28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[transmogrifier]

2003 Love Actually


Never, ever watch this.

[Grouchy]

Never, ever watch this.
Yeah, I have no intention of doing that either.

Peng, dude, lots of great films on that list. At least watch American History X and Edward Scissorhands so you can become a proper person.

[Spinal]

Never, ever watch this.

Heh, my mom tries to get me to watch it every Christmas. I've held out so far.

[Ivan Drago]

Half-Blood Prince is legit one of the more beautiful films released in the last decade or so.

Agreed. It has some of the best cinematography of the decade IMO.

[transmogrifier]

Heh, my mom tries to get me to watch it every Christmas. I've held out so far.

Why does your mum hate you so, Spinal? Were you a bratty kid? I bet you were a bratty kid.

[Watashi]

Love, Actually is fine.

[Dukefrukem]

Love Actually is the fakest movie I've ever seen and I love comic book movies.

[transmogrifier]

Someone here once aggregated all of the YAYs and NAYs by everyone on MC in a given calendar year and did a ranking of most detractors and most consensus wielding votes. I wonder if we can do that again?

Front page of the 2017 Consensus Page:

Me: 10 Yays, 10 Nays

Perfect balance.

[Ezee E]

Front page of the 2017 Consensus Page:

Me: 10 Yays, 10 Nays

Perfect balance.

I felt like it was easier a while back and something changed.

[TGM]

I felt like it was easier a while back and something changed.

A few years back, we had the yearly database threads that compiled everyone's yays and nays for every movie from the whole sub-forum in one long list. But we haven't done that in a while because, well, that thing was a real son of a bitch to maintain and keep up to date, particularly as the year progressed. I passed it on to EyesWideOpen, and then he disappeared, and no one else took up the mantle after that.

[Yxklyx]

Well my appreciation for Bogdanovich has gone down a bit after watching his commentary on Targets. I hadn't realized how much Samuel Fuller was involved in this film - making some key contributions. The commentary also highlights how "inbred" Hollywood is. RIP Milos.

[StanleyK]

Just saw Shame. Someone help me out here: are the scenes with super dramatic sad music (blatantly ripped off from 'Journey to the Line' by Hans Zimmer) over Fassbender having wild three-ways with prostitutes and getting sucked off at a gay bar while grimacing supposed to be comical? Because if they were playing it straight I'm afraid they missed the mark by far. A big letdown after the excellent Hunger.

[baby doll]

Just saw Shame. Someone help me out here: are the scenes with super dramatic sad music (blatantly ripped off from 'Journey to the Line' by Hans Zimmer) over Fassbender having wild three-ways with prostitutes and getting sucked off at a gay bar while grimacing supposed to be comical? Because if they were playing it straight I'm afraid they missed the mark by far. A big letdown after the excellent Hunger.Just when I had started to forget how lame that movie was, I see this post.

[Skitch]

Question for those of you who can "find" anything on the interwebs and know where to look: Any links to an ABC made for tv movie from 1968 starring Michael Parks called A Hatful of Rain? Supposedly its all lost to time. Asking for someone making Michael Parks doc.

[Grouchy]

Question for those of you who can "find" anything on the interwebs and know where to look: Any links to an ABC made for tv movie from 1968 starring Michael Parks called A Hatful of Rain? Supposedly its all lost to time. Asking for someone making Michael Parks doc.
Wish I could help you, but I only download films from more or less well known sites that he's surely already checked out. Maybe he should contact the production company.

Would you guys mind if I made a thread for a film that's not even on IMDb yet? I swear it exists, I watched it on a film festival.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Save the Green Planet

Oh boy I don't know about this one. It isn't just that the film tries to juggle so many different kinds of stories - paranoia cinema, torture thriller, tragedy/melodrama, with stretches of whimsy - as much that its dominant mode for so long (torture thriller) feels more repetitive than inspired and put me in a bit of a sour mood for the middle. Which then had the cascading effect of me wanting the film to aim higher so as to make up for all the tiresome suffering. Which it did not accomplish, in my eyes, instead gunning for an ending that I'd been praying the movie would avoid since the word "go." I hold nothing but admiration for the creativity/ambition of the film and the committed performances and the overall style. If you love the more outrageous of East Asian genre cinema (Ichi, Tetsuo), this might be worth a try (and it lacks those films' extremity), but the flick didn't do it for me.

[dreamdead]

Been a couple weeks without time for any movie watching, but we got back into things with the 1983 German film Angst, which is a minimalist serial killer thriller. It's all simultaneously evocative and mundane, with so many overhead and odd camera angles spent without cuts, and something that Gasper Noe references in different interviews as a fundamental influence on EtV and other films of his. Not the biggest Noe fan, but the treatment of style as substance is something that resonates here, and the film builds out an uncomfortable reflection of the lead's psychology. It's on Prime for those interested...

Also, does anyone use Shudder as a streaming service? Any under-the-radar films worth exploring there for a limited time subscription?

[Dukefrukem]

Also, does anyone use Shudder as a streaming service? Any under-the-radar films worth exploring there for a limited time subscription?

I thought I recalled someone mentioning this in one of our streaming threads.

[Grouchy]

Been a couple weeks without time for any movie watching, but we got back into things with the 1983 German film Angst, which is a minimalist serial killer thriller. It's all simultaneously evocative and mundane, with so many overhead and odd camera angles spent without cuts, and something that Gasper Noe references in different interviews as a fundamental influence on EtV and other films of his. Not the biggest Noe fan, but the treatment of style as substance is something that resonates here, and the film builds out an uncomfortable reflection of the lead's psychology. It's on Prime for those interested...

Also, does anyone use Shudder as a streaming service? Any under-the-radar films worth exploring there for a limited time subscription?
I loved that film.

[Irish]

Also, does anyone use Shudder as a streaming service? Any under-the-radar films worth exploring there for a limited time subscription?

"Cold Hell," "Alleluia," "Let Us Prey," "Missions," "Beyond the Walls."

If you're into foreign, semi-obscure titles then the catalogue is worth exploring.

Check out Sam Zimmerman (https://twitter.com/samdzimmerman) on twitter. He works for Shudder and is very good about letting his followers know what's new on the service and what people are excited about.

[Dead & Messed Up]

His Girl Friday had me involved and laughing through almost all of it, but I got a little bummed at the end when the film so cavalierly gets rid of Ralph Bellamy's bland husband-to-be. That seemed mean-spirited, to create a punching bag for the two leads to use as a chip in their do-I-love-you? poker game. I know "the sap" is a common trope for these sorts of movies (and The Philadelphia Story that same year did something similar with its hapless Jimmy Stewart), but the whole situation left a bad taste in my mouth after otherwise appreciating the film's joy in its dialogue/escalation/farce. It doesn't help that Hildy's falling back in love with Walter at the end doesn't play like renewal so much as relapse.

Probably taking this all too seriously, and I briefly thought this might be a lack of exposure to Howard Hawks, but then remembered I loved To Have and Have Not and own Rio Bravo, so maybe this one just didn't work for me. I similarly felt a little underwhelmed by The Lady Eve last year, which was also chock-full of lickety-split banter and double entendre and featured that great performance by Barbara Stanwyck but also left Henry Fonda a bit out to dry - he was just playing soft-faced reactions to her, and he did it well (he's Henry Fonda), but he was left so far in her dust that at times he felt almost redundant as a character.

[Maybe it's that I want these characters to be tested more in terms of their selfishness and high opinion of their own cleverness? Or for there to be more to Bellamy's blandness than just "Ugh, mama's boy."]

But this is hitting too hard on a film that I was mostly enjoying (enjoying very much). One of the things I miss about this era of films is that directors like Hawks could plant the camera on a master wide and let the actors work, and each passing second where the actors are sharing the shot and the frame simultaneously (and paradoxically) makes me aware of the craft while also pulling me deeper into the plausibility of the interactions. I mean, this dialogue is the opposite of naturalistic (it's like a machine gun that shoots out witticism and rejoinder), but the actors play it naturalistically with how they overlap each other, the ease of their familiarity and body language. It's hard to not feel like something was lost in the development and eventual ubiquity of shot-reverse-shot.

[This isn't to sell the camerawork short, as it subtly tracks with the actors and finds fresh composition and framing.]

[Dead & Messed Up]

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors - Fascinating; excellent camerawork; enigmatic symbolism layered into earthy realities of wet grasses and misty hills makes for a film that in my mind evokes (predicts) Aguirre and Excalibur (in its own way), even if neither carries its interest in the struggles of everyday living.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lazlo]

My buddy and I started a new podcast earlier this month. It's called The Cruise Cruise and it's about Tom Cruise. Like, we're going on a cruise through Cruise's career. Each episode we review a different Cruise movie. We've done two, All the Right Moves and American Made and are having a big time with it. Check it out if that sounds like a cool thing to you. I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts:

iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cruise-cruise/id1380232771?mt=2)
Google Play (https://play.google.com/music/m/Id2mk5e3yrevnqejvnotilmt7pe?t= The_Cruise_Cruise)

[Skitch]

I will do that.

[Lazlo]

I will do that.

Rad, thanks!

[Morris Schæffer]

I had a bit of a major geekout moment yesterday when I found out that the song 'We fight for love', which was written for the movie Commando was written and sung by Michael des Barres. He was Murdoc, MacGyver's nemesis in the 80's show. :cool:

[Dukefrukem]

I saw this popup on Google Movies, and then I looked up the reviews.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark_crimes

When was the last time a movie got a 0%?

[MadMan]

I saw this popup on Google Movies, and then I looked up the reviews.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark_crimes

When was the last time a movie got a 0%?

Emoji Movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Ashura - 2005

An absurdly operatic martial arts fantasy from Japan where the outsized emotions and opulent set design match fairly well to its original status as a Kabuki stage play. The movie doesn't work entirely, as it drags toward the end, re-litigating emotional beats with no real additional revelation or fascination, but I found its imagination and straight-faced silliness endearing. Highlights include an opening action scene that plays like a Japanese fairy tale version of the opening from Blade (instead of red, the demon blood is glowstick green), a climactic fight in an M.C. Escher labyrinth, and the sincere acting from Rie Miyazawa as doomed lover (and demon queen to be) Tsubaki. The CGI effects are objectively bad (they look like holdovers from Anderson's Mortal Kombat) but support creative sights, and imaginative low-budget effects > boilerplate high-budget effects.

Really does go on too long, though.

https://static.kino.de/wp-content/gallery/ashura-j-no-hitomi-2005/ashura-5-rcm950x0.jpg

https://static.kino.de/wp-content/gallery/ashura-j-no-hitomi-2005/ashura-3-rcm950x0.jpg

[Skitch]

That looks lovely.

[Dukefrukem]

Whoa....

[dreamdead]

Did a trip to London and Edinburgh, then a trip to Asheville, NC for three days, and now in Indian Shores, FL, until tomorrow, when we'll revisit our bed and veg out. In that time, we've done airplane viewings of Pitch Perfect 3, Jumanji 2, and Date Night. The only one that rises above serviceable is Date Night, which has a magnetic Rachel McAdams role that testifies to her need to do more comedic performances.

In other news, BBC America's Killing Eve, despite an only okay final 10 minutes, is so much better than everything mentioned above. Holding out hope for First Reformed by the end of the month...

[transmogrifier]

I just realized this about myself: If someone dislikes a film that I like, I really don't care all that much and shrug it off. However, I'm prepared to argue to the death if someone loves a film that I hate. It's weird when you think about it.

Fun, though.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just realized this about myself: If someone dislikes a film that I like, I really don't care all that much and shrug it off. However, I'm prepared to argue to the death if someone loves a film that I hate. It's weird when you think about it.

Fun, though.

Makes sense. Why spread joy when you could spread resentment?

;)

[dreamdead]

Did a 7-day subscription of Shudder so that we could finally get to the 1970's Black Christmas. Beyond being loaded with a good cast, the film is able to orchestrate tension and intrigue even though several of the kills had already been seen in clips previously. Love that ending, even though it stretches credulity that Kidder isn't taken to the hospital. It's a surprising endpoint that resists serialization.

Also did Wake in Fright, which Russ had taken up a few years ago. Fascinating study in masculinity and the excess of alcohol to remove safeguards, and depressing footage of the kangaroos. Probably done after this, but enjoyable to see so many near-genre films on display as well.

[Yxklyx]

Yeah, Black Christmas is really good, and still available on Netflix DVD which is what I use. They have a great selection still. I don't understand all the love for Streaming. It's a great technology but greed means that you need to spend lots and lots of money (to subscribe to all the different services) in order to get anything approaching the selection of Netflix DVD.

[Grouchy]

I just realized this about myself: If someone dislikes a film that I like, I really don't care all that much and shrug it off. However, I'm prepared to argue to the death if someone loves a film that I hate. It's weird when you think about it.

Fun, though.
Fortunately, I think I'm the exact opposite of this.

[Wryan]

Watched the Ghostbusters remake to see what all the brouhaha was about. It's just sort of middling mostly. A lot of the material doesn't work. I thought Leslie Jones and Hemsworth were the only ones bringing the right verve to it. Also, the effects work had some real zing to it, a certain creativity in design and execution, so much so that it made clearer how much the rest doesn't work. It's deserving of a better vehicle, odd as it is to say. Overall, a harmless bit of flopsweat really.

[MadMan]

Black Christmas is great, creepy and well made.

I really enjoyed and liked the Ghostbusters remake. It suffers from some similar problems that the original had. Mainly too much FX in the last act. I prefer the animated late 80s series the best.

[Dukefrukem]

I remember Jennifer of the Jungle got me into Black Christmas. Excellent film.

And as for Ghostbusters. It was the worst film of 2016 for me. And I saw that TMNT sequel.

[Wryan]

Watched Baywatch, which was, naturally, just incredibly, ridiculously stupid, but also pretty funny in stretches.

[MadMan]

Watched Baywatch, which was, naturally, just incredibly, ridiculously stupid, but also pretty funny in stretches.

I never saw that one.

[Grouchy]

A friend of mine is asking me about a movie she remembers seeing that is about the creation of Hollywood, the patent conflict with Edison, United Artists... She doesn't remember much about it, only that at some point some hired goons destroy the movie sets they were building.

I'm haunted by this now. I think she might remember some scenes from Chaplin as a separate movie.

[baby doll]

A friend of mine is asking me about a movie she remembers seeing that is about the creation of Hollywood, the patent conflict with Edison, United Artists... She doesn't remember much about it, only that at some point some hired goons destroy the movie sets they were building.

I'm haunted by this now. I think she might remember some scenes from Chaplin as a separate movie.Might she be thinking of Peter Bogdanovich's Nickelodeon?

[Grouchy]

Might she be thinking of Peter Bogdanovich's Nickelodeon?
That was it! You're the best!

[Wryan]

Watched The Lobster. I'm interesting in seeing Lanthimos's other films to see if they have a little more oopmf than this, although there are some great sequences and some fine acting. With one of the big themes, as I see it, being about how we lie to ourselves and others to get into relationships we don't want to avoid being lonely/alone or feelings of persecution, I thought the casting of gay-in-real-life Ben Whishaw was a nice little extratextual touch re: closeting generally. Fuck, that dog though. Jesus. Really lovely photography as well.

EDIT: I really wanna see Dogtooth, but it's been difficult to track down. Not sure I really wanna buy it outright just for a viewing.

[Dukefrukem]

Would anyone be interested in a fun movie draft game? We draft one character from each of the categories below to form your Villain Team, then I'll make brackets where all of MC votes on which Evil Team wins in versus battle? Seeds would be automatically assigned as will draft order. We would need at least 6 participants.

Round 1: Marvel Villain
Round 2: DC Villain
Round 3: Space Villain
Round 4: Action Villain
Round 5: Fantasy Villain
Round 6: Horror Villain
Round 7: OTHER (pick a villain or antagonist from a movie that doesn't fall into the previous categories)
Round 8: Wild Card Pick - can be anything

[Lazlo]

Would anyone be interested in a fun movie draft game? We draft one character from each of the categories below to form your Villain Team, then I'll make brackets where all of MC votes on which Evil Team wins in versus battle? Seeds would be automatically assigned as will draft order. We would need at least 6 participants.

Round 1: Marvel Villain
Round 2: DC Villain
Round 3: Space Villain
Round 4: Action Villain
Round 5: Fantasy Villain
Round 6: Horror Villain
Round 7: OTHER (pick a villain or antagonist from a movie that doesn't fall into the previous categories)
Round 8: Wild Card Pick - can be anything

Yes. Sounds cool.

[Spinal]

I'll play. :)

[Dukefrukem]

Ok, I'll start a separate thread with rules and such.

Should the draft order reflect the seeding? Or should they be completely separate?

[Lazlo]

Ok, I'll start a separate thread with rules and such.

Should the draft order reflect the seeding? Or should they be completely separate?

I think maybe seeding and draft order should be separate and randomly assigned. Hard to do traditional seeding like in March Madness without a regular season record to go off of.

[Skitch]

Of course I'm in.

[PURPLE]

Watched The Lobster. I'm interesting in seeing Lanthimos's other films to see if they have a little more oopmf than this, although there are some great sequences and some fine acting. With one of the big themes, as I see it, being about how we lie to ourselves and others to get into relationships we don't want to avoid being lonely/alone or feelings of persecution, I thought the casting of gay-in-real-life Ben Whishaw was a nice little extratextual touch re: closeting generally. Fuck, that dog though. Jesus. Really lovely photography as well.

EDIT: I really wanna see Dogtooth, but it's been difficult to track down. Not sure I really wanna buy it outright just for a viewing....if you're in Charleston, SC...

https://www.ccpl.org/eds?query=dogtooth&catalog=eds

Libraries are the best.

[Wryan]

...if you're in Charleston, SC...

https://www.ccpl.org/eds?query=dogtooth&catalog=eds

Libraries are the best.

Oh shit, slick! Thanks!

[PURPLE]

Oh shit, slick! Thanks!I think seeing Dogtooth after The Lobster makes a lot of sense in that the latter is a bit more traditional... and it's funny that you mentioned the dog scene, because... well, you'll see!

[Ezee E]

Love these weird drafts back in the day. I'm in.

[Yxklyx]

....
EDIT: I really wanna see Dogtooth, but it's been difficult to track down. Not sure I really wanna buy it outright just for a viewing.

Dogtooth is definitely my favorite of his. He hasn't been able to capture the magic from that one since. Somewhat disappointed with the other two films I've seen by him.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Impostors - 1998 - Diverting enough screwball farce that never quite achieves the takeoff velocity of its inspirations but threw enough sideways laughs my way (and carried enough good-heartedness) to make for hundred unwasted minutes. Highlights included Campbell Scott as a staunch German security officer and Steve Buscemi as a suicidal drunk. Also, my new cinematic crush is sad-sack Hope Davis.

https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BYTA2MGMzMTEtYmFiYy00YzZkLW IxOWEtNjYzZjY3YmQ3MDg2XkEyXkFq cGdeQXVyMjUyNDk2ODc@._V1_.jpg

[Peng]

Finally watched the Fantasia sequel almost 3 months later (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?14-28-Film-Discussion-Threads-Later/page2701&p=589665#post589665). Fantasia 2000 (1999) feels much more slight, due to it working completely only for half of comic sections, and straining to capture the precursor's majestic feelings for serious ones, with "Symphony No. 5" and "Firebird Suite" being only solid (even though Firebird's resurrection makes for a stirring close). The CGI look of "Pines of Romes" ages so poorly, and "Piano Concerto No. 2" story of tin soldier feels underwhelming for the music. Worth it for the new immediate classic that is "Rhapsody in Blue" though; the style really evokes, in the best possible way, my nostalgic feeling of watching 101 Dalmatians as a kid. And "The Carnival of the Animals" is very good too, sometimes feeling almost a sequel to the first's "Dance of the Hours", even though it could stand to be much longer. 7/10

Rhapsody in Blue > The Carnival of the Animals > Firebird Suite > Symphony No. 5 > Pomp and Circumstance > Piano Concerto No. 2 > Pines of Romes

[Yxklyx]

So I bought a DVD of Demy's Lola a while back and it turns out it's in PAL format. Hmm, I think I should just sell or trade it away. I've read that some Blu Ray players can play it but I bet it's sped up even then. Is anyone here interested in it? I could sell it cheap or trade it...

[Peng]

Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1997) My first Herzog doc. There's immense power in horrific, grueling ordeal recalled by warm, infectiously good-spirited personality. It's a great match of director, subject, and a remarkable story. And after the perfect shot for the credit to go out on, that postscript hit me harder than I expected. 8.5/10

[Skitch]

Great doc.

[Dukefrukem]

What do you guys make of this scarlett johansson nonsense? Is she not an actor? Do actors not get to play roles that they are not?

[Skitch]

Do actors not get to play roles that they are not?

They do, but the vast majority of the time they stick to the gender and/or ethnicity of the character. Theres generally hub-bub when they don't.

[Dukefrukem]

They do, but the vast majority of the time they stick to the gender and/or ethnicity of the character. Theres generally hub-bub when they don't.

So do you blame her for accepting a role? A role that pays money?

[baby doll]

What do you guys make of this scarlett johansson nonsense? Is she not an actor? Do actors not get to play roles that they are not?If it's all just about talent, and anybody can play any part, then why are trans actors never cast as cis-gendered characters? I don't think it's constructive for people to attack Johansson personally (obviously this is a systemic problem), but the only way to make things better is for trans people and their allies to kick up a fuss and say that it's simply not good enough to cast Hillary Swank or Jared Leto when there are so few opportunities for trans actors.

[baby doll]

So do you blame her for accepting a role? A role that pays money?I'm sure there are lots of trans actors out there who need a pay check a lot more than Scarlett Johansson.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm sure there are lots of trans actors out there who need a pay check a lot more than Scarlett Johansson.

Are those trans actors going to pay back the studio when no one goes to see the movie?

I wonder sometimes that people forget Hollywood is a business.

[baby doll]

Are those trans actors going to pay back the studio when no one goes to see the movie?

I wonder sometimes that people forget Hollywood is a business.This is circular reasoning. How can there ever be a trans star in Hollywood if they're denied opportunities on the basis that there are no trans stars?

[Grouchy]

This is circular reasoning. How can there ever be a trans star in Hollywood if they're denied opportunities on the basis that there are no trans stars?
I think we'll eventually see one, but I do think it's rubbish people kicking up a fuss at Johansson or any actor who plays a trans character. Becoming trans is just one of the many experiences a body can go through and any actor can play it same as any other dramatic circumstance. End of the story there for me.

[Dukefrukem]

This is circular reasoning. How can there ever be a trans star in Hollywood if they're denied opportunities on the basis that there are no trans stars?

This goes for race, sexual orientation, sex, etc... but if I'm a business man, I'm going to be risk diverse to the millions of dollars that gets put into a movie, but hiring actors whos names stand out and who my audience wants to pay money to see.

[TGM]

The argument could be that you could hire the name actors who might attract audiences to play the non-trans characters in said movie, and cast the unknown trans actor in that role, which could then also act as a potential launching pad for their own career.

[Dukefrukem]

The argument could be that you could hire the name actors who might attract audiences to play the non-trans characters in said movie, and cast the unknown trans actor in that role, which could then also act as a potential launching pad for their own career.

We all get that, but if you have $50 million dollars, and you have the option to sign Brad Pitt or a no-name... who do you choose? No one would chose the no name. No one with $50 million. We can all sit by our keyboards and say we'd want the no name but that's just banter. There hasn't been a counter argument to this point made yet.

[baby doll]

We all get that, but if you have $50 million dollars, and you have the option to sign Brad Pitt or a no-name... who do you choose? No one would chose the no name. No one with $50 million. We can all sit by our keyboards and say we'd want the no name but that's just banter. There hasn't been a counter argument to this point made yet.Your argument implies that discriminatory hiring policies are justified if it means bigger profits. (Incidentally, didn't the Ghost in the Shell remake with Johansson bomb terribly at the box office?)

Putting aside this one film (which will almost certainly be terrible and bomb anyway), the fundamental problem is that Hollywood has not given trans actors the opportunities to become stars by casting them even in supporting roles (Johansson didn't become a star overnight either). That's why people are pushing back so strongly against this film because there won't be opportunities for trans actors going forward unless people demand it.

[transmogrifier]

I'm just not sure I agree with the basic premise, that playing the role of a trans person in a film is the natural right of a trans actor and that any other actor taking it is inherently wrong. In fact, I'm very sure I don't agree with that.

[Dukefrukem]

Your argument implies that discriminatory hiring policies are justified if it means bigger profits. (Incidentally, didn't the Ghost in the Shell remake with Johansson bomb terribly at the box office?)

Putting aside this one film (which will almost certainly be terrible and bomb anyway), the fundamental problem is that Hollywood has not given trans actors the opportunities to become stars by casting them even in supporting roles (Johansson didn't become a star overnight either). That's why people are pushing back so strongly against this film because there won't be opportunities for trans actors going forward unless people demand it.

Different argument though. How much worse would it have done if it starred a nobody? Rhetorical I know, but if they are using ScarJo as a martyr for Hollywood to hire more trans people, that's the wrong way to go about this. What has she done to Deserve this?

Exodus: Gods and Kings made $250 million WW. Cast three nobodies. Does it make the same amount of money?

[Stay Puft]

I'm just not sure I agree with the basic premise, that playing the role of a trans person in a film is the natural right of a trans actor and that any other actor taking it is inherently wrong. In fact, I'm very sure I don't agree with that.

The premise is more complex. Specifically, the problem is that trans actors can ONLY get trans roles. They are never considered for anything else. But high profile roles STILL do not go to trans actors, because as duke says, a Hollywood executive with $50 million is going to be far more comfortable casting a cis actor, if only for star power (a catch-22, as baby doll describes), but for other reasons also I'm sure (generally speaking, systemic transphobia).

It's just one step in a fight for representation.

[Stay Puft]

Also, nothing wrong with ScarJo taking a job, obviously, but her PR response was thoroughly tone deaf. And that can be freely criticized.

[baby doll]

if they are using ScarJo as a martyr for Hollywood to hire more trans people, that's the wrong way to go about this. What has she done to Deserve this?Lost in Translation, for starters.

[Skitch]

Lost in Translation, for starters.

I laughed, sincerely.

[transmogrifier]

It's just one step in a fight for representation.

To me, this is a separate issue, one which I'm fine with, as much as I am with affirmative action. I just don't think you can argue for greater representation based on the idea that roles in movies can only be played by actors that already embody the fundamental attributes of that role, otherwise something it is morally wrong. I mean, on a fundamental level, is there any real difference between insisting that a trans actor play trans roles and insisting gay actors play gay roles? And doesn't it also imply that old-age make-up and fat suits are also morally wrong?

Certainly, race is a much trickier issue, given that historically blackface and Rooneyesque Asian characters were used to perpetuate gross stereotypes, but I fundamentally do not have any problem with actors playing different races (I mean, do you object to Cliff Curtis, a Maori, playing an Arab in The Insider, for example?). Of course, there is very little point in casting a Caucasian actor to play African-American or Asian roles outside of it being an explicit part of the premise (hello, Tropic Thunder) because (a) there are a million great Asian and African-American actors and (b) it would destroy all immersion for the audience for the icky historical connotations of it all. Now, in the case of trans actors, neither (a) nor (b) hold true (for me at least - in the case of (b), technically anyone can choose to become trans if they want to....), so it is not surprising that you get Johannson and Tambor and Redmayne and Swank in these roles.

Of course, if a movie studio wants to say, "no, we are only going to cast a trans actor," then good for them. Anyone who complained about SJWs and PC society and crap like that would have to be someone with a serious problem, I think.

[PURPLE]

The idea that businesses are going to shift culture to a more understanding place by going against the grain of the culture at large and risking losing a bunch of money is a bit silly. Sure, it'd be great, but it will never happen, and if it did happen, it would probably result in the persons making it happen being fired, at which point it will no longer happen again. Big businesses can be used to confirm that cultural change has happened much more readily than to lead that change.

That being said, it's not like Middle America is going to rush out to see a film about a trans person, anyway. Certainly not with an unknown actress in the lead. If they happen to see the film at all, it will likely be because of Scarlet, not in spite of her. And, in that way, Big Business may just shift culture a bit by generating some understanding and empathy - but only by casting a non-unknown actress who, by nature of past and present discrimination against trans actresses, must be a cis actress. More than likely, though - the film is going to lose a bunch of money, because American culture still isn't accepting of trans people. They may get some awards, though, which will do... nothing. Maybe get them blamed for exploiting trans people more than they are already.

When discrimination exists, there are so many ways to lose, and so few ways to win.

[Peng]

The announcement alone hasn't caused this intense backlash, but it's from her "who cares about them, those awards-winning people do it" whataboutism that truly launches it off. (Some (http://richerlandtv.tumblr.com/post/175604809652/themacklemorebrothers-image-description-is) memes (https://twitter.com/tchallavenger/status/1014352513804496896) come out (https://twitter.com/joshieers/status/1014716313753833474) of it (https://twitter.com/josemonr3/status/1015426411933372417) at least)

I'm just gonna quote people's (online) words I agree wtih:


Trans roles should, when possible, go to trans people. Why? Because trans people have limited opportunities in general in gaining roles and denying them their own stories is particularly egregious. They don't get many cis roles because they're trans and then they don't even get trans roles because cis people do. They essentially don't get roles, period. That is the disadvantage they face because they are trans. The solution is to have trans people get more roles overall, which we can easily do by ensuring they have priority for their own stories. And when a good trans actor is as likely to get a cis role as a cis actor, then the disadvantage will be gone and we can start being less concerned about a cis actor playing a trans actor.

Meanwhile, cis actors have no problem getting cis roles or trans roles. They don't face any disadvantage because they are cis. So there is no reason a trans actor cannot have a cis role because, unlike the reverse, it doesn't perpetuate disadvantage against cis actors.


"The whole point of acting is to play a role different than yourself. The only one that crosses the line is playing a different race imo."


This rubs me the wrong way. They can still hire trans actors and have them be playing someone different from themselves. Not to dismiss the importance of their transition, and the profound effect it has on trans people’s lives, but there is more to transgender people than being trans, and many of them have different experiences. The whole point of the outrage is that if trans people are not even cast for trans roles, what makes you think anyone will cast them for cisgender characters?

We can sit here and play devil’s advocate all we want, but the fact remains that your thesaurus definition of what acting means is not going to give any upcoming trans actors any roles.


I am not the one to talk about trans issues since I am myself a CIS man but what I also find so weird with how Hollywood cast transgender characters with CIS actors is that they never ever respect the transgender character (which many time happens to have been a real-life person). Lili Elbe was a transgender woman and felt like a woman. Hollywood cast a male CIS actor. Thus, forever linking Lili Elbe to the gender she was assigned to at birth. Viewers then think that "from the beginning she was a man" with Eddie Redmayne appearing on talk shows etc. as a CIS man. Hope I made myself understandable.

A transgender actor playing a transgender character should be prioritized, but I just do not understand why transgender characters always have to be played by an actor of the gender they were assigned with at birth (hope I use the right expression). Felicity Hoffman in Transamerica is an exception.

Only adding to the last quote that it's especially reinforced when those win awards, like Leto and Tambor, as best supporting actor and best actor, respectively.

[Grouchy]

I agree with everything trans said, ironically.


Specifically, the problem is that trans actors can ONLY get trans roles. They are never considered for anything else.
Isn't this also a Catch-22, though?

[Skitch]

I've been reading along and there have been many good points on both sides here and I dont really have any answers. I will chuck this into the conversation though, (and before anyone even suggests it, NO, I am not comparing trans to a handicap) what about amputees? I wonder if amputees feel annoyed at Lt Dan and Furiosa when a real amputee could have had a role? Not taking anything away from those great performances, but The Crippled Masters starred two nobody's and is eyeball melting incredible.

I get it. Casting unknowns can be a risk, but stirring controversy can be a bigger risk. It seems more prudent to go with lower budget and avoid controversy imo, but this conversation also seems like a case by case basis. Particularly in a trans situation as a person begins one way and ends another. Is the story primarily before or after said self-realization? I think that weighs in.

[Grouchy]

I've been reading along and there have been many good points on both sides here and I dont really have any answers. I will chuck this into the conversation though, (and before anyone even suggests it, NO, I am not comparing trans to a handicap) what about amputees? I wonder if amputees feel annoyed at Lt Dan and Furiosa when a real amputee could have had a role? Not taking anything away from those great performances, but The Crippled Masters starred two nobody's and is eyeball melting incredible.

I get it. Casting unknowns can be a risk, but stirring controversy can be a bigger risk. It seems more prudent to go with lower budget and avoid controversy imo, but this conversation also seems like a case by case basis. Particularly in a trans situation as a person begins one way and ends another. Is the story primarily before or after said self-realization? I think that weighs in.
Some of those points were actually raised against the casting of a biopic of quadriplegic cartoonist John Callahan starring Joaquin Phoenix. And my objection back then was... well, what if the film has scenes set before his accident? And that turned out to be the case.

[baby doll]

The idea that businesses are going to shift culture to a more understanding place by going against the grain of the culture at large and risking losing a bunch of money is a bit silly. Sure, it'd be great, but it will never happen, and if it did happen, it would probably result in the persons making it happen being fired, at which point it will no longer happen again. Big businesses can be used to confirm that cultural change has happened much more readily than to lead that change.

That being said, it's not like Middle America is going to rush out to see a film about a trans person, anyway. Certainly not with an unknown actress in the lead. If they happen to see the film at all, it will likely be because of Scarlet, not in spite of her. And, in that way, Big Business may just shift culture a bit by generating some understanding and empathy - but only by casting a non-unknown actress who, by nature of past and present discrimination against trans actresses, must be a cis actress. More than likely, though - the film is going to lose a bunch of money, because American culture still isn't accepting of trans people. They may get some awards, though, which will do... nothing. Maybe get them blamed for exploiting trans people more than they are already.

When discrimination exists, there are so many ways to lose, and so few ways to win.One way to win is to stop participating in discrimination yourself. The idea that "Middle-America" is transphobic so Hollywood gets a pass for discriminating against trans actors--not just in this film but any film in any part--is a lazy rationalization for discriminatory hiring policies that no one would accept in any other industry.

[Grouchy]

One way to win is to stop participating in discrimination yourself. The idea that "Middle-America" is transphobic so Hollywood gets a pass for discriminating against trans actors--not just in this film but any film in any part--is a lazy rationalization for discriminatory hiring policies that no one would accept in any other industry.
But how can it be discrimination when literally anyone can become trans if they so desire?

[baby doll]

But how can it be discrimination when literally anyone can become trans if they so desire?Being a member of a minority group often depends on self-identification: Gays can stay in the closet, light-skinned black folk can pass for white, and Cliff Curtis (as has already been pointed out) can pass for anything. That does not preclude discrimination of people who self-identify as gay, black, Maori, or transgender.

[Irish]

If Hollywood can transform Andy Serkis into an ape, they could have found a way to hire a disabled actor for the part of John Callahan.

Editing? Shooting? CGI? Animation? Rotoscoping?

Or hell, just hire two different actors to play the role.

The idea that Phoenix---or any able-bodied actor---was required because there were scenes before his accident demonstrates a basic failure of imagination. It also telegraphs that the producers intend to make a standard biopic. Who needs another one of those?

Anyway, I'd like someone in the trade press to ask the Wachowski siblings what they think of Scarjo and this new project.

(I'd also like to know why, as a producer, you wouldn't immediately call them up. The Wachowskis have good experience making crime pics with doses of action. Sanders doesn't.)

[TGM]

(I'd also like to know why, as a producer, you wouldn't immediately call them up. The Wachowskis have good experience making crime pics with doses of action. Sanders doesn't.)

I would assume this has to do with the fact that all of their movies since The Matrix have been pretty notorious box office bombs.

[Irish]

I will chuck this into the conversation though, (and before anyone even suggests it, NO, I am not comparing trans to a handicap) what about amputees? I wonder if amputees feel annoyed at Lt Dan and Furiosa when a real amputee could have had a role?.

I saw a social media post when "Fury Road" came out written by a young woman who had the exact same injury as Furiosa does in that film. She was overjoyed to see any representation of herself on screen, and then twice again because it was Charlize Fucking Theron kicking ass across the desert. So that was cool to read. But then neither the film nor the character were about the disability.

With Callahan, everything about him was about his accident, his injury, and his recovery.

[Irish]

I would assume this has to do with the fact that all of their movies since The Matrix have been pretty notorious box office bombs.

Sure. But Sanders has like no track record. "Snow White and the Huntsmen" and "Ghost in the Shell" both bombed with domestic audiences. How does he keep getting these gigs?

I mean, if we're gonna roll the dice on what will probably be a mid-budget production, I'd rather go with the sisters who have a few successful films under their belt and obviously loads of interesting ideas in their heads than the dude who has made two mediocre, wannabe-blockbusters.

[PURPLE]

One way to win is to stop participating in discrimination yourself. The idea that "Middle-America" is transphobic so Hollywood gets a pass for discriminating against trans actors--not just in this film but any film in any part--is a lazy rationalization for discriminatory hiring policies that no one would accept in any other industry.It's not a discriminatory hiring policy that no one would accept in any other industry, because the product involves a person that people actively discriminate against with their dollars - and not necessarily due to their gender role, but also due to their popularity. Even a non-discriminatory person will discriminate against a film casting an unknown trans actor vs. Scarlet because of the relative popularity of Scarlet vs all trans actors in the culture of existing systemic discrimination against trans actors. Sucks, but it's facts.

As for discriminating against Middle America, it is true that I am assuming that these people discriminate. It's also true that this part of the country discriminates using their words and using their dollars. One of the reasons that Middle America is discriminatory is because it is not as densely populated as larger cities and because minorities choose not to live there, which makes the best treatment for discriminatory beliefs (exposure to people that you are discriminating against) more likely to persist.

As for the difference between my discrimination and their discrimination: Is my discrimination actively harming "Middle America"? Not that I know of, but I could be wrong. Whenever I pass through, I see a much higher concentration of Confederate flags and a much lower concentration of mountainous terrain, so I'm not that interested in investigating further.

Is the best way to stop discrimination by pretending it doesn't exist and refusing to acknowledge where it exists most? This seems odd to me, and this is why I don't do it.

[baby doll]

It's not a discriminatory hiring policy that no one would accept in any other industry, because the product involves a person that people actively discriminate against with their dollars - and not necessarily due to their gender role, but also due to their popularity. Even a non-discriminatory person will discriminate against a film casting an unknown trans actor vs. Scarlet because of the relative popularity of Scarlet vs all trans actors in the culture of existing systemic discrimination against trans actors. Sucks, but it's facts/To elaborate on a point I brought up earlier, Scarlett Johansson didn't become a bankable star instantly; she had to have smaller parts in films like Ghost World before she could land bigger roles in films like Lost in Translation and later Ghost in the Shell. Obviously dropping a completely unknown trans actor into a starring role in a mid-range film would be a box office disaster; the problem is trans actors don't get the sort of small roles Johansson had when she was younger that would potentially lead to them becoming stars further down the road.

[Ezee E]

Isn't it sort of a passion project from Scarlett anyway? She's producing it as well, picked her director of choice (I'm guessing) and starring in it.

[PURPLE]

To elaborate on a point I brought up earlier, Scarlett Johansson didn't become a bankable star instantly; she had to have smaller parts in films like Ghost World before she could land bigger roles in films like Lost in Translation and later Ghost in the Shell. Obviously dropping a completely unknown trans actor into a starring role in a mid-range film would be a box office disaster; the problem is trans actors don't get the sort of small roles Johansson had when she was younger that would potentially lead to them becoming stars further down the road.I never disagreed with that point. Casting a trans person in this role would probably result in lesser box office performance, which would hurt the possibility of more films featuring trans characters or trans actors. Criticizing a cis person being cast in this film will probably result in lesser box office performance, which will hurt the possibility of more films featuring trans characters or trans actors.

Business follows money. Culture follows art. Art can only affect culture if business puts forth the money. It's inherently a reactive system. To make it proactive you need money. To find this money, you need to subsidize a film prior to it being released with money that is not tied to box office performance. Who should do this? In my mind, the government, since it will result in a move toward equal opportunity not only for trans actors but also for trans people in general as the stigma toward being a trans person is reduced. Is this going to happen in America? Absolutely not. Is there another way to make this happen? Sure, through something like Kickstarter. Is this going to happen? Unlikely, unfortunately. And, if it did, it would likely need to be funded disproportionately by the very community which is already being discriminated against and has less money to begin with. America is not good at progress.

[baby doll]

I never disagreed with that point. Casting a trans person in this role would probably result in lesser box office performance, which would hurt the possibility of more films featuring trans characters or trans actors. Criticizing a cis person being cast in this film will probably result in lesser box office performance, which will hurt the possibility of more films featuring trans characters or trans actors.If studio execs are deciding whether or not films with trans characters are viable based on the box office take of this one movie, that's a problem.

Personally I'm fairly optimistic that there's going to be a mainstream trans star in the next couple years, even if this movie tanks. Obviously nobody's going to see a film just because it has a generic trans actor in it, but if it has an actor people know and like who just happens to be trans, people will go to see it.

[PURPLE]

If studio execs are deciding whether or not films with trans characters are viable based on the box office take of this one movie, that's a problem.

Personally I'm fairly optimistic that there's going to be a mainstream trans star in the next couple years, even if this movie tanks. Obviously nobody's going to see a film just because it has a generic trans actor in it, but if it has an actor people know and like who just happens to be trans, people will go to see it.If you say that trans actors have trouble getting cast, then how is this actor who is trans going to become well known? I don't see it happening until the stigma is not only removed, but shown to be financially successful. That's far more likely to happen through a huge name playing a trans role than "good faith" casting of a trans actor in a role major enough to generate a "mainstream star". Good faith couldn't even get rid of "rampant sexual abuse", and we're hoping for "cultural acceptance"? Seems a hoop dream to me.

I don't think studio executives will decide casting trans characters based on the box office take of this one movie. I certainly think they will decide to not cast based on there only being one trans film, and it doing poorly, or based on several trans films all receiving bad press for cis actors playing in roles that the studio refuses to cast a trans actor in. I think there are many things that need to go right for a studio to risk money on "social acceptance", and few things to go wrong. Negative press for casting a big name star? That's already something going wrong.

As I see it, the answer to the real world dilemma of "How do we get trans people to be treated equally in Hollywood - soon?" is, "Use money not tied to box office performance, or support casting big name cis actors in trans roles." The assumption that "things will just work themselves out" is one that won't involve "soon" in any way, I don't think, unfortunately.

[Peng]

I read Mark Harris' Pictures as a Revolution not long ago and it makes me wonder if this board is set back 50-60 years ago, we would be having the same "that's the way it is" convo as well, until a few years later where "the way" proved to not be set in stone and broke apart easily for other new ways to come in.

[Grouchy]

If Hollywood can transform Andy Serkis into an ape, they could have found a way to hire a disabled actor for the part of John Callahan.

Editing? Shooting? CGI? Animation? Rotoscoping?

Or hell, just hire two different actors to play the role.

The idea that Phoenix---or any able-bodied actor---was required because there were scenes before his accident demonstrates a basic failure of imagination. It also telegraphs that the producers intend to make a standard biopic. Who needs another one of those?

Anyway, I'd like someone in the trade press to ask the Wachowski siblings what they think of Scarjo and this new project.

(I'd also like to know why, as a producer, you wouldn't immediately call them up. The Wachowskis have good experience making crime pics with doses of action. Sanders doesn't.)
This seems pretty ridiculous to me. On one side there's a very practical, sensible solution (casting a great actor as the protagonist of your film and having him act paralysis) and then there's a bunch of nonsense ones (using CGI to make another actor look like he's walking, hiring two different actors who are similar but one of them is quadriplegic, etc.) and I can't even understand if you're serious when you expect a film production to go with the silly ideas. Why would anyone complicate a shoot like that? Because of some butthurt quadriplegic writing an e-mail? Because... quadriplegic people have a monopoly on playing quadriplegic people? The conversation gets absurd pretty fast.

[Irish]

Why would anyone complicate a shoot like that?

Why indeed.


https://i.imgur.com/r1EdE55.jpg?1


Why find a creative solution to an obvious problem when you can shoot the same biopic everyone's seen multiple times already? Why be artistically daring? Why present anything new? Why challenge audiences?

[baby doll]

If you say that trans actors have trouble getting cast, then how is this actor who is trans going to become well known? I don't see it happening until the stigma is not only removed, but shown to be financially successful. That's far more likely to happen through a huge name playing a trans role than "good faith" casting of a trans actor in a role major enough to generate a "mainstream star". Good faith couldn't even get rid of "rampant sexual abuse", and we're hoping for "cultural acceptance"? Seems a hoop dream to me.

I don't think studio executives will decide casting trans characters based on the box office take of this one movie. I certainly think they will decide to not cast based on there only being one trans film, and it doing poorly, or based on several trans films all receiving bad press for cis actors playing in roles that the studio refuses to cast a trans actor in. I think there are many things that need to go right for a studio to risk money on "social acceptance", and few things to go wrong. Negative press for casting a big name star? That's already something going wrong.

As I see it, the answer to the real world dilemma of "How do we get trans people to be treated equally in Hollywood - soon?" is, "Use money not tied to box office performance, or support casting big name cis actors in trans roles." The assumption that "things will just work themselves out" is one that won't involve "soon" in any way, I don't think, unfortunately.I think you're conflating two issues. The first is the stigma against trans people in the general culture, which is neither as widespread nor as insurmountable as you're making it out to be. Fifteen years ago, most Americans were against equal rights for gay people. There are not that many genuine bigots; most people are idiots who are incapable of critical thinking and follow the herd wherever it happens to be going. The other, separate issue is opportunities for trans actors. How will they get famous? The same way Johansson did: years of plugging away at supporting roles in indie and mid-range projects until they get a serious break. And the only way for that to happen is for people to put significant public pressure on studios to hire trans actors, as is happening now because of the Johansson picture. Casting cis-gender actors in trans roles, while justifiable in theory, does nothing to help trans actors. The only way to help trans actors is to give them jobs.

[PURPLE]

If there is so little stigma against trans people, then why has there not been a "mainstream trans star" thus far? There has been a huge change toward the knowledge of and beliefs toward gay people, primarily around changing the idea that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" and something that you can "pray away", which are now both widely acknowledged as nonsense where before it wasn't. I haven't seen that happen for trans people, and I don't know that there will be a lightning rod like gay marriage for trans people to spread understanding, and I think the experience of a trans person is far, far less understood in the general populace than homosexuality.

We'll see in a couple years, but I will be hugely unsurprised if there has been little to no movement in mainstream culture with regards to trans people. I think this is because there is so little understanding, and understanding will certainly not be generated in "a couple of years" by a few films with trans characters and no-name trans actors. Scarlett went from a no-name indie film star to a mainstream star because she was acknowledged as one of the most beautiful people on the planet, and she fit squarely into the status quo. The idea that the same path will work just the same for someone outside of the status quo seems ill formed, to me. Especially in only "a couple of years", basically 5 years shorter than Scarlett's trajectory from Ghost World indie queen to comic book side-character (not even the top of the world).

[Wryan]

I think there will be a widely successful, talented and popular closeted trans actor before a widely successful, talented and popular non-closeted trans actor (I know--we're getting ever more granular by degrees). I'm talking so quiet, and so successfully passing, that even their agents and managers don't know. But then we'd not distinguish them from a cis counterpart, hence part of the problem. Visibility and representation would seem to form the fulcrum around which this balances. Would it be wrong to stay "closeted" in such a scenario? When Ed Skrein left that role, I think that was a solid, reasonable, defensible choice. I think the nature of the business won't change until it's compelled to. At the same time, I'm not sure I'm convinced that "trans nature" = "racial nature" when it comes to who "deserves" to be considered for a role. Yet I also agree that their choices are so much more limited in the first place. Hire more trans people to play either gender for starters, maybe. Gimme a trans woman playing a feminine gay man. Let's roll deep in this bitch.

[Grouchy]

Why indeed.


https://i.imgur.com/r1EdE55.jpg?1


Why find a creative solution to an obvious problem when you can shoot the same biopic everyone's seen multiple times already? Why be artistically daring? Why present anything new? Why challenge audiences?
I haven't seen that Brian Wilson biopic so I can't comment on it, but it seems to me the dual casting is purposefully done to represent two very different stages of the same man's life. It seems to me that it serves a purpose. Andy Serkis transformed into an ape is done so you can have a convincing, emotional talking ape character - it's technology at the service of storytelling, not a hat trick whose sole purpose is itself.

If you can have the same (excellent) actor play a character before and after an accident, why would you hire a handicapped person and go to the trouble of faking him walking around? Keep in mind it's got to be a handicapped person who can act as well as Joaquin Phoenix.

[Peng]

I don't mind Gyllenhaal being in Stronger (and I think the film didn't have negative press anyway), but the Phoenix point makes me immediately flash back to that film and reminds of how "star power" and "already established excellent actor" can really apply anytime to any situation, because conversely why would you hire an able person and go to the trouble of faking him being an amputee for the majority of the film?

btw I was on phone earlier and didn't elaborate that "the way it is" I got partially from reading Mark Harris book is that the book makes me think of when I watched Elia Kazan's Pinky. The story concerns a white-passing black woman in the role in which they cast a white woman, even if there were black women who fit this role and were interested in it (you can look it up in the film's wiki). I was wondering if the discussion after the casting controversy then will be similar to now, about how casting a black actor in good, appropriate role just "isn't the way it is", "is not commercial" or "there is no black actor that will draw the crowd". And then not long after Sidney Poitier broke out.

[Grouchy]

A key point of this discussion to me is that it has nothing to do with racial features, that's a whole different can of worms. I mean, disguising a white guy as black or chinese looks exactly like that, a disguise, and one with very negative historical connotations. But anyone can dress himself as the opposite sex or act handicapped.

[baby doll]

If there is so little stigma against trans people, then why has there not been a "mainstream trans star" thus far? There has been a huge change toward the knowledge of and beliefs toward gay people, primarily around changing the idea that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" and something that you can "pray away", which are now both widely acknowledged as nonsense where before it wasn't. I haven't seen that happen for trans people, and I don't know that there will be a lightning rod like gay marriage for trans people to spread understanding, and I think the experience of a trans person is far, far less understood in the general populace than homosexuality.

We'll see in a couple years, but I will be hugely unsurprised if there has been little to no movement in mainstream culture with regards to trans people. I think this is because there is so little understanding, and understanding will certainly not be generated in "a couple of years" by a few films with trans characters and no-name trans actors. Scarlett went from a no-name indie film star to a mainstream star because she was acknowledged as one of the most beautiful people on the planet, and she fit squarely into the status quo. The idea that the same path will work just the same for someone outside of the status quo seems ill formed, to me. Especially in only "a couple of years", basically 5 years shorter than Scarlett's trajectory from Ghost World indie queen to comic book side-character (not even the top of the world).One reason there hasn't been a mainstream gay trans star up till now is there hasn't been any significant public pushback against casting cis actors in trans roles, like we're seeing now with the Johansson film. Until recently there was no incentive for studio execs to cast trans actors in any role.

Regarding the broader culture, I don't think the general public is necessarily more understanding about gay people now than they were fifteen years ago. At a certain point, it was simply no longer socially acceptable to hate on gay people anymore and, if people were genuinely anti-gay, they stopped saying it out loud. You don't convince people; you just shame them into acting right.

In a sense, that's what's happening now for studio execs who cast cis actors in trans roles. If people shame them enough for not casting trans actors, eventually they'll feel like they have to do it.

[PURPLE]

One reason there hasn't been a mainstream gay trans star up till now is there hasn't been any significant public pushback against casting cis actors in trans roles, like we're seeing now with the Johansson film. Until recently there was no incentive for studio execs to cast trans actors in any role.

Regarding the broader culture, I don't think the general public is necessarily more understanding about gay people now than they were fifteen years ago. At a certain point, it was simply no longer socially acceptable to hate on gay people anymore and, if people were genuinely anti-gay, they stopped saying it out loud. You don't convince people; you just shame them into acting right.

In a sense, that's what's happening now for studio execs who cast cis actors in trans roles. If people shame them enough for not casting trans actors, eventually they'll feel like they have to do it.A sizable number of Hollywood actors and actresses were already gay, they just didn't come out publicly. Once they did, it still took decades for a reasonable number of films featuring gay people to come out, and there are still next to none in big-budget films. It wasn't like there was a wait for a gay star in Hollywood - there were dozens, merely without announcing it. Also, there is a demonstrable increase in private acknowledgement of the need for gay rights through anonymous surveys of the general population, which has nothing to do with shame. I highly doubt there has been a similar change with attitudes toward trans people.

There is no incentive at all for studio execs to make films with trans characters at all - far easier to make none at all. Scarlett's film is being made because she's moving the ball forward, not being requested by a studio. I guess it is true that studio execs may cast 100% of the 0 films featuring trans characters with trans actors moving forward, but that doesn't seem like progress.

[baby doll]

A sizable number of Hollywood actors and actresses were already gay, they just didn't come out publicly. Once they did, it still took decades for a reasonable number of films featuring gay people to come out, and there are still next to none in big-budget films. It wasn't like there was a wait for a gay star in Hollywood - there were dozens, merely without announcing it. Also, there is a demonstrable increase in private acknowledgement of the need for gay rights through anonymous surveys of the general population, which has nothing to do with shame. I highly doubt there has been a similar change with attitudes toward trans people.

There is no incentive at all for studio execs to make films with trans characters at all - far easier to make none at all. Scarlett's film is being made because she's moving the ball forward, not being requested by a studio. I guess it is true that studio execs may cast 100% of the 0 films featuring trans characters with trans actors moving forward, but that doesn't seem like progress.Of course, all minority groups are underrepresented in mainstream filmmaking, but one can still point to high profile films with black, Asian, and openly gay actors in them. I don't see why trans people are so beyond the pale that even the sort of limited representation you see for other minority groups--to say nothing of broader acceptance in the culture, whether genuine or conformist--would be unthinkable in the near future, especially if trans actors start getting steady work playing supporting roles in mainstream films (possibly even as cisgender characters).

Also, it's not as if the Johansson film were some kind of unique test case for films and TV shows with trans characters: films like Boys Don't Cry and Transamerica and the TV show Transparent have all shown that there is a fairly substantial audience for trans content. It seems unlikely that Hollywood is suddenly going to stop making the occasional mid-range film or TV show with a trans protagonist because people are being mean to Scarlett Johansson on Twitter. It's not unthinkable even that a trans actor might get a leading role in a mid-range studio production in the next few years.

[PURPLE]

Of course, all minority groups are underrepresented in mainstream filmmaking, but one can still point to high profile films with black, Asian, and openly gay actors in them. I don't see why trans people are so beyond the pale that even the sort of limited representation you see for other minority groups--to say nothing of broader acceptance in the culture, whether genuine or conformist--would be unthinkable in the near future, especially if trans actors start getting steady work playing supporting roles in mainstream films (possibly even as cisgender characters).

Also, it's not as if the Johansson film were some kind of unique test case for films and TV shows with trans characters: films like Boys Don't Cry and Transamerica and the TV show Transparent have all shown that there is a fairly substantial audience for trans content. It seems unlikely that Hollywood is suddenly going to stop making the occasional mid-range film or TV show with a trans protagonist because people are being mean to Scarlett Johansson on Twitter. It's not unthinkable even that a trans actor might get a leading role in a mid-range studio production in the next few years.In my experience, the average person's cognitive distance between race or between sexual preference is much, much smaller than gender identity. I don't even think it's common for people to understand that there can be a difference between sex and gender. Furthermore, the visibility of all of those other categories is hugely disproportionately higher than trans people. Try to find a list of people that came out as gay last year and you'll find huge lists. Trans? Not so much. You'll find some things on Caitlyn Jenner, and far, far more of it is dismissive, ignorant, or hateful than makes any sense.

I'm not convinced that 1 mildly successful independent film / cable tv show per decade is indicative of a substantial audience. Do you really think those films are indicative of a "substantial audience"? None of the films made enough to pay for a mid-size studio film budget, and they don't even make those films anymore. I don't disagree that a trans person could get cast in a mid-range film or TV show in the near future - but a single casting is a far, far cry from being a "mainstream star" as you mentioned earlier. I think you're greatly underestimating the cultural divide that still needs to be crossed by trans people, unfortunately. I wish things were as rosy as you make them seem!

[Grouchy]

Also, it's not as if the Johansson film were some kind of unique test case for films and TV shows with trans characters: films like Boys Don't Cry and Transamerica and the TV show Transparent have all shown that there is a fairly substantial audience for trans content. It seems unlikely that Hollywood is suddenly going to stop making the occasional mid-range film or TV show with a trans protagonist because people are being mean to Scarlett Johansson on Twitter. It's not unthinkable even that a trans actor might get a leading role in a mid-range studio production in the next few years.
This is interesting to me. I recognize myself as old fashioned when it comes to transgender people. Like, I know this singer who now has no fucking gender. I still don't understand how that's possible. I'm not sure if it's real or a con. And I'd like to believe it's real.

Shaming Scarlett doesn't convince me of anything.

[Peng]

This is interesting to me. I recognize myself as old fashioned when it comes to transgender people. Like, I know this singer who now has no fucking gender. I still don't understand how that's possible. I'm not sure if it's real or a con. And I'd like to believe it's real.

I follow some transgender film critics long enough to see your past descriptions, especially using the word "choice" and also this post doubting someone's realness (I mean, it's possible that this person isn't genuine, but to give this example and not give information about them in a discussion such as this really digs into some very old stereotypical notions against them as real people), a bit troubling. Not too long ago aren't people questioning this about gay people too?


Shaming Scarlett doesn't convince me of anything.

Shaming Scarlett might convince her though, because (a) even as someone who likes Ghost in the Shell, I find it almost hilarious that she chooses to team up with this exact director with almost the exact same controversy, just with another American minority group, to regurgitate the whole thing over again. That almost indicates her lack of empathy, but there are still enough room for good-faith arguments for her, if not for (as have been mentioned in this thread before) (b) her response, which is one of the worst non-politics whataboutism I have seen. I still love her as an actress but this really puts a very bad insight into her thought process, in that she doesn't care, or have very little empathy about, the film's topic any more than the acclaims and/or awards that past performers associated with this topic have received.

[Grouchy]

I have to admit that, though I'm not embarassed of my post and it's true that I know a singer who claims to have no gender, I have no memory of writing it.

Maybe I should drink less.

[Milky Joe]

http://www.afterellen.com/general-news/561449-why-attack-scarlett-johansson-the-real-problem-is-media-rewriting-butch-lesbian-history-again


Scarlett Johansson just landed a new role. And while people are complaining the role should be played by a “trans man,” lesbians have pointed out that the character she’s playing in the new film Rub & Tug, Dante Gill, was a “butch” lesbian, not trans. Even in Dante Gill’s own obituary, Gill is described as an “unabashed lesbian,” because that’s exactly how the notorious butch-les self-identified while alive.

This whole argument is moot.

[Skitch]

Maybe I should drink less.
Lets not get crazy.

[Ivan Drago]

While I do feel like actors should always strive to play roles outside of their comfort zone and continue to grow themselves as artists, and filmmakers should work with whoever they're comfortable with, representation ultimately does matter and between Scarlett's response and studio plant Rupert Sanders at the helm of the movie, this whole deal reeks of a project made solely for awards acclaim and that's more than a little shitty. But, such is Hollywood: the land of lip service and double standards.

[Ezee E]

https://image.ibb.co/bFwHE8/2_P7_SWVWbm2a7vsb_L76_Mp_Zja_M q_Ip_Iue99b2_XDbz5b_Jb_U.png

[Ivan Drago]

DJ Khaled has strange taste.

Speaking of which, the indie theater I go to is doing a series of staff picks for the summer and I promised one of my friends who works there that I would go to his pick, no matter what it was.

Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom has long been one of the five movies I've said I will never see.

It won't be for too much longer.

[Skitch]

I tried watching it once. Good luck.

[baby doll]

DJ Khaled has strange taste.

Speaking of which, the indie theater I go to is doing a series of staff picks for the summer and I promised one of my friends who works there that I would go to his pick, no matter what it was.

Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom has long been one of the five movies I've said I will never see.

It won't be for too much longer.I've seen it twice, which is twice too many times. It's a deliberately alienating film: There's no story to speak of and Pasolini isn't doing anything interesting stylistically either. In other words, your friend sucks at picking Pasolini films, because there are at least half a dozen that are flat-out brilliant.

[Ezee E]

It's... Not good. I think people claim to like it just for the ick factor.

[Irish]

there are at least half a dozen that are flat-out brilliant.

Care to throw out a few titles? I've seen nothing. What's a good entry point?

[Grouchy]

Care to throw out a few titles? I've seen nothing. What's a good entry point?
I'm not baby but Teorema.

[baby doll]

Care to throw out a few titles? I've seen nothing. What's a good entry point?My favourites, in roughly descending order, are Teorema, Il fiore delle mille e una notte, Accattone!, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, The Hawks and the Sparrows, Mamma Roma, and Oedipus Rex.

[baby doll]

Bertolucci's La commare secca, which Pasolini wrote, is also pretty terrific.

[Spinal]

I'm an admirer of Salo. I don't think it's about story. It's about constructing the surreal perverse cruelty of fascism and it does so in a way that's highly effective and appropriately disturbing. I would think it would resonate right now. It's the kind of gonzo artistic vision that makes the 70s so great.

I'll add another voice in support of Teorema , which is the best Pasolini film I've seen.

[Yxklyx]

Not much of a fan of Pasolini but I liked Teorema and Mamma Roma a lot. Salo was just pretty dull. It hasn't aged well but I can see why it was talked about when it was released.

[TGM]

Whelp, it appears Scarlett Johansson's dropped put of the project as a result of the backlash, so I guess that's that.

[Dukefrukem]

I was organizing my rankings in Letterboxd this morning and I think I've determined that 2005 was the worst year for cinema ever. I've never seen so many 1 and 1.5 star groupings before.

And 2012 and 1968 and 1954 are the best.

[Grouchy]

2005 is also my weakest year for the 'aughts.

An acquaintance of mine posted a letter of congratulations to Scarlett for having quit the project. I wonder if he realizes that she was essentially forced to by the backlash.

[Lazlo]

I was organizing my rankings in Letterboxd this morning and I think I've determined that 2005 was the worst year for cinema ever. I've never seen so many 1 and 1.5 star groupings before.

And 2012 and 1968 and 1954 are the best.

How'd you figure that out? I feel like a dummy but I can't think off the top of my head how to figure that stat without just sorting and counting manually.

[Dukefrukem]

How'd you figure that out? I feel like a dummy but I can't think off the top of my head how to figure that stat without just sorting and counting manually.

Unfortunately that was all I was doing. I am making a list of each year with the films I've seen and rank them using the LIST VIEW.

https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/2005/

[TGM]

So I finally watched all two of George Lucas' non-Star Wars movies that he directed. THX 1138 was alright, a decent directorial debut. I've seen about a million other movies that are almost exactly like it, and without doing any research, I'm not sure how many of those came out before this or not, so I can't say for sure how influential it may have been? But even so, still a pretty decent and interesting flick in its own right. I did watch the director's cut version though, which I believe was put together much more recently, so I don't know how different it is from the original release. But I'd be interested to know, because there's seriously a ton of visual, and especially audio, precursors to the Star Wars films littered all throughout, so I'd be curious to know how much of that was inserted post-Star Wars, and what all did Star Wars actually take from this movie.

Also saw American Graffiti for the first time, and honestly, I was pretty damn impressed by this film. It feels both incredibly familiar, yet incredibly unique all at the same time. Just the way the story's told over the course of the night, hopping from car to car, and having so much dialogue take place between people yelling at one another from different cars, yet it somehow just feels normal and natural here? I dunno, but this was a pretty delightful film, almost like a slice of life through Hollywood lenses, with charming characters in a fun setting, but told in a way that feels really fresh, even today. Really, this movie makes me wish that George had ventured outside of Star Wars even more as a director, to see what other interesting takes and ideas he could've pull off.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Right on. THX, GRAFFITI, and STAR WARS make up a seriously impressive three-movie run, and when you watch them in relation to each other, Lucas shows a lot of variability and confidence in his storytelling. He really was a terrific filmmaker for a spell there.

[Dukefrukem]

Back to organizing my rankings again on this Friday. 2012- what a great year for discussion (also the year I've seen the most films out of any year). Look how diverse it was. I'm not trying to point out quality here but just of how many discussion topics there was. Does this year stand out for anyone else?

Tent-poles/Franchises:

The Avengers
The Dark Knight Rises
The Hobbit
John Carter
Total Recall
Wrath of the Titans
Skyfall
Dark Shadows
Battleship
Hunger Games
The Amazing Spider-man
Men in Black 3
Underworld Awakening
Resident Evil Retribution
Snow White and the Huntsman

Horror:

Cabin in the Woods
Prometheus
The Tall Man
ABCs of Death
V/H/S
The Woman in Black
Antiviral
ATM
The Collection
Paranormal Activity 4
Sinister
The Lords of Salem
Chernobyl Diaries


Animation

ParaNorman
The Dark Knight Returns
Rise of the Guardians
Justice Leage: Doom
Wreck-it-Ralph
Superman vs the Elite
Brave

Action

The Raid
Dredd
Looper
Contraband
Haywire
Safe
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning
Red Dawn
Bullet to the Head
Killing them Softly
Taken 2
Man on a Ledge

Comedy

The Dictator
Ted
21 Jump Street

Critically Discussed

Magic Mike
Leviathan
The Master
Springbreaks
To the Wonder
Zero Dark Thirty
Lawless
Lockout
Lincoln
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Django Unchained
Chronicle
Cloud atlas
Much Ado About Nothing
Mud
Moonrise Kingdom
The Grey
The Place Beyond the Pines
Argo
Life of Pie
John Dies at the End
The Intouchables
Side by Side
Pitch Perfect
Wrong
The act of Killing
Beasts of hte Southern Wild
Silver Lining Playbook

[Irish]

2012-2014 was a good period.

(Also, I like how you snuck "Prometheus" onto the list. Did you think nobody would notice your shenanigans? ;) )

[Dukefrukem]

2012-2014 was a good period.

(Also, I like how you snuck "Prometheus" onto the list. Did you think nobody would notice your shenanigans? ;) )

I should have put it in it's own category as "Universally misunderstood".

[baby doll]

I should have put it in it's own category as "Universally misunderstood".It's possible to understand a movie and still think it's lousy. And in the case of Prometheus, there isn't all that much to understand in the first place.

[Wryan]

I watched Geostorm lol.

[Dukefrukem]

I watched Geostorm lol.

Me too. That's about right.

Funny thing is, I'd watch it again.

[StuSmallz]

Finally watched and reviewed The Dark Knight for the first time since 2008, and long review (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/the-dark-knight/) short, I felt that Nolan truly swung for the fences and constantly hit homers while doing so, creating an epic, multi-faceted, larger than life tale, driven by a dark, tragic tone, busy (in a good way) plotting, and an absolutely propulsive overall pace, almost never slowing down, but continually ramping things up to an almost unbearable degree, with a dread-laden, almost apocalyptic tone underpinning the whole affair. This is truly an uncommonly, undeniably powerful piece of pop entertainment, and all in all, my rewatch has convinced me that the (dark) knight in shining armor of modern-day cinema is officially here to stay, for a long, long time...

[baby doll]

my rewatch has convinced me that the (dark) knight in shining armor of modern-day cinema is officially here to stay, for a long, long time...Given all the money Nolan's films have made over the past twenty years, I wasn't aware that there was any question of his not being able to continue making films (barring of course any unforeseen personal or health issues that would force him into early retirement). Or were you referring to Batman, or The Dark Knight?

[TGM]

I read it as him essentially saying that The Dark Knight has stood the test of time for him.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm re-watching the Mission Impossible franchise before seeing the new movie. The writers really don't stray too far away from the overall formula. So far, all three first movies involve terrible IMF employees.

Mission Impossible- Espionage thriller about a mole trying to sell information on the black market

Mission Impossible-II Action thriller about a former IMF Agent trying to sell a biological virus to a legit organization

Mission Impossible III - Wanna-be James Bond trying to stop a mole helping an arms dealer from selling a MacGuffin on the black market.

[Lazlo]

I'm re-watching the Mission Impossible franchise before seeing the new movie. The writers really don't stray too far away from the overall formula. So far, all three first movies involve terrible IMF employees.

Mission Impossible- Espionage thriller about a mole trying to sell information on the black market

Mission Impossible-II Action thriller about a former IMF Agent trying to sell a biological virus to a legit organization

Mission Impossible III - Wanna-be James Bond trying to stop a mole helping an arms dealer from selling a MacGuffin on the black market.

Haha, everyone's kind of on the straight and narrow in Ghost Prote. Rogue Naysh has villainous MI6 employees but I think IMF is generally good.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I watched MIRACLE MILE (1988) last night, and now all I wanna do is just think about the flick and talk about the flick. Not perfect, but so weird and exciting and specific.

[transmogrifier]

I watched MIRACLE MILE (1988) last night, and now all I wanna do is just think about the flick and talk about the flick. Not perfect, but so weird and exciting and specific.

While the characters were all in the diner, I thought it was excellent; as soon as they left, it becomes campy and shrill and unintentionally hilarious in places.

[Dead & Messed Up]

While the characters were all in the diner, I thought it was excellent; as soon as they left, it becomes campy and shrill and unintentionally hilarious in places.

I guess it depends on which scenes you think are "unintentionally" hilarious, as some of the film seems to operate with a sort of absurdist humor. The cops blowing themselves up, for example. Or the one driver getting so road-raged up by Edwards leaping on top of his car that he makes the final moments of his life about tracking down Edwards and shooting him. Love the priorities, guy. Those bits folded into a surreal streak that evoked AFTER HOURS and made the tonal shifts feel appropriate instead of discombobulating.

I would agree with you that the diner scene is a standout, but if subsequent sequences fell from that peak, they didn't fall nearly far enough for me to have a negative reaction.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm re-watching the Mission Impossible franchise before seeing the new movie. The writers really don't stray too far away from the overall formula. So far, all three first movies involve terrible IMF employees.

Mission Impossible- Espionage thriller about a mole trying to sell information on the black market

Mission Impossible-II Action thriller about a former IMF Agent trying to sell a biological virus to a legit organization

Mission Impossible III - Wanna-be James Bond trying to stop a mole helping an arms dealer from selling a MacGuffin on the black market.

Mission Possible IV- Action comedy thriller about Swedish-born Russian trying to start a nuclear war between the US and Russia. WHY??? Who knows.

Mission Impossible V- Action thriller about trying to stop former British intelligence agents, who start civil wars, bankrupt companies and assassinate CEOs for fun. Oh wait, ""Killing to bring about change" Yeh that.

[Dukefrukem]

It's Friday- I've been working on some fun lists while organizing my ratings- feel free to comment and add suggestions. If a film is on the list, but at the end without being watched or rated, it's something I need to revisit) Looking for movies that I'm totally omitting, but also may add to some fun discussion.

All Post-Apocalypse Movies Ranked (Incomplete)
(https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/all-post-apocalypse-movies-ranked-incomplete/)
All Espionage Films Ranked (Incomplete) (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/all-espionage-films-ranked-incomplete/)

All Zombie Movies Ranked (Incomplete) (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/all-zombie-movies-ranked-incomplete/)

The Best Ghost Movies (Incomplete) (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/the-best-ghost-movies-incomplete/)

All Alien Invasion Films Ranked (Incomplete) (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/all-alien-invasion-films-ranked-incomplete/)

All Slasher Movies Ranked (Incomplete)
(https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/all-slasher-movies-ranked-incomplete/)
Creepiest Cult Movies (Deprogramming) (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/creepiest-cult-movies-deprogramming/)

The Top Comic Book Movies (The only comic book movies worth watching) (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/the-top-comic-book-movies/)

Most Remarkable Debuts (https://letterboxd.com/dukefrukem/list/most-remarkable-debuts/)

[Grouchy]

Dude... You got Frantic as #40 of 1-40 espionage movies you've seen. You've got clearly bad stuff like Wanted and Mr. and Mrs. Smith ranked above.

Also, I'm aware it would completely take over the list, but it feels weird without 007 movies.

[Dukefrukem]

Dude... You got Frantic as #40 of 1-40 espionage movies you've seen. You've got clearly bad stuff like Wanted and Mr. and Mrs. Smith ranked above.

Also, I'm aware it would completely take over the list, but it feels weird without 007 movies.

*cough* "If a film is on the list, but at the end without being watched or rated, it's something I need to revisit"

And I agree about 007, I'm going to Marathon the Bond Franchise with the wife and add them.

[Grouchy]

My bad.

[Skitch]

Mission Possible IV- Action comedy thriller about Swedish-born Russian trying to start a nuclear war between the US and Russia. WHY??? Who knows.


Because hes an anarchist that works for Lane and the Syndicate.

[Dukefrukem]

Because hes an anarchist that works for Lane and the Syndicate.

That's not a reason.

[Skitch]

You're not a reason.

[Grouchy]

One of the things that confounds me about this franchise is that the missions never actually turn out to be impossible.

[Ezee E]

One of the things that confounds me about this franchise is that the missions never actually turn out to be impossible.

Win.

[Skitch]

Well they did fail every mission in part 4, except for a lucky punchout in the carpark.

[Dead & Messed Up]

You're not a reason.

Got him!

[Yxklyx]

It's been a while since I haven't been able to watch through a movie. This time it was Casino Royale. After about 30 minutes I lost all interest. The problem is that there's no story - just action scene after action scene, plus a dull violent main character.

[Dukefrukem]

It's been a while since I haven't been able to watch through a movie. This time it was Casino Royale. After about 30 minutes I lost all interest. The problem is that there's no story - just action scene after action scene, plus a dull violent main character.

That's probably my favorite Bond film.

[baby doll]

I've never seen a James Bond film that wasn't mediocre.

[Yxklyx]

I've never seen a James Bond film that wasn't mediocre.

They have their moments, like the underwater battle in Thunderball.

[Dead & Messed Up]

For reasons, I, a 35-year-old, watched Transformers: The Movie for the first time today, and it was terrible, and I apologize for stepping on anyone's nostalgia. But it was incoherent, loud, meaningless jackassery that in some ways is exactly the model Michael Bay followed.

[Dukefrukem]

Welcome to the party pal.

[baby doll]

For reasons, I, a 35-year-old, watched Transformers: The Movie for the first time today, and it was terrible, and I apologize for stepping on anyone's nostalgia. But it was incoherent, loud, meaningless jackassery that in some ways is exactly the model Michael Bay followed.Given the choice, I'd much rather re-watch Michael Bay's best movie (Pain and Gain) than Christopher Nolan's (Memento).

[Skitch]

For reasons, I, a 35-year-old, watched Transformers: The Movie for the first time today, and it was terrible, and I apologize for stepping on anyone's nostalgia. But it was incoherent, loud, meaningless jackassery that in some ways is exactly the model Michael Bay followed.

Right? Which is why Michael Bay doesn't quite deserve the hate for those films imo. He's replicated the source material fairly accurately.

[Skitch]

Given the choice, I'd much rather re-watch Michael Bay's best movie (Pain and Gain) than Christopher Nolan's (Memento).

You're a strange fellow.

[baby doll]

You're a strange fellow.Has anybody made a serious case for Nolan as a filmmaker--or explained, for that matter, why Michael Bay's films are especially egregious compared to those of other contemporary blockbuster filmmakers (including Nolan's)? I know David Bordwell has argued that Nolan is an innovative filmmaker in that he's pursued some uncommon narrational strategies (e.g., cutting between backward- and forward-moving time frames in Memento and between multiple layers of fantasy in Inception), but as a writer and director of scenes and sequences, he doesn't seem to know what he's doing. His characters are boring stock figures, his dialogue is clunky, he has no flair for staging or constructing space through editing, and his action sequences are loud, murkily lit blurs. As far as I can tell, the only significant differences between Nolan's style and Bay's is that Nolan likes dark, noirish lighting and portentous scores designed to pound the listener into submission, whereas Bay likes garish colours and Aerosmith.

[Dukefrukem]

Has anybody made a serious case for Nolan as a filmmaker--or explained, for that matter, why Michael Bay's films are especially egregious compared to those of other contemporary blockbuster filmmakers (including Nolan's)? I

Have you read any of the Michael Bay threads on this site? Particularly the Revenge of the Fallen one?

[baby doll]

Have you read any of the Michael Bay threads on this site? Particularly the Revenge of the Fallen one?I have to admit that, not having seen any of the Transformers films, I hadn't bothered to look at the threads before, and the one for The Revenge of the Fallen is twenty-three pages long (that's the second one, right?), so I'm going to need some time to pour over your comments. So far I'm seeing a lot of moralistic jive about Michael Bay's reasons for making these films (which are irrelevant), and complaints about racist jokes and lame dialogue, but nothing so far about how Bay's style is fundamentally different from other practitioners of intensified continuity, aside from perhaps being even more incoherent than the norm.

[Ezee E]

What's the question or idea? That Bay and Nolan are essentially the same director with different types of narrative?

[Peng]

I still don’t get the thread’s leap from an animated Transformers post to talking about Nolan yet again.

[transmogrifier]

My name's transmogrifier and I have a confession: I don't get the love for 2001: A Space Odyssey at all. A technical marvel for its time, for sure, and some sequences just wash over you pleasantly, but its ideas are pretty shallow, and I can never ever take the opening ape sequence seriously.

[transmogrifier]

Indignation (2016) - couldn't find a thread on this in the yearly database.

73/100


A series of little wars (escaping the grip of your parents, coming to grips with authority, understanding your hormones and those of others) wrapped up in a war of words so delicious that you barely notice the despair creeping in at the edges until it is too late. Schamus is content to take a handful of good actors and sit them down together and let the sparks fly (underrated among them is Linda Emond, who stops time with her monologue near the end), and it works. Sure, it will seem square to some, and a little more thought with regards to editing and mise-en-scene to elevate the themes would have elevated this into the stratosphere, this is still an unexpectedly emotional debut and possible harbinger of good things in Schamus' directorial future.


(Now watch him not make a movie for another 7 years or something.)

[kuehnepips]

I'd much rather re-watch any movie than Nolan's Memento.

[baby doll]

What's the question or idea? That Bay and Nolan are essentially the same director with different types of narrative?The question is: Why is Nolan so beloved, and Bay so hated, when their styles are not fundamentally different: The same utterly formulaic approach to staging, covering, and editing expositional dialogue scenes; the same kind of blurry, incoherent action sequences where a lot of movement and noise give the spectator a general sense that something is happening even if they can't quite see what it is; the same use of unmotivated camera movements and wall-to-wall music to give each sequence an added "energy"? If there are differences between their styles--and I've already said there are: dark lighting/garish colours; Hans Zimmer's portentous thump thump thumping/Steven Tyler's impassioned yeah pause yeah pause YEEEEAAHHHHHHing--it's a matter of subtle gradations within the same overall approach.

[baby doll]

I still don’t get the thread’s leap from an animated Transformers post to talking about Nolan yet again.I thought he was talking about the live-action Transformers: The Movie and was miffed that yet again people were using Bay as a punching bag while giving a pass to other contemporary directors when they basically do the same thing.

[Dukefrukem]

Nolan's cuts during exposition are much different than Bay's. Bay takes on a more headstrong approach where Nolan is much more subtle when it comes to dialog. There's zero sexual exploitation and dumb characters in Nolan's work.

And I dont find the staging or editing similar at all. Nolan perspective of time is all over the place, sometimes making it confusing whether it's a flash forward or a flash back. Bay is much more linear. I think Bay has a much better eye for action than Nolan. Aside from the Transformers fighting, when you can't tell WTF is going on, (though you would never know this because you havent seen any of the Transformers movies), I think Bay has the upper hand in action with scenes like the freeway chases in Island, and Bad Boys 2.

[baby doll]

Nolan's cuts during exposition are much different than Bay's. Bay takes on a more headstrong approach where Nolan is much more subtle when it comes to dialog. There's zero sexual exploitation and dumb characters in Nolan's work.

And I dont find the staging or editing similar at all. Nolan perspective of time is all over the place, sometimes making it confusing whether it's a flash forward or a flash back. Bay is much more linear. I think Bay has a much better eye for action than Nolan. Aside from the Transformers fighting, when you can't tell WTF is going on, (though you would never know this because you havent seen any of the Transformers movies), I think Bay has the upper hand in action with scenes like the freeway chases in Island, and Bad Boys 2.To give a concrete example of what I mean, here are two scenes I found on YouTube, one from Pain and Gain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diiaCw3frzo) and one from Memento (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diiaCw3frzo). In both, their respective directors begin with a long shot to establish the overall spatial orientation and then alternate between a variety of singles and inserts (although in the Pain and Gain sequence there are a couple more distant, deep focus shots to capture the interplay between the Rock and Mark Whalberg). Also note the use of long telephoto lenses in the close-ups to flatten space and efface the background. Yes, the characters in Bay's film are stupid and one is a young woman in a bikini, and Nolan throws in some fragmentary flashbacks (also shot in close singles with a long lens), but in terms of filmmaking craft, there's not that big of a difference.

[Dukefrukem]

You're 100% right they do look the same. ;)

[Mysterious Dude]

My name's transmogrifier and I have a confession: I don't get the love for 2001: A Space Odyssey at all. A technical marvel for its time, for sure, and some sequences just wash over you pleasantly, but its ideas are pretty shallow, and I can never ever take the opening ape sequence seriously.

I first saw 2001 when I was in my early teens (back when the year 2001 was still THE FUTURE). I found it really boring. I've seen it several times since then, and while I've learned to appreciate it, I can't quite shake off that first impression -- it's still pretty boring.

[baby doll]

You're 100% right they do look the same. ;)Oops. here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJdOj8mC3ZA) the clip from Memento I meant to post.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The question is: Why is Nolan so beloved, and Bay so hated, when their styles are not fundamentally different: The same utterly formulaic approach to staging, covering, and editing expositional dialogue scenes; the same kind of blurry, incoherent action sequences where a lot of movement and noise give the spectator a general sense that something is happening even if they can't quite see what it is; the same use of unmotivated camera movements and wall-to-wall music to give each sequence an added "energy"? If there are differences between their styles--and I've already said there are: dark lighting/garish colours; Hans Zimmer's portentous thump thump thumping/Steven Tyler's impassioned yeah pause yeah pause YEEEEAAHHHHHHing--it's a matter of subtle gradations within the same overall approach.

Will look over the clips you linked to and possibly react when I get home from work.

[Grouchy]

I'm with baby doll on this one, Nolan is an inept action filmmaker and an even worse writer, particularly tone deaf when it comes to dialogue and exposition.

And bd, that Pain & Gain scene is pretty fun but you posted it twice and you never linked to any Memento scene.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm with baby doll on this one, Nolan is an inept action filmmaker and an even worse writer, particularly tone deaf when it comes to dialogue and exposition.

If you think his writing is worse than his eye for action, I think you'd be in the minority. I'll even give you exposition, but c'mon, these screenplays are anything but inept.

2017 Dunkirk (written by)
2014 Interstellar (written by)
2013 Man of Steel (story)
2012 The Dark Knight Rises (screenplay) / (story)
2010 Inception (written by)
2008 The Dark Knight (screenplay) / (story)
2006 The Prestige (screenplay)
2005 Batman Begins (screenplay)
2000 Memento (screenplay)
1998 Following (written by)

But even We all agree his action is not that good; Dark Knight Rises being the worse offender in some of the Bane fight scenes.


And bd, that Pain & Gain scene is pretty fun but you posted it twice and you never linked to any Memento scene.

Hence my post.

[baby doll]

And bd, that Pain & Gain scene is pretty fun but you posted it twice and you never linked to any Memento scene.C'est ici.


Oops. here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJdOj8mC3ZA) the clip from Memento I meant to post.

[baby doll]

If you think his writing is worse than his eye for action, I think you'd be in the minority. I'll even give you exposition, but c'mon, these screenplays are anything but inept.Regarding Nolan's writing (as opposed to his direction), I would say that he excels at elaborate narrative structures but sucks at writing characters and scenes, which is kind of a big part of writing scripts.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I would agree with the claim that his early action editing is poor (especially in BATMAN BEGINS), I'd add that he made a critical error in over-editing the magic tricks in THE PRESTIGE, but since he's adopted the IMAX format, I've found that he's given his ASL during action scenes room to breathe, and he leveled up by moving from Pfister to Hoytema, and the guy - gasp - even makes use of foreground and background in the same shots now. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES onward, his action work has impressed me. As to his character/story work, I really don't know what to say at the moment except that I disagree and think that MEMENTO, THE DARK KNIGHT, and INCEPTION carry a fairly direct and clear understanding of the characters and how to develop/escalate their dramatic circumstances. Probably THE PRESTIGE too.

I would agree with Baby Doll that his most distinctive authorial touch is his tendency (compulsion) toward nested/fragmented narratives, but sometimes that becomes too much at times, like with the boat sinking at the center of DUNKIRK. (This assumes we're ignoring his other auteurist touch of killing wives or girlfriends for efficient (cheap?) emotional access.)

[Dukefrukem]

Regarding Nolan's writing (as opposed to his direction), I would say that he excels at elaborate narrative structures but sucks at writing characters and scenes, which is kind of a big part of writing scripts.

I would rather have only excellent narrative than only excellent dialog. I think QT is probably the best in the biz when it comes to excelling in both areas but the dialog in Nolan films is tolerable when you throw it into a Nolan story. I wouldn't say it sucks, but I'm sure we can nit pick plenty of examples.

[Neclord]

Y'know, I thought about sharing this yesterday but I hesitated, but anyway, okay. I let The Dark Knight rest for a few years before rewatching it this weekend, and while I am of the opinion Nolan is kind of sloppy for one of few blockbuster auteurs, man, that is a gripping movie god damn it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I appreciate how Match Cutty it is that this all came from me watching a movie where cartoon robots punch each other to Weird Al music.

[baby doll]

I would rather have only excellent narrative than only excellent dialog. I think QT is probably the best in the biz when it comes to excelling in both areas but the dialog in Nolan films is tolerable when you throw it into a Nolan story. I wouldn't say it sucks, but I'm sure we can nit pick plenty of examples.Personally I wouldn't want to live in a building that has great pipes and brown water coming out of the tap.

[MadMan]

I like both Bay and Nolan. I don't see how the two compare aside from both having made action blockbusters, though. Bay has way more in common with 80s directors, while Nolan seems intent on channeling old school noir with large helpings of neo noir.

[Dukefrukem]

Personally I wouldn't want to live in a building that has great pipes and brown water coming out of the tap.

It's a good thing we only live in these buildings for roughly 120 minutes at a time.

[Grouchy]

The main problem for me is the lack of real, human dimension there is to his characters and drama and the resulting void of empathy in me as I watch his cinema. They are basically mannequins spouting the nuts and bolts of the plot and the themes. This is true of all his recent movies, from the embarassing speeches about love in Interstellar to the blank heroes of Inception, the most aseptic and boring action flick that takes place inside the dreamscape that can possibly be made.

[Lazlo]

The main problem for me is the lack of real, human dimension there is to his characters and drama and the resulting void of empathy in me as I watch his cinema. They are basically mannequins spouting the nuts and bolts of the plot and the themes. This is true of all his recent movies, from the embarassing speeches about love in Interstellar to the blank heroes of Inception, the most aseptic and boring action flick that takes place inside the dreamscape that can possibly be made.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how you can watch these two scenes from Interstellar and say there's "a lack of real, human dimension" and a "void of empathy."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoLkabPK3YU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDx21SYdt-w

But, you know, to each his own, I guess.

[Ezee E]

I actually feel like Interstellar works at its best UNTIL it tries to add the drama between the father/daughter and having empathy. When it's about human survival and exploration, there's a great sense of wonder, technology, and the best drama about it is having to leave family behind for the sake of the human race.

But the last half hour is pretty bad.

Michael Bay movies, outside of Pain & Gain and maybe a few moments of The Island, don't have any of that. There's stock characters that are so unbelievably fake, with forced comedy, that I'll never touch the Transformers series again. Bay has laughably used the same highway sequence three times in his movies. It may have a nice sheen to it is all. His action sequences in Bad Boys 2 were pretty well done, and outside of a neat skydiving scene in one of the Transformers movies, there really isn't a good sequence in any of the big budget movies.

[Grouchy]

I actually feel like Interstellar works at its best UNTIL it tries to add the drama between the father/daughter and having empathy. When it's about human survival and exploration, there's a great sense of wonder, technology, and the best drama about it is having to leave family behind for the sake of the human race.

But the last half hour is pretty bad.
Yeah, exactly! He's just really bad at drama and I'll admit he excels at structure. But that only worked for me in some of his films like The Prestige and Memento. If I watch a Batman movie I want to meet the character I know and love and that a lot of nerds could write with both hands tied behind their back and he couldn't even make that work outside of a few scenes. Those scenes Lazlo posted were what I was thinking about when I said "embarassing".

A lot of people used to say about Kubrick that his films were overly clinical and unemotional. I never felt that about any of them outside of a few deliberate choices in 2001 and The Shining. I feel that way about Nolan. He tries to excel at a technical level (without even mastering some of that all that well) but his stuff is just uninvolving and unimaginative.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Maybe it's partly Cillian Murphy just acting his fucking eyeballs off, but his reconciliation with his father in INCEPTION moves me significantly whenever I watch it. And, fascinatingly, that plot point is a lie. (Leo reuniting with his kids moves me as well.)

[Dukefrukem]

Maybe it's partly Cillian Murphy just acting his fucking eyeballs off, but his reconciliation with his father in INCEPTION moves me significantly whenever I watch it. And, fascinatingly, that plot point is a lie. (Leo reuniting with his kids moves me as well.)

Boom yes.

[Dead & Messed Up]

And also, crazily, some beats in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES move me. The scene where Michael Caine confesses what he did to Rachel's letter (again, how much of this is Caine letting loose the sob-choked dialogue), and the scene at the end where Batman tells Gordon that a hero can be anyone, even someone who puts a coat on the shoulders of a young boy to let him know the world hadn't ended. And there's been at least one viewing where my eyes got moist when you learn that Bruce's mansion will become a home for at-risk youth. Grounding all the absurdist superhero theatrics with these tiny moments of real, genuine human kindness.

[MadMan]

I am a fan of QT, Nolan and Bay. Guess I am the stereotypical white movie fan. Each has made at least one film I love. I am not blind to their faults, but I do roll my eyes at obvious nitpicking.

[Skitch]

I am a fan of QT, Nolan and Bay. Guess I am the stereotypical white movie fan. Each has made at least one film I love. I am not blind to their faults, but I do roll my eyes at obvious nitpicking.

Yep. Ditto.

[Grouchy]

Eh, I even shudder to see Nolan included in the same sentence as Tarantino.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Eh, I even shudder to see Nolan included in the same sentence as Tarantino.

One of these should keep those shudders away:

https://media.giphy.com/media/nIkjfc1H1tcfC/giphy.gif

[Yxklyx]

This is cool! Production notes for Kubrick's Napoleon:

https://imgur.com/a/F2DBC1j

[MadMan]

Eh, I even shudder to see Nolan included in the same sentence as Tarantino.

I think Nolan is a better director, and I prefer Wes Anderson over all of them.

[MadMan]

This is cool! Production notes for Kubrick's Napoleon:

https://imgur.com/a/F2DBC1j

I would love to see it on the big screen. Guess I will just have to rent it or stream it.

[Skitch]

I would love to see it on the big screen. Guess I will just have to rent it or stream it.

It never got made, unfortunately.

[Skitch]

Whoa.

https://i.imgur.com/8AZ1fNI.jpg

[Ezee E]

Whoa.

https://i.imgur.com/8AZ1fNI.jpg

Think his attempt at making this was pre-Barry Lyndon. Cruise was not an option at that time.

I believe he was eying Jack Nicholson for the part who was freshly off Easy Rider, so that jives with those pages.

[baby doll]

Think his attempt at making this was pre-Barry Lyndon. Cruise was not an option at that time.That's why it's a funny coincidence, particularly in light of the Cruise-Brimley meme.

https://i.imgur.com/Ph3OcSv.jpg

[Skitch]

Think his attempt at making this was pre-Barry Lyndon. Cruise was not an option at that time.

I believe he was eying Jack Nicholson for the part who was freshly off Easy Rider, so that jives with those pages.

I thought the Napoleon project was old thats why its odd.

[Ezee E]

That's why it's a funny coincidence, particularly in light of the Cruise-Brimley meme.

https://i.imgur.com/Ph3OcSv.jpg

That and the Top Gun comparison are pretty damn good memes. 56, are you kidding me?

[Spinal]

What people don't realize is that Wilford Brimley had to sit in the make-up chair for 4 hours every morning to achieve his classic 'elderly diabetic' look. So committed was he to his craft.

[MadMan]

It never got made, unfortunately.

I misread, I was thinking of the silent flick about Napoleon. A Kubrick version would have been amazing.

[Peng]

The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979)

Going to mull over that ending, because my first, lingering impression of it drops my score off a bit here. After being drawn in by Fassbinder's direction (the gulf between how the synopsis sounds and the actual, engagingly off-kilter execution is wide for me), I am so taken with Maria Braun, both the character's raw intimacy and Hanna Schygulla's supernova of a performance, that the ending feels a tad reductive regarding her. Non-stop sublime otherwise. 8/10

[Grouchy]

I misread, I was thinking of the silent flick about Napoleon. A Kubrick version would have been amazing.
It's his most famous unmade project. I don't see him mentioned on the thread so far but I thought Pacino was supposed to be the lead, at least until Revolution bombed.

[MadMan]

It's his most famous unmade project. I don't see him mentioned on the thread so far but I thought Pacino was supposed to be the lead, at least until Revolution bombed.

Kubrick making a Pacino Napoleon film. Wow. Too bad it didn't happen.

[Spinal]

Now we have the problem that they tell us Logan is a great movie. Well, it’s a great superhero movie. It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands.

Link (https://thefilmstage.com/features/ethan-hawke-on-dreaming-of-a-fourth-before-film-why-hes-not-having-a-mcconaughey-moment-and-the-necessity-of-film-festivals/)

I haven't even seen Logan, but this is hilarious.

[transmogrifier]

Hawke is one of my favorite actors. And he is right.

[Grouchy]

Hahahah minus 10000 geek cred for Hawke.

I wonder if he'd change his mind if he saw none wears tights in Logan.

[Irish]

The whole interview is terrific and it illustrated, again, one key thing --- that people in the industry know exactly what its problems are and they usually know them better than we do, on the outside.

I need to remember that more often because it's easy to get too cynical.


Hahahah minus 10000 geek cred for Hawke.

He's famous, a multi-millionaire, and Uma Thurman is the mother of his children. What the hell does he need 'geek cred' for?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I liked Logan a fair amount.

But he's right.

I shouldn't even say "but," I should say "and," because he says he likes Logan, too.

[transmogrifier]

To me, there is a definite case of grading on a curve happening these days among cinema fans, so when something like Black Panther comes out with heavy themes, suddenly they want to push it for Best Picture because it is a superhero movie that both has something "deep" to say and brings a welcome diversity to mainstream cinema. But the actual film itself is deeply generic in its story structure and characterization and is very poorly shot in many places. The fact that there are a number of people who want this to win Best Picture proves Hawke's point - they want their love of superhero malarkey to be vindicated by awards, but refuse to accept that these films very rarely do anything with the language of cinema. They are fast food made to appeal to the broadest audience possible, and that's okay. I like fast food. But do people who love Five Guys or whatever keep calling up the Michelin guide bugging them to give them a Michelin star just because they are better than McDonalds?

[Skitch]

I agree with most of what you're saying trans, but the way Hawke puts it is a little condescending. Swinging that door the other way, it's like when someone says "Yeah, but its black and white" or "...but its subtitled", as to infer its automatically pretentious. I dont really care for that either. And just because a film doesn't have superheroes doesn't automatically make it a higher art form.

[Peng]

Are we really comparing Oscar to Michelin guide, thinking being Oscar films signify such listed cinematic virtues/languages, and/or thinking that most Oscar films don’t thrive on theme/importance since forever anyway?

[transmogrifier]

I agree with most of what you're saying trans, but the way Hawke puts it is a little condescending. Swinging that door the other way, it's like when someone says "Yeah, but its black and white" or "...but its subtitled", as to infer its automatically pretentious. I dont really care for that either. And just because a film doesn't have superheroes doesn't automatically make it a higher art form.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. Superhero films are expressly designed for mass consumption. That is their reason for being. However, films in black and white or that are subtitled are not all expressly designed to alienate the mainstream audience or to give a veneer of depth that the film itself does not warrant. So I think it is perfectly fine to say that superhero films lack the artistic drive that I (and apparently Hawke) believe is needed to create a truly great film, but it's not valid to say black and white films are pretentious.

And I'm not sure if Hawke is arguing that last sentence at all, is he?

[transmogrifier]

Are we really comparing Oscar to Michelin guide, thinking being Oscar films signify such listed cinematic virtues/languages, and/or thinking that most Oscar films don’t thrive on theme/importance since forever anyway?

I'm talking about the supposed ideals of the Oscars, not the actual results, because as a general rule, the Academy voting body are just as prone to voting for a movie for bullshit reasons as anyone else. Which probably means Black Panther has a good shot of winning, I guess. Would comfortably make it the worst Best Picture winner since Crash.

[TGM]

People were convinced Wonder Woman would be nominated for Best Picture and Best Director last year, if only due to its "cultural significance". And flawed as it was in places, it was a hell of a lot better all around movie than Black Panther is. So I'll believe it when I see it with Black Panther.

[baby doll]

Feuillade's Judex is a genuinely great film. All other superhero movies--with the possible exception of La Nouvelle mission de Judex, which I haven't seen--not so much (though Franju's remake is pretty good). If contemporary superhero movies are invariably mediocre or worse, the problem isn't the subject matter but the fact that no one in Hollywood knows how to stage a shot or cut a scene any more.

Also, it's absurd for Hawke to imply that Bergman is as great a director as Bresson (who's one of the half-dozen greatest filmmakers who ever lived).

[Skitch]

I don't think that is a fair comparison.

I know, its an exaggeration.


So I think it is perfectly fine to say that superhero films lack the artistic drive that I (and apparently Hawke) believe is needed to create a truly great film, but it's not valid to say black and white films are pretentious.


I said, I don't think its a fair thing argument to make. I am certainly not saying its true B&W films are pretentious, even generally. The comparison I'm making is taking what another person says in one sentence thats dismissive of an entire genre of film just because it exists in that genre. Thats the part that bugs me. Even if you want to say they haven't made a great film in the superhero genre yet, fine, that wouldn't bother me at all. But the outright dismissal of any genre or subgenre doesn't float with me.

All genres have some examples of great films, imo.

[baby doll]

All genres have some examples of great films, imo.All genres, including educational films, hardcore porn, Russian road rage videos, and films starring Moritz Bleibtreu? Even if we're only talking about Hollywood genres, while most of them do have at least one legitimately great film to their credit, clearly some genres have a higher batting average than others and superhero movies have one of the lowest. For westerns, there's My Darling Clementine, Johnny Guitar, Rio Bravo; for musicals, there's Love Me Tonight, Singin' in the Rain, Guys and Dolls; for romantic comedies, there's Trouble in Paradise, His Girl Friday, The Lady Eve. But there's no genuinely great Hollywood superhero movie. Once your budget exceeds 100 million dollars, the chances of your making a legitimately great film drop to zero.

[StanleyK]

But there's no genuinely great Hollywood superhero movie.

Unbreakable is great.

[baby doll]

Unbreakable is great.The only Shyamalan film I've seen is Signs, which wasn't great, so I can't comment on Unbreakable.

[Skitch]

All genres, including educational films, hardcore porn, Russian road rage videos, and films starring Moritz Bleibtreu?

But there's no genuinely great Hollywood superhero movie. Once your budget exceeds 100 million dollars, the chances of your making a legitimately great film drop to zero.

Oh do please fuck off. You know what I meant.

Also, to be very clear, youre saying there has never been a great movie with a budget over 100 million? I mean I'm sure you believe it, but....wait, why am I engaging baby doll? Nm

[Mysterious Dude]

Bergman > Bresson

[baby doll]

Bergman > BressonI haven't seen any of Bergman's films on 35mm, yet I can't imagine that seeing them in their original format would be nearly as revelatory as watching Bresson on the big screen. I found Pickpocket and Mouchettte underwhelming when I first encountered them on VHS, but seeing the former at a cinémathèque screening in 2004 was nothing short of a revelation, instantly and permanently converting me into a passionate Bresson fan. And while I've always loved Au hasard Balthazar, seeing it on film last year was overwhelmingly powerful in a way that watching it on DVD isn't. On the other hand, as great as some of Bergman's films are (my current favourites being Sawdust and Tinsel, The Virgin Spring, Winter Light, Persona, A Passion, and Cries and Whispers), it's telling that he was able to move more or less seamlessly between theatrical films and television projects (some of them very good), whereas it's impossible to imagine Bresson ever directing TV.

[Grouchy]

Bergman > Bresson
Two very different filmmakers, but yeah.

That's a great interview. The one thing I would hold against Hawke is that in another part of the interview as he talks about Get Out and Blumhouse he mentions how genre films can pack an important thematic punch, and then he doesn't seem to apply the same thinking to superhero films. Are movies like, I don't know, Resident Evil or John Wick any less preposterous and cartoonish than those based on comic books?

[Watashi]

Hawke was in the running for Dr. Strange along with Joaquin Phoenix. He also was in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. So let's not pretend he is some "indie or bust" darling.

This whole conversation reeks of the movie/film debate that resurfaces every few months about how some genres are incapable of achieving being "cinema" because of some made-up limitations.

[Grouchy]

Hawke was in the running for Dr. Strange along with Joaquin Phoenix. He also was in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. So let's not pretend he is some "indie or bust" darling.

This whole conversation reeks of the movie/film debate that resurfaces every few months about how some genres are incapable of achieving being "cinema" because of some made-up limitations.
Yeah, exactly. How is Valerian any less of a comic-book flick than Logan? Is it different just because it's French?

[TGM]

Not that I don't agree with your argument, but in this instance specifically, is anyone calling Valerian a great film, though? :p

[transmogrifier]

Do people really think that Hawke only chooses film roles based on the whether the movie is going to emulate the best of Bresson or not? There is nothing at all hypocritical about being less enthusiastic about the artistic merits of a certain genre as an audience member but choosing to take roles in that genre. After all, not all films have the same goals, and an actor could have a lot of fun, face an acting challenge, or get a lot of money in basically any movie at all.

To try and suggest Hawke can’t hold his opinion because he was in Valerian or Sinister or he was up for Dr Strange is just.....dumb.

[Irish]

I like that Hawke isn't afraid to do goofy shit like "Predestination" and then turn around years later and go for something like "First Reformed." That makes him worlds more interesting, as a performer, than anyone who's appeared repeatedly in the MCU.

[transmogrifier]

Rotten Tomatoes apparently has decided to add like 200 new critics that can be included in the Tomatometer score, including podcasts and YouTube channels.

Might as well just use IMDB scores at this point.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just went to see 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in IMAX, and so it's time to brace yourself for nitpicks from a guy who thinks the movie is fantastic and obviously should be a part of whatever constrictive film canon exists.

- Of the four parts of the film (apes, moon, HAL, space baby), the moon part holds the least interest. Its mystery does not play as well on repeat viewings, and there's no interior conflict in the sequence outside of the mystery buildup. The buildup still escalates, and the sudden shock of the monolith screeching at them disrupts our expectations (and our eardrums - this screening was turned up to 11). And the confidence of the effects carry it a lot of the way (love the stewardess picking up the pen.* But...

- it's just less interesting to me than the other three sequences. The ape and HAL sequences have the same pace as the other two segments, but they play like effective open-and-close one-acts. It's probably the story wonk in me getting in the way, but the conflicts between the two ape tribes and between the astronauts and Hal build with patience but also a clear sense of what the stakes are. And I don't think I'm being too Hollywood screenwriter normative when I say that, because Kubrick himself clearly operates on those terms in both stories, because they thrill.

- Also, I've never quite liked the segment during the "infinite" run where it's just chromatized (?) Earth landscapes. The psychedelia? Sure. The eyeball closeups? Absolutely. Those shots where nebulas move with the liquid speed of the organic? As the kids these days say, I stan that. Love it. But there's a solid two or three minutes there where my brain screams MONUMENT VALLEY BUT PURPLE.

- Not a nitpick, just an observation - Keir Dullea slow-turning toward the camera as an old man feels like the inspiration for the scene in THE SHINING, where Bear Boy and Old Man slow-turn to the camera.

*: On that note, one of the pleasures on a second view is observing the banality of the docking sequence. How Howard Johnson and other hotel franchises have co-opted space travel, along with Pan Am. How the future still has stewardesses (a choice that feels fully intentional).