the problem is that I take the sentence "Burton's Beetlejuice does The Cabin in the Woods shtick 24 years prior, and better" to mean that one film does what the other film does to better effect - not just a couple of elements, but the overriding ethos or approach.

[Mysterious Dude]

The only Emma Stone film I've seen is The Help, and I thought she was just wretched. Not that she had much to work with, mind you.

[Skitch]

I just rewatched the whole Spiderman series. MJ is written so bad I don't think anyone couldve done better. Just not how I ever pictured the character. She's just terrible in the movies.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I just watched Batman Begins with my son. I once claimed it was better than The Dark Knight. What was I thinking? That's not a very good movie.

[Sven]

That's not a very good movie.

I know, right?

[Irish]

Dunst is the more accomplished actress.

Eh, Dunst has been working for twenty years, Stone for just five.

It'd be a little weird if Kirsten didn't have a bigger pile of Teen Choice Awards.

[Izzy Black]

Eh, Dunst has been working for twenty years, Stone for just five.

It'd be a little weird if Kirsten didn't have a bigger pile of Teen Choice Awards.

By accomplished, I mean in terms of critical success. And by that I mean, in terms of tallied performances, the better actress. Until Emma Stone gives me a performance that rivals Dunst's in Interview With A Vampire or Melancholia, I'm saying Dunst > Emma Stone on the acting side of things.

[B-side]

Until Emma Stone gives me a performance that rivals Dunst's in Interview With A Vampire or Melancholia, I'm saying Dunst > Emma Stone on the acting side of things.

Yeah. Stone's cute, and amusing, but nothing significant.

[Winston*]

Yeah. Stone's cute, and amusing, but nothing significant.

You sound like a character in Game of Thrones.

[B-side]

You sound like a character in Game of Thrones.

Is it the authority in my words? The grandiosity? I haven't seen the show, btw.

[B-side]

Is it the authority in my words? The grandiosity? I haven't seen the show, btw.

I don't actually expect you to answer this. I know my wording was a little, well, grandiose.

[Watashi]

Who said we're talking about their acting qualities?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just watched Revolutionary Road. Still processing, but did it seem to anyone else that Michael Shannon essentially played a Greek chorus? He just pops in once or twice, explains the state of the Wheeler marriage while his parents look on sadly, and then leaves. There's a theatrical quality to the entire production, and obviously Mendes invites the comparison, given his background. Not just in the self-conscious aesthetic, but in the mostly single-location story and tiny cast and great big bold declarations of emotions. It's a film that's alternately elegant and brash, and that makes some sense, but it's also easy for me to read the flick as melodramatic and thin. I felt the same slight sense of detachment I felt watching Road to Perdition, although I think this one has a better sense of the characters' inner turbulence (in part because it's so frequently outer turbulence).

Also, and this is probably unfair, but after watching so many episodes of Mad Men, this thing doesn't hit the same way it would've back in '08.

[Pop Trash]

Also, and this is probably unfair, but after watching so many episodes of Mad Men, this thing doesn't hit the same way it would've back in '08.

Right, I started watching "Mad Men" a year or two after seeing this and thought it accomplished what Revolutionary Road was striving for in a much better way.

[Izzy Black]

Who said we're talking about their acting qualities?

Eyes Wide Open said in "no dimension" was Dunst superior to Stone. If that excludes acting, then go right ahead and ignore my post.

[Izzy Black]

Not sure I'd completely level Mad Men and Revolutionary Road thematically, but I do agree that Mad Men's success softens the punch of RR (and even The Hours, for that matter).

[B-side]

Coincidentally, I find Dunst to be better looking as well.

[Irish]

By accomplished, I mean in terms of critical success. And by that I mean, in terms of tallied performances, the better actress. Until Emma Stone gives me a performance that rivals Dunst's in Interview With A Vampire or Melancholia, I'm saying Dunst > Emma Stone on the acting side of things.

I know what you meant and all, and I'm not really disputing it. Just pointing out that it's a meaningless comparison. Say again: Dunst has 23 years of experience to Stone's ~7.

You're contrasting an seasoned vet to a relative rookie.

[Grouchy]

Just not how I ever pictured the character.
That's one of the main problems I have with the Raimi trilogy. The personality of comic book Mary Jane is excised and the character turned into a typical love interest.

[Spun Lepton]

Captain America left something to be desired...

[Izzy Black]

I know what you meant and all, and I'm not really disputing it. Just pointing out that it's a meaningless comparison. Say again: Dunst has 23 years of experience to Stone's ~7.

You're contrasting an seasoned vet to a relative rookie.

Dunst made Interview With A Vampire when she was 12 and it was one of her first movies. Just on that alone she's better than Stone. If I can't say Dunst is the better actress, then tell whoever that saying Stone > Dunst in every way is also meaningless.

[Raiders]

Get Him to the Greek is not a good movie, not enough laughs to pull off the shabbiness of the production or non-existence of a plot or a point, but the "Jeffrey" sequence is fucking glorious.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Not sure I'd completely level Mad Men and Revolutionary Road thematically, but I do agree that Mad Men's success softens the punch of RR (and even The Hours, for that matter).

Sure, they're gunning for different things overall - Revolutionary Road is more stylistically heightened and broadly pessimistic, and it's laser-focused on the cheat of attempting an idyllic marriage (the only "successful" one involves a hearing aid with a volume knob), but there are some interesting parallels, especially if one sees Leonardo DiCaprio as the weak, emasculated, slick-haired philandering sort that Vincent Kartheiser was in the opening season.

[Pop Trash]

Sure, they're gunning for different things overall - Revolutionary Road is more stylistically heightened and broadly pessimistic, and it's laser-focused on the cheat of attempting an idyllic marriage (the only "successful" one involves a hearing aid with a volume knob)

I think this was my problem with it. It just felt very on-the-nose and schematically pessimistic. It might be unfair since "Mad Men" is a series, and thus can drift along, develop characters, or even have a few light, comedic episodes, but I find it a much better examination of post WWII America.

[MadMan]

I find Stone to be hot, where as I've always found Dunst to be merely cute/pretty. Regardless I have not viewed enough of either one's movies to say which one is the better actress. I save my actress crush these days for MEW anyways, even though I still am not going to see Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer just because she is in it.

[Izzy Black]

I wouldn't call RR an "examination" of post-War America, even if it's nonetheless a critical snapshot of a certain unvoiced frustration and desperation commonly ignored by the political right. Again, I think Mad Men has had the luxury of really developing and lingering on its themes with more patience, subtlety, and nuance, and as a result, has caused RR to seem in retrospect as a far more obvious, more aggressive film in its depictions.

But at the same time, I think the two are going for different things and by targeting slightly different generations. RR is a more aggressively political film by locating its subject in the 1950s. Mad Men, taking place in the mid to late 60s, is less interested in subverting the illusion of the American dream than it is in making cross-generational gestures and suggestions of a society in change, particularly by emphasizing contrasts as well as commonalities between the idealist, progressive young baby boomers of new (Peggy, Megan, Michael, Jane), the culture shock of G.I. good 'ole boys of a fabled golden age (Roger, Don, Lane), and those lost in the tug-of-war of values of the generation gap (Pete, Joan). Sure, there's a running underlying theme of disappointment and disillusionment as there is in RR, but I think RR leans heavier on the alienation, the failed moral values, and the social injustices than does Mad Men, as Mad Men traces its themes across generations and suggests something possibly fundamental about human desire and human relationships very generally, rather than just localizing its target on the immediate cultural and political landscape of the times.

Anyways, that's my two cents on the difference. There's not a serious disagreement here, I don't think.

[Izzy Black]

I forgot to include the young Gen-Xers (Sally and Glen facing for the first time the fallout of this transition of values in both being products of divorced parents).

[Irish]

Dunst made Interview With A Vampire when she was 12 and it was one of her first movies. Just on that alone she's better than Stone. If I can't say Dunst is the better actress, then tell whoever that saying Stone > Dunst in every way is also meaningless.

Eh, I don't have a dog in this fight, but if we're talking skill or talent now then the obvious counter is that Dunst never lived up to the promise she exhibited in Interview.

I think the best you can say about her is that she (or her agent) is exceptionally good at choosing roles and crafting her own career. She reminds me a little of Sigourney Weaver and Ashley Judd, in the way she can effortlessly move between mainstream commercial fare and indie dramas.

But as an actress? I've never felt she's owned a role and made it her own, and she's never made me forget that she's Kirsten Dunst. (Granted, most roles for women under forty can be summed up as "the girlfriend," and those parts don't provide many real creative opportunities.)

Stone isn't much different. Her smart/sarcastic persona is limiting and as an offhand guess I'd say she's going to implode before she hits her mid thirties (see also: Natasha Lyonne).

I assume the "X > Y" comments were about looks, and mostly a statement of preference for Stone's smarty persona over Dunst's duller, flaky one.

[elixir]

I think she's really good in Marie Antoinette.

[Qrazy]

I'm not a fan of Dunst. I find her to be a master of the vapid gaze. When I see a close-up of her eyes my impression is that there isn't a thought in this person's head. Which may well not be the case, but this is what she conveys to me.

[Watashi]

Her best role is still in Jumanji.

She was my big childhood crush in that and Small Soldiers.

I haven't liked her in anything since.

[Spinal]

My favorite Dunst performance is still Crazy/Beautiful.

[Bosco B Thug]

As much as I love Melancholia and Dunst in the film simply because she plays the role she's given, I know so many IRL people who insist she's terrible in the film that I've come to accept the fact she does not exude "range" (perhaps due to an unshakeable, DiCaprioesque eternal 90's youth-face).

[Izzy Black]

Eh, I don't have a dog in this fight, but if we're talking skill or talent now then the obvious counter is that Dunst never lived up to the promise she exhibited in Interview.

That's definitely not obvious. Dunst has had very fine performances all throughout career, in between the teen romcoms. I think she's very fine indeed in Little Women, The Virgin Suicides, All Good Things, and Melancholia, the best performance of her career.


I think the best you can say about her is that she (or her agent) is exceptionally good at choosing roles and crafting her own career. She reminds me a little of Sigourney Weaver and Ashley Judd, in the way she can effortlessly move between mainstream commercial fare and indie dramas.

I haven't been putting forward a impassioned defense of Dunst here. All I've been trying to do is disagree with the claim that Stone > Dunst. I think Dunst is the better actress plain and simple. That doesn't commit me to saying she's one of the best actresses ever, or even that she's great actress. I just think best on what we've seen so far, she's better than Stone. Hardly a controversial statement.


But as an actress? I've never felt she's owned a role and made it her own, and she's never made me forget that she's Kirsten Dunst. (Granted, most roles for women under forty can be summed up as "the girlfriend," and those parts don't provide many real creative opportunities.)

Disagree, but not of this has any real bearing on my point.


Stone isn't much different. Her smart/sarcastic persona is limiting and as an offhand guess I'd say she's going to implode before she hits her mid thirties (see also: Natasha Lyonne).

I assume the "X > Y" comments were about looks, and mostly a statement of preference for Stone's smarty persona over Dunst's duller, flaky one.

1) The statement was "any dimension" and I raised the point about acting (I also think she's at least comparable Stone in the looks department, so the statement is unwarranted in that case too.) And 2) I already said a few posts back if we aren't talking about acting just ignore my post.

Not sure what else needs to be said here.

[Watashi]

I couldn't stand Dunst in Melancholia.

[Irish]

Disagree, but not of this has any real bearing on my point.

Huh? You've given no reason whatsoever for your higher opinion of Dunst, outside saying that her debut in Interview trumps Stone's entire nascent career. I guess we should just take this at face value then?

I also think you're reading faaaaaar too much into the "Stone > Dunst" shorthand, which as I said probably has more to do with looks and persona than anything else.

Why are we arguing about this when neither of us is heavily invested in these actresses?

I'd rather discuss shorthand notes like this:

Judi Dench > Meryl Streep.

Edit: Also ---

Toni Collette > You.

[Pop Trash]

I couldn't stand Dunst in Melancholia.

Don't get all Kurosawa Fan on us.

[Watashi]

Judi Dench > Meryl Streep.

I agree.

We're talking about who's hotter, right?

[Irish]

I agree.

We're talking about who's hotter, right?

:lol:

First really good laugh I've had this week.

[Izzy Black]

Huh? You've given no reason whatsoever for your higher opinion of Dunst, outside saying that her debut in Interview trumps Stone's entire nascent career. I guess we should just take this at face value then?

I gave you my criteria. I said she's routinely given better performances. That's my reason for favoring her. What of it?


I also think you're reading faaaaaar too much into the "Stone > Dunst" shorthand, which as I said probably has more to do with looks and persona than anything else.

How many times do I have to say that you can ignore my single-sentence, passing comment response to the comparison if we're just talking about looks?


Why are we arguing about this when neither of us is heavily invested in these actresses?

Because you're pressing me on a point for no reason that I can tell. EWO made a point and I qualified it. Anything else?

[Qrazy]

Because you're pressing me on a point for no reason that I can tell. EWO made a point and I qualified it. Anything else?

That's kind of his thing.

[Irish]

I gave you my criteria. I said she's routinely given better performances. That's my reason for favoring her. What of it?

Simply saying so isn't meaningful or interesting, unless you say why. By wht criteria do you judge performance?

Dunst has been in more movies that Stone, she's been in a wider variety of movies, but that doesn't automatically translate into good performances.


Because you're pressing me on a point for no reason that I can tell. EWO made a point and I qualified it.

I'm pressing because you didn't, really. Your response was a more eloquent, "Wrong. Dunst > Stone."

[Winston*]

Simply saying so isn't meaningful or interesting, unless you say why. By wht criteria do you judge performance?


I'm currently writing a dissertation on the comparitive acting abilities of Nick Stahl and Jeremy Davies.

[Izzy Black]

Simply saying so isn't meaningful or interesting, unless you say why. By wht criteria do you judge performance?

It's odd you're even concerned about this when above you weren't even originally disputing the fact that those performances were superior.

I haven't really seen Stone in any compelling dramatic material, so she may very well have the chops to be a very fine actress. I think Dunst gives a dramatically rich and emotionally complex performance in Interview With A Vampire, ably capturing the film's themes and the maturity of a grown woman set against child like innocence even at only 12 years old.

And, yes, in case you're wondering, registering dramatic richness and emotional complexity in a performance meets at least one (typically common) standard or expectation for quality acting in my book. Now you can press me on how she achieves this result, whether method acting or classical technique is more efficient in evoking these results, and then require me to supply further evidence by linking theoretical interpretative essays and screenshots and youtube clips from the film.


Dunst has been in more movies that Stone, she's been in a wider variety of movies, but that doesn't automatically translate into good performances.

I've stated that I think Dunst is great in Melancholia and Interview With A Vampire. Despite some disagreement, as there always will be, it's not an unprecedented statement. Those two performances are highly acclaimed on Dunst's part. Stone hasn't enjoyed the same kind of recognition for her acting talents as Dunst. Yeah one's had a longer career, but so what? Al Pacino has had a long ass career but that doesn't stop me from saying he's better than Chance Crawford.

But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Stone's got some awesome acting performance I overlooked. So, yeah, uh, maybe?


I'm pressing because you didn't, really. Your response was a more eloquent, "Wrong. Dunst > Stone."

Even if that were true, why press me and no one else in the thread for their reactions? Like, what's the big deal, seriously? I think Dunst is the better actress so I'm the one that needs to provide standards for good acting performances and theoretical justification for my opinion?

[Skitch]

I'm currently writing a dissertation on the comparitive acting abilities of Nick Stahl and Jeremy Davies.

Has anyone found him yet?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Don't get all Kurosawa Fan on us.

:lol:


























































































:|

[Mysterious Dude]

I forgot to include the young Gen-Xers (Sally and Glen facing for the first time the fallout of this transition of values in both being products of divorced parents).
I know this is nit-picky, but Sally is the baby boomer, not Peggy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Western_world

[Irish]

Even if that were true, why press me and no one else in the thread for their reactions? Like, what's the big deal, seriously?

Not a big deal. Others seemed to be merely stating a preference while you seemed to take a step beyond that.

If I said I liked Julia Roberts more than Sandra Bullock, nobody really can argue. It's a matter of taste.

If I said Roberts is a de facto better actress, the implication in "better" is that I'm using some sort of objective criteria for excellence that goes beyond personal preference.

So I asked (or aggressively pursued), because I was curious if there was any "there there" in your argument.

[Morris Schæffer]

Has anyone found him yet?

Yeah, I believe they did. Alive I should elaborate.

[B-side]

Resident Evil: Afterlife might even be visually superior to The Three Musketeers, and that's saying a lot. I'm noticing a trend in Anderson's films of zooming in and out of his fictional worlds. It goes hand in hand with his penchant for top-down photography, likely signifying surveillance -- a pet theme of fellow underappreciated auteur Tony Scott. Rather than let the video game roots of this series hold it back from becoming its own work of art, Anderson uses that fact as a catalyst to justify the film's video game level-like construction and absurdity (Alice shoots coins at the enemies and they explode out of them). I didn't expect the film to be satirical, and yet it takes a few shots at Hollywood. Arcadia, located off the coast of Hollywood, broadcasts a message falsely indicating itself as a safe haven. The young British girl seeks out the acting dream and ends up waiting tables. The black man is made into an advertising commodity. The film producer is selfish and obnoxious, and ends up being an enemy. Also funny that Wentworth Miller, of all people, ends up having a plan to break out of the prison. Just really enjoyable stuff all around. I'm officially looking forward to Retribution.

[Irish]

fellow underappreciated auteur Tony Scott.

You just had to go there again, didn't you?

:P

[Raiders]

Resident Evil: Afterlife might even be visually superior to The Three Musketeers, and that's saying a lot. I'm noticing a trend in Anderson's films of zooming in and out of his fictional worlds. It goes hand in hand with his penchant for top-down photography, likely signifying surveillance -- a pet theme of fellow underappreciated auteur Tony Scott. Rather than let the video game roots of this series hold it back from becoming its own work of art, Anderson uses that fact as a catalyst to justify the film's video game level-like construction and absurdity (Alice shoots coins at the enemies and they explode out of them). I didn't expect the film to be satirical, and yet it takes a few shots at Hollywood. Arcadia, located off the coast of Hollywood, broadcasts a message falsely indicating itself as a safe haven. The young British girl seeks out the acting dream and ends up waiting tables. The black man is made into an advertising commodity. The film producer is selfish and obnoxious, and ends up being an enemy. Also funny that Wentworth Miller, of all people, ends up having a plan to break out of the prison. Just really enjoyable stuff all around. I'm officially looking forward to Retribution.

I kinda guessed you would be my other ally on this film.

[Spinal]

I know this is nit-picky, but Sally is the baby boomer, not Peggy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Western_world

I stubbornly refuse to consider anyone born in the 60s a baby boomer. I don't care what the standard definition is. It just doesn't make sense.

[Qrazy]

I stubbornly refuse to consider anyone born in the 60s a baby boomer. I don't care what the standard definition is. It just doesn't make sense.


Generation AO, the Always-On Generation (or Gen AO),[63][64][65] was first used by Elon University professor Janna Quitney Anderson in 2012 to describe people born between the early 2000s and the 2020s whose lives have been influenced since their early childhood by connectivity afforded by easy access to people and the world’s knowledge through the Internet.[63] A survey of 1,000 experts she and Lee Rainie conducted for the Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project found that the generation brought up from childhood with a continuous connection to each other and to information will be nimble, quick-acting multitaskers who count on the Internet as their external brain; the experts also predicted Gen AO will exhibit a thirst for instant gratification and quick fixes, a loss of patience and a lack of deep-thinking ability.

Sucks to be them.

[Winston*]

The people coming up with the generation names have been really lazy in the last half century.

[Izzy Black]

Not to mention suspiciously critical. A whole generation set up as a straw man for "experts" to knockdown? How convenient.

[Winston*]

Not to mention suspiciously critical. A whole generation set up as a straw man for "experts" to knockdown? How convenient.

Are you doubting the academic authority of Janna Quitney Anderson from Elon University?

[Izzy Black]

Touche.

[Winston*]

Which of these films should I prioritize for the films festival this month? Boner?


¡Vivan las Antipodas!
11 Flowers
5 Broken Cameras
A Bitter Taste of Freedom
A Good Man
A Monster in Paris
Abiogenesis
Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry
Amour
Animation for Kids 2012
Animation Now 2012
Back to Stay
Ballroom Dancer
Barbara
Bear
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Bernadette: Notes on a Political Journey
Bernie
Bert Stern, Original Madman
Beyond the Hills
Bonjour Tristesse
Bonsái
Bully
Caesar Must Die
Call Me Kuchu
Chasing Ice
Corpo Celeste
CRAZY HORSE
Death Row Portraits: James Barnes & Linda Anita Carty
Death Row Portraits: Joseph Garcia, George Rivas & Hank Skinner
Death Row: Portrait of Hank Skinner
Death Row: Portrait of James Barnes
Death Row: Portrait of Joseph Garcia & George Rivas
Death Row: Portrait of Linda Carty
Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel
Do You Really Love Me?
Dreams of a Life
Existence
Family Portrait in Black and White
Far Out Far East
Farewell, My Queen
Faust
First Position
From Up on Poppy Hill
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Gerhard Richter Painting
Golden Slumbers
Grandma Lo-fi: The Basement Tapes of SigrÃ*dur NÃ*elsdóttir
Habana Muda
Himizu
Hitch Hike
Holy Motors
How Far Is Heaven
How to Meet Girls from a Distance
I Wish
In Another Country
In Cuba
In Darkness
In My Mother’s Arms
In Safe Hands
In the Fog
Into the Abyss
It’s the Earth Not the Moon
Journal de France
Just the Wind
Karen Blixen – Behind Her Mask
Keep the Lights On
Killer Joe
KLOWN
Lambs
Last Days Here
Le Tableau
Liberal Arts
Long Distance Information
Lore
Mantrap
Maori Boy Genius
Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Present
Marley
Monsieur Lazhar
Moonrise Kingdom
My Brother the Devil
Nana
Neighbouring Sounds
Neil Young Journeys
New Zealand's Best 2012
Ngā Whanaunga Māori Pasifika Shorts
Night Shift
No
On the Road
Our Children
Our Newspaper
Persuading the Baby to Float
Photographic Memory
Pictures of Susan
Pink Ribbons, Inc.
Planet of Snail
Platige Image
Policeman
Rampart
Reality
Rebellion
Return to Burma
Room 237: Being an Inquiry into The Shining in 9 Parts
Searching for Sugar Man
Shadow Dancer
Shakuhachi
Shock Head Soul
Shut Up and Play the Hits
Side by Side
Sightseers
Sing Me the Songs That Say I Love You: A Concert for Kate McGarrigle
Sister
Sleepless Night
SNAP
Song of the Kauri
Songs
Sound of My Voice
Step Up to the Plate
Stopped on Track
Student
Suni Man
Swansong
Tabu
Tatarakihi: The Children of Parihaka
Ten Thousand Days
The Ambassador
The Angels’ Share
The Artists Cinema
The Boy Who Was a King
The Cabin in the Woods
The Flight of the Airship 'Norge' over the Arctic Ocean
The Hunt
The Imposter
The Inaugural Film Quiz hosted by the Wellington Film Society
The King of Pigs
The Last Dogs of Winter
The Last Ocean
The Law in These Parts
The Lifeguard
The Loneliest Planet
The Minister
The Red House
The Sapphires
The Shining
The Sun Beaten Path
The Taste of Money
The Two Bens: Four Short Films by Ben Rivers and Ben Russell
The Wall
This Ain’t California
This Fine Island
This Must Be the Place
Tongan Ark
Toons for Tots
Two Princes
Two Years at Sea
Undefeated
V/H/S
Village by the Sea
Violeta Went to Heaven
We Feel Fine
West of Memphis
What’s in a Name
Where Do We Go Now?
Whores’ Glory
Winter Nomads
Wish You Were Here
With Fidel Whatever Happens
Wuthering Heights
Your Sister’s Sister

[B-side]

You just had to go there again, didn't you?

:P

I did!:lol:


I kinda guessed you would be my other ally on this film.

:pritch:

[Stay Puft]

Jaws has been screening theatrically this week in Toronto to commemorate its digital restoration and upcoming Blu release. I haven't seen the film in years and jumped at the chance to see it again in theatres. Watching it again now and in that setting was almost like seeing it for the first time (and my roommate had never seen the film before, period, the lucky bastard).

I hate to be all "they don't make 'em like this anymore" but that was basically my reaction. The craft of this thing is just fucking beyond anything else I've watched this summer, and that's even with all of its shortcomings (in particular, I thought the climax was weak; for a film that does such a good job handling special effects, seeing the shark in its full glory chomping away on the boat was sort of a letdown, like an incredibly intense fim deflating into a silly amusement park attraction). Hell, Spielberg doesn't even make 'em like this anymore. The way the camera rolls through the police station, the overlapping dialogue and conversations in the hustle and bustle of the holiday preparations and subsequent chaos after the shark attacks, the unbroken shots of e.g. the mayor explaining why the beach has to stay open while everybody is riding the ferry, or the argument about the discovery of the shark being a great white, leading up to the reveal of the graffiti on the town's billboard. So much emphasis on space and setting, so much texture.

And the setpieces. Goddamn. I had completely forgotten about the Fourth of July setpiece, full stop. The establishment of the scene (the space of the setting, the beach, the bridge, the pond; and also the fraught emotions), the misdirection, the sudden matter of fact reveal (that single wide shot if it just swimming into the pond)... expert manipulation, expert craft. Edge of your seat, man. It's pretty obvious now, too, just how much Bong lifted from this sequence for The Host. That's some good summer spectacle right there.

Also,

I jumped out of my seat during the second shark attack. I had also forgotten that Spielberg violently murders a child in the film, which doesn't compute with the image of the guy I've had in my head for years now (although I guess that's partly selective memory since there was Munich more recently). It's pretty damn shocking, too; it's enough that we get that wide shot of the water and we see the shark fucking roll the kid, but then we cut back to a geyser of blood? Spielberg, you sick fuck.

[Boner M]

Which of these films should I prioritize for the films festival this month? Boner?]

I've seen the following; have bolded my favorites and underlined stuff I can especially see you liking (also check out Ben Wheatley's Sightseers, which sounds too Winston*-y to be true)


Amour
Barbara
Faust
Holy Motors
I Wish
Just the Wind
Last Days Here
Lore
Marley
Monsieur Lazhar
Neighbouring Sounds
Policeman
Side by Side
Tabu
The Cabin in the Woods
The Loneliest Planet
This Must Be the Place
Two Years at Sea
Whores’ Glory
Wish You Were Here
Wuthering Heights

[Pop Trash]

Which of these films should I prioritize for the films festival this month?


Moonrise Kingdom, unless you are down on Wes Anderson, but even still, I'd check it out. I imagine Boner will like it too.

Also, Beasts of the Southern Wild is coming out this month in the states, and is getting some uh, wild praise, although Iggy V. from mubi/At the Movies recently slammed it pretty bad.

[Spinal]

My son is watching Browning's Dracula. I'm not even sure this is a good movie. Compared to Nosferatu and Vampyr, it seems so infantile. So much talking.

[Rowland]

My son is watching Browning's Dracula. I'm not even sure this is a good movie. Compared to Nosferatu and Vampyr, it seems so infantile. So much talking.Yeah, it's not very good. The first fifteen minutes or so, when they're in Dracula's castle, are pretty good, but the rest is disposable, written and directed like a stage play.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, Browning's Dracula is bland stuff. I'm a big fan of his carnival pictures like The Unknown and Freaks, but I'm not sure what the hell happened with Dracula. The assumption, as Rowland points out, is that he leaned too heavily on the stage play origins of the screenplay (hell, even the blocking feels stagy and false). And Lugosi's performance is iconic in its details, but not its underlying emotion. In that regard, the film can't compete with Whale's Frankenstein pictures or Mamoulian's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Sorry. Little geek rant there.

[Winston*]

I've seen the following; have bolded my favorites and underlined stuff I can especially see you liking (also check out Ben Wheatley's Sightseers, which sounds too Winston*-y to be true)
Cheers. Amour and Holy Rollers are obviously top priorities. Had mixed feelings about The Kill List, but Sightseers does sound pretty sweet.

Going to be doing some ushering this year, so I'll see what random films I get assigned to.

[Winston*]

Mamoulian's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Compare the awesome transformation sequences in this to the shitty bat effects in Dracula. That film should be better known.

wbg5oXpq42Y

[Boner M]

Holy Rollers
:)

[MadMan]

I hate to be all "they don't make 'em like this anymore" but that was basically my reaction. The craft of this thing is just fucking beyond anything else I've watched this summer, and that's even with all of its shortcomings (in particular, I thought the climax was weak; for a film that does such a good job handling special effects, seeing the shark in its full glory chomping away on the boat was sort of a letdown, like an incredibly intense fim deflating into a silly amusement park attraction).Heh I actually love the final climax, and what's funny is that people actually overlook how the movie actually ends. Brody and Hooper's talk as they swim back to shore is pretty humorous.


Hell, Spielberg doesn't even make 'em like this anymore. The way the camera rolls through the police station, the overlapping dialogue and conversations in the hustle and bustle of the holiday preparations and subsequent chaos after the shark attacks, the unbroken shots of e.g. the mayor explaining why the beach has to stay open while everybody is riding the ferry, or the argument about the discovery of the shark being a great white, leading up to the reveal of the graffiti on the town's billboard. So much emphasis on space and setting, so much texture.At this point I still have much Spielberg to go, but I'm skeptical that any of his other movies I have left to view will top Jaws. That opening scene alone is pretty amazing, and I agree about the holiday preparations scenes. I also loved the part of the film with the final town hall meeting, where Quint finally drives his points home. Spielberg if anything uses the mayor and the council to showcase the problems with government and bureaucracy: it takes them way too long to finally accept they have a gigantic problem, and then only when shit has truly hit the fan do they accept Quint's proposal.


And the setpieces. Goddamn. I had completely forgotten about the Fourth of July setpiece, full stop. The establishment of the scene (the space of the setting, the beach, the bridge, the pond; and also the fraught emotions), the misdirection, the sudden matter of fact reveal (that single wide shot if it just swimming into the pond)... expert manipulation, expert craft. Edge of your seat, man. It's pretty obvious now, too, just how much Bong lifted from this sequence for The Host. That's some good summer spectacle right there.The only thing that ruins the pound scene is when that guy gets knocked out of the boat after asking the kids if they're okay. Its just silly. Otherwise, that entire sequence is utterly terrifying. The look of horror and disbelief on that one kid's face as he sees the fin go past is forever remembered by me.


I jumped out of my seat during the second shark attack. I had also forgotten that Spielberg violently murders a child in the film, which doesn't compute with the image of the guy I've had in my head for years now (although I guess that's partly selective memory since there was Munich more recently). It's pretty damn shocking, too; it's enough that we get that wide shot of the water and we see the shark fucking roll the kid, but then we cut back to a geyser of blood? Spielberg, you sick fuck.That entire part of the film still has disturbing power after all these years. I couldn't belief it was happening the first time I saw the film, either. The fact that just as the kid gets swallowed by the shark, followed then by that beautiful Hitchcockian cut to Brody before he yells at people to get out of the water....just amazing and really gutsy.

For the longest time the scene with the two guys on the pier was hard for me to watch. However after endless viewings of Jaws, there is still one scene that terrifies and gets me everytime: Hooper going into the boat, and then seeing the dead guy's head. Excellent jumpscare, perfectly executed.

[Kiusagi]

Jump scares get criticized often for being cheap (and often they are), but Jaws has two of the best, if not the actual best, I've ever seen.

[NickGlass]

Which of these films should I prioritize for the films festival this month? Boner?


¡Vivan las Antipodas!
11 Flowers
5 Broken Cameras
A Bitter Taste of Freedom
A Good Man
A Monster in Paris
Abiogenesis
Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry
Amour
Animation for Kids 2012
Animation Now 2012
Back to Stay
Ballroom Dancer
Barbara
Bear
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Bernadette: Notes on a Political Journey
Bernie
Bert Stern, Original Madman
Beyond the Hills
Bonjour Tristesse
Bonsái
Bully
Caesar Must Die
Call Me Kuchu
Chasing Ice
Corpo Celeste
CRAZY HORSE
Death Row Portraits: James Barnes & Linda Anita Carty
Death Row Portraits: Joseph Garcia, George Rivas & Hank Skinner
Death Row: Portrait of Hank Skinner
Death Row: Portrait of James Barnes
Death Row: Portrait of Joseph Garcia & George Rivas
Death Row: Portrait of Linda Carty
Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel
Do You Really Love Me?
Dreams of a Life
Existence
Family Portrait in Black and White
Far Out Far East
Farewell, My Queen
Faust
First Position
From Up on Poppy Hill
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Gerhard Richter Painting
Golden Slumbers
Grandma Lo-fi: The Basement Tapes of SigrÃ*dur NÃ*elsdóttir
Habana Muda
Himizu
Hitch Hike
Holy Motors
How Far Is Heaven
How to Meet Girls from a Distance
I Wish
In Another Country
In Cuba
In Darkness
In My Mother’s Arms
In Safe Hands
In the Fog
Into the Abyss
It’s the Earth Not the Moon
Journal de France
Just the Wind
Karen Blixen – Behind Her Mask
Keep the Lights On
Killer Joe
KLOWN
Lambs
Last Days Here
Le Tableau
Liberal Arts
Long Distance Information
Lore
Mantrap
Maori Boy Genius
Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Present
Marley
Monsieur Lazhar
Moonrise Kingdom
My Brother the Devil
Nana
Neighbouring Sounds
Neil Young Journeys
New Zealand's Best 2012
Ngā Whanaunga Māori Pasifika Shorts
Night Shift
No
On the Road
Our Children
Our Newspaper
Persuading the Baby to Float
Photographic Memory
Pictures of Susan
Pink Ribbons, Inc.
Planet of Snail
Platige Image
Policeman
Rampart
Reality
Rebellion
Return to Burma
Room 237: Being an Inquiry into The Shining in 9 Parts
Searching for Sugar Man
Shadow Dancer
Shakuhachi
Shock Head Soul
Shut Up and Play the Hits
Side by Side
Sightseers
Sing Me the Songs That Say I Love You: A Concert for Kate McGarrigle
Sister
Sleepless Night
SNAP
Song of the Kauri
Songs
Sound of My Voice
Step Up to the Plate
Stopped on Track
Student
Suni Man
Swansong
Tabu
Tatarakihi: The Children of Parihaka
Ten Thousand Days
The Ambassador
The Angels’ Share
The Artists Cinema
The Boy Who Was a King
The Cabin in the Woods
The Flight of the Airship 'Norge' over the Arctic Ocean
The Hunt
The Imposter
The Inaugural Film Quiz hosted by the Wellington Film Society
The King of Pigs
The Last Dogs of Winter
The Last Ocean
The Law in These Parts
The Lifeguard
The Loneliest Planet
The Minister
The Red House
The Sapphires
The Shining
The Sun Beaten Path
The Taste of Money
The Two Bens: Four Short Films by Ben Rivers and Ben Russell
The Wall
This Ain’t California
This Fine Island
This Must Be the Place
Tongan Ark
Toons for Tots
Two Princes
Two Years at Sea
Undefeated
V/H/S
Village by the Sea
Violeta Went to Heaven
We Feel Fine
West of Memphis
What’s in a Name
Where Do We Go Now?
Whores’ Glory
Winter Nomads
Wish You Were Here
With Fidel Whatever Happens
Wuthering Heights
Your Sister’s Sister


Keep the Lights On and The Loneliest Planet are not perfect, but both are quite accomplished and feature a very, very honest portrait of relationships and communication. Whores' Glory is fun, too.

I haven't seen Tabu, but it's hot on the festival circuit.

[Morris Schæffer]

There was a time when Spielberg was so obsessed with minutiae that he told his location scouts to go find a mountain that resembled the Paramount logo for Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even ignoring the fact that maybe there was no alternative way to reproduce it, that's pretty meticulous.

I think that Spielberg is gone. He needs to step up his game pronto.

[Grouchy]

There's a midnight showing of A Touch of Zen today. I was all hyped and ready to go, but finding out the film is 187 minutes long has done nothing but harm to my enthusiasm.

Unless you guys really recommend it as a once in a lifetime experience, I won't go.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Jump scares get criticized often for being cheap (and often they are), but Jaws has two of the best, if not the actual best, I've ever seen.

Spielberg somewhat famously regretted including the head-in-the-hull jump scare - he said it made the audience put up their defenses sooner, and later scares (like the bigger boat one) didn't have the impact they could've had.

I agree with him. The head's a good gag, but I'd rather we wait for the shark to pop out later on (which is mercifully absent of a big musical stinger).

[Irish]

Spielberg somewhat famously regretted including the head-in-the-hull jump scare - he said it made the audience put up their defenses sooner, and later scares (like the bigger boat one) didn't have the impact they could've had.

I agree with him. The head's a good gag, but I'd rather we wait for the shark to pop out later on (which is mercifully absent of a big musical stinger).

Wasn't the head added after principal photography was completed?

I have a vague memory from a DVD extra that the shot was actually done in someone's swimming pool and inserted into the film after the first round of testing. Might be confusing that with another sequence, though.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Wasn't the head added after principal photography was completed?

I have a vague memory from a DVD extra that the shot was actually done in someone's swimming pool and inserted into the film after the first round of testing. Might be confusing that with another sequence, though.

Yep. He thought he could get another big jump out of the audience during a quieter stretch of the film and shot the additional scene.

[soitgoes...]

There's a midnight showing of A Touch of Zen today. I was all hyped and ready to go, but finding out the film is 187 minutes long has done nothing but harm to my enthusiasm.

Unless you guys really recommend it as a once in a lifetime experience, I won't go.

It's a favorite of mine, very much unlike any film I've ever seen.

[Thirdmango]

Which of these films should I prioritize for the films festival this month? Boner?

Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry
The Law in These Parts



These are the two I would recommend. I actually haven't seen Never Sorry, I meant to and missed it, but I've seen other things done on Ai Weiwei and his story is really cool. The Law In These Parts has been in my top three movies I've seen so far this year ever since seeing it in January. The funny thing is I really don't like documentaries and I'm recommending two docs here. The Law is a very specific documentary but it does it in such a fascinating way. I basically want everyone to see it.

[Stay Puft]

Unless you guys really recommend it as a once in a lifetime experience, I won't go.

A Touch of Zen is on my personal "wish list" of movies I would kill to see on the big screen. And not the list I would figuratively kill for, the list I would literally kill for. For whatever that's worth.

[Raiders]

There's a midnight showing of A Touch of Zen today. I was all hyped and ready to go, but finding out the film is 187 minutes long has done nothing but harm to my enthusiasm.

Unless you guys really recommend it as a once in a lifetime experience, I won't go.

King Hu is an amazing filmmaker. This is not a chance to let slip by.

[Derek]

Sucks to be them.

Meh, they'll always have Tony Scott films to entertain them.

A Touch of Zen is good stuff, definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Never seen a Wong Kar-Wai movie.

Just put five of 'em on my Netflix queue.

Shit's getting real.

[B-side]

Autumn Marathon is kinda great. As was Tears Were Falling. Ergo, Georgi Daneliya is great. It's just math, people. Or science. Or maybe a bit of both.

[Boner M]

Equinox Flower was just lovely, makes me wanna check out the remaining colour Ozus I've yet to see even more now (End of Spring & Late Autumn). The pillow-shot sequences really make me realise why Nathaniel Dorsky groups him among practioners of 'devotional cinema'; they're anti-associative montages, in a way that transforms each new shot into something more strange and ineffable than the recognisable constituent materials. Watching scenes of intimate, compassionate human interaction transition into shots of people scuttling insect-like around statically observed, robust architecture makes for consistent and inviting contemplative ambience in Ozu's cinema. Kiyoko's WW2/bomb shelter reminiscence... <3

Also, Shin Suburi's might be the best male performance I've seen in any of his films.

[Qrazy]

Autumn Marathon is kinda great. As was Tears Were Falling. Ergo, Georgi Daneliya is great. It's just math, people. Or science. Or maybe a bit of both.

Seen Kin Dza Dza? Autumn Marathon is good but that's still my favorite from him.

[B-side]

Seen Kin Dza Dza? Autumn Marathon is good but that's still my favorite from him.

Not yet. I definitely will, though. Some folks on the other forum were discussing Autumn Marathon and I wanted to join in, so I watched it.

[MadMan]

Never seen a Wong Kar-Wai movie.

Just put five of 'em on my Netflix queue.

Shit's getting real.You better love In The Mood For Love and Chungking Express. Which reminds me I still have to view the two WKW films I have on my Instant Viewing queue...

[transmogrifier]

Tokyo! (2008)

Interior Design (Gondry) - quietly despairing look at the struggle to assert yourself in an environment that is indifferent to individuality. The second-half lurch into surreal whimsy is well-earnt and strangely transporting, as we see someone find what pleasures she can in being part of the domestic furniture (i.e. a Japanese wife).

Merde (Carax) - one-note, but it's a ferocious note. Pretty flat in terms of visual staging - the camera is treated like a necessary evil in disseminating the lecture, and I don't quite get the fawning love for the tracking shot near the start, which is ugly, grainy and so damn obvious (made worse when the TV news shows cellphone camera coverage that is indistinguishable from the look of the film. At first, I thought it was going to turn out that the original shot was actually a member of the public walking in front of him filming, but apparently not). Gets to the heart of the futility of trying to understand evil, but not really much of a film, per se.

Shaking Tokyo (Bong) - best in show, beautifully directed and packs a wallop by the end during the walk through the Tokyo streets, peering into the windows and seeing everyone retreating from society in general. To me, Bong is one of those directors like Fincher who makes lighting, staging and cutting seem effortless (though Bong has a more overtly artistic touch about him, and is funnier), and hs also has a strong read on what his film is really about and how to let the audience in on that at the right time. Gorgeous.

All in all, one of the better omnibus films I have seen. Possibly because none of the filmmakers, despite being tourists, are shy about pointing out the flaws in the iconic city.

[Spinal]

My favorite Wong Kar-Wai movie is Lost in Translation.

[Grouchy]

More fool me, then. I'm sorry, guys. Or maybe I should only tell myself that. I stayed home and watched A Dangerous Method (which is neither great nor terrible) on DVD.

[Qrazy]

More fool me, then. I'm sorry, guys. Or maybe I should only tell myself that. I stayed home and watched A Dangerous Method (which is neither great nor terrible) on DVD.

Just watch Hu's Dragon Gate Inn at home, it's his best.

[Raiders]

Just watch Hu's Dragon Gate Inn at home, it's his best.

This is true, but all of his (well, the five I have seen) are well worth your time.

[B-side]

Mervyn LeRoy strikes again (pun intended) with Heat Lightning. These terse 1930s works of his are high quality. LeRoy is like a more prolific Edgar Ulmer. LeRoy really captures Depression-era America brilliantly. Two bank robbers on the run stop by the diner/auto shop/motel two sisters are running and speak of their own "New Deal" involving stealing two gold digging womens' jewelry and making for the border. The older, bitter, more masculine woman is in charge, and with the presence of an old flame in one of the bank robbers, she finds difficulty truly escaping her own amoral past. This escaping of a troubled past can very well be seen to mirror the country's desire to escape the grips of the Great Depression. The entire film takes place at the diner over the course of about 24 hours, and various personalities mingle and clash. I have a soft spot for films like this; that take place in a small setting and over a short period of time, but this was even better than expected.

[Lucky]

How did Tom Hanks' performance in Philadelphia beat Liam Neeson's in Schindler's List? Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I just watched Philadelphia for the first time. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to watch this on a Sunday. And am I missing some meaning behind the title aside from the setting?

[Qrazy]

How did Tom Hanks' performance in Philadelphia beat Liam Neeson's in Schindler's List? Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I just watched Philadelphia for the first time. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to watch this on a Sunday. And am I missing some meaning behind the title aside from the setting?

http://tammikuujournal.files.wordpres s.com/2010/09/img_6720.jpg?w=630

http://tammikuujournal.files.wordpres s.com/2010/09/img_6724.jpg?w=630

[Spinal]

1. Daniel Day-Lewis, In the Name of the Father
.
.
.

2. Laurence Fishburne, What's Love Got to Do with It
3. Liam Neeson, Schindler's List
.
.
.
.
.
4. Anthony Hopkins, The Remains of the Day
5. Tom Hanks, Philadelphia

[Pop Trash]

Really? I seem to remember lots of praise for Hopkins that year, but I haven't seen The Remains of the Day.

[Irish]

How did Tom Hanks' performance in Philadelphia beat Liam Neeson's in Schindler's List? Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I just watched Philadelphia for the first time. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to watch this on a Sunday. And am I missing some meaning behind the title aside from the setting?

Consider time & place. Philadelphia was the first big dramatic role that Hanks had starred in (well, that didn't bomb, anyway). Most of his resume was peppere with broad comedies. Neeson was a relative newcomer. His biggest US role up to that time was Darkman.

Then look at all the major categories. Philadelphia got shut out of the other noms.

So I think that win was a bit, "Holy shit, I didn't know he could do that" and a bit "Gee, I already voted for Schindler twice." Plus, the subject matter was still a political issue in 1993, and that might have played into it.

That's not to say Hanks wasn't good. He was, but the whole movie strikes me as a kind of Gentleman's Agreement. Important at the time it was made, but increasingly dated with each passing year.

Edit: Real question is how Tommy Lee Jones beat out Ralph Fiennes for Supporting Actor. Looking back at it now, that seems the bigger upset.

[Lucky]

I haven't seen the other three performances. I agree with your assessment of the two I've seen, though.

[Pop Trash]

Sometimes your posts make total sense Irish.

A lot of politics were involved with Philadelphia. It was just a different time. Hollywood got crap from GLAAD for making Basic Instinct (killer lesbians!) and Silence of the Lambs (killer trannies!) so Philly was something of a mea culpa.

[Lucky]

Then look at all the major categories. Philadelphia got shut out of the other noms.

And rightly so.


Plus, the subject matter was still a political issue in 1993, and that might have played into it.

That's not to say Hanks wasn't good. He was, but the whole movie strikes me as a kind of Gentleman's Agreement. Important at the time it was made, but increasingly dated with each passing year.

This is true. I'm very late to the game here.

[Spinal]

I say this every time Philadelphia comes up, but it struck me as naive and behind the times even in 1993. Maybe it's because I was in college at the time and AIDS was widely discussed. But it really was old news for anyone who had been paying attention.

[Pop Trash]

I say this every time Philadelphia comes up, but it struck me as naive and behind the times even in 1993. Maybe it's because I was in college at the time and AIDS was widely discussed. But it really was old news for anyone who had been paying attention.

I was younger than you, but I don't think mainstream fictional media really dealt with it in the early 90s. Were there any fictional gay characters on TV at that time? Non-fiction had Pedro from the Real World. The indie world had Greg Araki, Gus Van Sant, and Todd Haynes but they were very much in the indie margins at that time.

I remember there was that straight kid on "Life Goes On" that had AIDS, but that was about it.

[Pop Trash]

Edit: Real question is how Tommy Lee Jones beat out Ralph Fiennes for Supporting Actor. Looking back at it now, that seems the bigger upset.

I don't have a big problem with that win. TLJ is awesome in that role (and most roles).

[Irish]

I don't have a big problem with that win. TLJ is awesome in that role (and most roles).

Jones' character is fun and flashy, but without much substance. Fiennes performance strikes me as something much, much harder to pull off.

[Pop Trash]

Jones' character is fun and flashy, but without much substance. Fiennes performance strikes me as something much, much harder to pull off.

Right, but I've long ago stopped caring about 'wrong' decisions the Academy makes. As long as they award someone/something that isn't actively mediocre (like Crash or Slumdog), I'm OK with it.

[Qrazy]

Consider time & place. Philadelphia was the first big dramatic role that Hanks had starred in (well, that didn't bomb, anyway). Most of his resume was peppere with broad comedies. Neeson was a relative newcomer. His biggest US role up to that time was Darkman.

Then look at all the major categories. Philadelphia got shut out of the other noms.

So I think that win was a bit, "Holy shit, I didn't know he could do that" and a bit "Gee, I already voted for Schindler twice." Plus, the subject matter was still a political issue in 1993, and that might have played into it.

That's not to say Hanks wasn't good. He was, but the whole movie strikes me as a kind of Gentleman's Agreement. Important at the time it was made, but increasingly dated with each passing year.

Edit: Real question is how Tommy Lee Jones beat out Ralph Fiennes for Supporting Actor. Looking back at it now, that seems the bigger upset.

Gentleman's Agreement is a hell of a lot better than Philadelphia because Kazan is a dramatic master. I'd say Philadelphia has more in common with Guess Who's Coming to Dinner as a politically valuable but ultimately fairly shit film.

[Winston*]

Edit: Real question is how Tommy Lee Jones beat out Ralph Fiennes for Supporting Actor. Looking back at it now, that seems the bigger upset.
Yeah. Rewatched Schindler's List earlier this year. Fiennes is stunningly good. Neeson serves the film, but doesn't elevate it like Fiennes.

[Spinal]

It's worth noting that Ralph Fiennes was a relative unknown at the time of Schindler's List's release.

[Irish]

It's worth noting that Ralph Fiennes was a relative unknown at the time of Schindler's List's release.

This is true. Jones also lost out on the same award a few years prior (JFK nom).

[Skitch]

I decided a while back that won't accept the Academy's decisions until there's at least a five year gap between the year of release and award named.

[MadMan]

Jones winning for The Fugitive when he was more deserving for his work in JFK just reflects the fact that the Oscars continue to give out awards for the wrong work. Case in point: Marty finally winning for a film that wasn't even his best movie, or Matt Damon being nominated for that rugby movie instead of The Informant! just because he had a better chance of winning in that particular category.

[B-side]

Three on a Match is a deterministic film that follows the lives of three girls as they grow to adults. Two of them are well off and plan to attend college, but they worry about the looser and more troubled Mary and what will become of her. Ironically, Mary quickly comes out of her rebellious phase and ends up advocating on behalf of one of the more privileged girls. The film takes place over the course of about 15-20 years, and this generation of women are bored and unhappy with traditional domestic life. Vivian is married to a lawyer and gets whatever she wants, but is dissatisfied and seeks excitement and change in the arms of a party-goer aboard a cruise ship. Newspaper headlines and placards dictate the drama, seemingly leaving little choice for the characters to move outside of the influence of the zeitgeist. Financiers promise the Depression will be short-lived, president Harding seeks to re-initiate an "era of good feelings" -- a phrase used to describe post-Napoleonic war galvanization, and the domestic drama of Vivian and her rich lawyer husband is broadcast for everyone in the newspaper. Early on, as the girls are young, the text inserts speak of a racier dress code and outrage by a liberal judge over the actions of the younger generations. LeRoy places these strategically as if to rid the film of any illusion of free will in the characters. Personal reality is dictated by environment, and this is an ongoing theme in LeRoy's work in which women can't escape their pasts (Heat Lightning) and salesmen run the city (Hard to Handle). To the latter idea, the phrase "Three on a Match" is said in the film to have originated from a man seeking to sell more matches. Then it's no surprise that the meaning it carries for everyday people ends up being an all-too concise summation of the lives of the three women.


http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-07-08-04h14m55s234_400x300.jpg

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-07-08-05h08m53s124_400x300.jpg

[Grouchy]

I might be a frigging fool who missed out on A Touch of Zen. But today, in the same theater, I'm watching Onibaba, which I've never seen before.

[Qrazy]

I might be a frigging fool who missed out on A Touch of Zen. But today, in the same theater, I'm watching Onibaba, which I've never seen before.

It's money.

[Grouchy]

It's money.
I was hoping it'd be a good film, but if it's money I'm so there!

I'm broke.

[Raiders]

Not a big fan of Onibaba, but most are so it's worth the effort. Shame about missing he King Hu flick though.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Onibaba is brilliant. I'd love to see it on the big screen.

[Ezee E]

Watched The Help. Certainly has some eye-roll moments with people learning about each other, but it's acted very well, and I really like the dedication to the time period. Ultimately, I liked it.

[MadMan]

Watched The Help. Certainly has some eye-roll moments with people learning about each other, but it's acted very well, and I really like the dedication to the time period. Ultimately, I liked it.The acting is why I gave it a 50 something out of 100. Yet the crappy melodrama and awful story made it impossible for even me to like it.

[Pop Trash]

Watched The Help. Certainly has some eye-roll moments with people learning about each other, but it's acted very well, and I really like the dedication to the time period. Ultimately, I liked it.

Aside from Viola Davis, I didn't even think it was acted very well. The director seemed to have everyone act as broad as possible which correlated with the screenplay. Every aspect of the film seemed to be playing to the cheap seats.

[B-side]

BTW, since I know it's on the mind of a few people, I'm saving I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang for a little later since I know it's his most regarded. I suspect this is less because of experience with him and more about availability.

[B-side]

And that totally is my way of kickstarting a LeRoy conversation. Anyone here had more experience with him than just his most renowned? I'm curious if your experiences correlate with my own.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I have no comments regarding LeRoy for you B-Side, and for that, I apologize.

On a completely unrelated note, I will say that I just finished Brad Anderson's Happy Accidents, and I quite liked it. It's the one about the girl who falls in love with the guy who says he's a time-traveler and then she starts to wonder if he could be telling the truth. There are some worrisome undercurrents with Marisa Tomei's character, but the film acknowledges that she acknowledges that, and so her behavior (continuing her co-dependent relationship with such a warped, potentially damaging mate) feels a little more...not justifiable, but excusable.

One wonders if she'll still love him after she discovers he was telling the truth and isn't schizophrenic.

[B-side]

I have no comments regarding LeRoy for you B-Side, and for that, I apologize.

Dead to me.

see what i did there?

[Kiusagi]

This might be a silly thing to complain about, but the pie-eating gag in The Help really got on my nerves. It would have been fine if it had been just the one scene, but it was constantly brought up throughout the rest of the movie as if it was the greatest thing ever. To me, it's an example of how the movie thought it was more clever than it was.

[B-side]

The Bellboy was hilarious. The phone gag had me rolling. And that magical orchestra sequence! Jerry Lewis finds adventure in the mundane.

[Li Lili]

Anyone here has seen Faust by Sokourov ?
Saw it a few days ago at the cinema. Interesting. Liked it, the performance, the set, the imagery, sometimes it's very closed to paintings, I thought of Bosch for instance, especially for the devil character, who has something grotesque.

[Boner M]

Anyone here has seen Faust by Sokourov ?
Saw it a few days ago at the cinema. Interesting. Liked it, the performance, the set, the imagery, sometimes it's very closed to paintings, I thought of Bosch for instance, especially for the devil character, who has something grotesque.
I liked it (http://sydneyfilmhappenings.blogspot. com.au/2012/06/sydney-film-festival-reviews-amour-ok.html), whilst being rather perplexed.

[Raiders]

BTW, since I know it's on the mind of a few people, I'm saving I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang for a little later since I know it's his most regarded. I suspect this is less because of experience with him and more about availability.

Nope, only seen three of his: Chain Gang, The Bad Seed and No Time for Sergeants. All are at least good, though I don't think The Bad Seed has aged well at all nor does LeRoy's take really excel beyond its stage-bound qualities. The other two are pretty great. Never got a sense from those films or other online discussions that LeRoy was anything more than a quality workman, but haven't formed any opinion either way.

[Mysterious Dude]

I am a Fugitive is great. I liked Little Caesar, but don't remember it much. Random Harvest was too melodramatic for my taste. I hated The Bad Seed.

LeRoy doesn't strike me as much of an auteur.

[Raiders]

The Bellboy was hilarious. The phone gag had me rolling. And that magical orchestra sequence! Jerry Lewis finds adventure in the mundane.

Indeed. Have you seen The Ladies' Man or The Patsy yet? My two favorites of his.

[Bosco B Thug]

Boorman fans would benefit from checking out his 1970 curio Leo the Last, as its Boorman being his most purely artsy. Others should beware, as it's also very annoying (perhaps Boorman's most annoying! I say as a loving Boorman fan), an over-the-top and cloying liberal-sentiment film with some very jejune passages. Marcello Mastroianni gets to mumble a lot as a soft-natured heir to fascist slumlords.

Serenity - Can't get past some of the TV cheese, and the Reavers and the associated revelation is hammy in its execution, but on the happy side, I was completely satisfied by the film and its continuation of the story, as someone who watched the series. Whedon again shows he can pull off badass and hard-edged violence and action, whilst being philosophical about it.

[Sven]

Others should beware, as it's also very annoying (perhaps Boorman's most annoying! I say as a loving Boorman fan), an over-the-top and cloying liberal-sentiment film with some very jejune passages.

Up against the likes of Zardoz and The Emerald Forest, there's no WAY it's his most annoying.

Glad you saw it, though. Any Boorman fan is a friend.

[Pop Trash]

Up against the likes of Zardoz and The Emerald Forest, there's no WAY it's his most annoying.


Oh man, I loved me some Emerald Forest when I was a kid. I think that was the first R-rated movie my parents let me watch. I should watch that again to see if it holds up.

[Sven]

Oh man, I loved me some Emerald Forest when I was a kid. I think that was the first R-rated movie my parents let me watch. I should watch that again to see if it holds up.

It's definitely one of those films that would be a lower rating upon a re-rate. PG-13, max.

And it's not bad. It's just bluntly didactic.