28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Grouchy]

I think Zombie was interested in how the family context would alter the original. After all, Laurie wasn't Michael's sister in Carpenter's movie. I don't think Zombie was even trying to be scary, but rather attempting to evoke this bestial force driving Michael in his pursuit of idealized innocence, which fundamentally alters how the material in the second half that recreates the original plays out.
That's a very good point, but how does that show in the film? The final hour of the movie still plays like a Halloween abridged version, with the Sam Loomis character doing pretty much nothing at all. The only "re-evaluated" scene I can think of is the one where Laurie Strode wakes up next to her sister's grave in the old Myers house.

[Rowland]

That's a very good point, but how does that show in the film? The final hour of the movie still plays like a Halloween abridged version, with the Sam Loomis character doing pretty much nothing at all. The only "re-evaluated" scene I can think of is the one where Laurie Strode wakes up next to her sister's grave in the old Myers house.The murder sequences, to a large extent. Instead of portraying Michael as this sort of shadow slipping in and out of the corners of the frame as the camera elegantly dollies around, Zombie portrays him as this brutal physical force. Michael only knew Laurie as an innocent baby amidst the squalor of his childhood, and he kept that picture as a memento that drives him in his search for her in the second half. When he returns her to the basement, he even shows her the picture, and she responds with something along the lines of "I'm not who you think I am." It's allegorical, but definitely there. Critic Walter Chaw even goes so far as calling the movie a family melodrama first and foremost, only peppered with horror and exploitation elements, which is an interesting approach.

[Philosophe_rouge]

So, finished watching Theodora Goes Wild (1936). Overall an above average comedy, but nothing to write home about. Dunne and Douglas are wonderful (as can be expected) and have tremendous chemistry that is unfortunately wasted in the last half hour as the film makes an awkward and predictable shift. However, wathing their relationship develop as they realise they're in love is presented with a lot of flair.

[Bosco B Thug]

The murder sequences, to a large extent. Instead of portraying Michael as this sort of shadow slipping in and out of the corners of the frame as the camera elegantly dollies around, Zombie portrays him as this brutal physical force. Michael only knew Laurie as an innocent baby amidst the squalor of his childhood, and he kept that picture as a memento that drives him in his search for her in the second half. When he returns her to the basement, he even shows her the picture, and she responds with something along the lines of "I'm not who you think I am." It's allegorical, but definitely there. Critic Walter Chaw even goes so far as calling the movie a family melodrama first and foremost, only peppered with horror and exploitation elements, which is an interesting approach.
Ooh, I like the weight that analysis gives to her line. Gives some extra import to the story's "sex/foulness = death" and Michael's big brother role.

[Derek]

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) 7.5

w00t!

[Watashi]

w00t!
Marisa Tomei's breasts better win best supporting actress.

[Rowland]

Marisa Tomei's breasts better win best supporting actress.Mmm mmm.

[Philosophe_rouge]

:frustrated: <--- This is me because I put off watching Howard Hawks' brilliant Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (1932) for so long. Considering I rank Hawks among my top 3 directors, and I love gangster films from the 30s/40s I can't believe I put this off for so long. I had thought Cagney was unbeatable as a presence, but Muni proved me wrong. Muni is charismatic and frightening, possesing that rare screen "presence" that elevates many lesser actors to iconic status, he though, is the whole package. The supporting cast is just as good with Raft, Karloff and Dvorak who all deliver performances that feel years ahead of their time. Even early in his career, Hawks has a great feel for dialogue and imagery, and comparing it to most films of the time one has a real sense that there is something special at work here. The now iconic use of the "X" figure is executed rather beautifully and doesn't feel like a gimick in the least. The sexual tension between Tony and the two women in the film is raw and unsettling (considering one of the characters is his sister). This film rather easily rockets near the top of my favourite Hawks' efforts. I should really continue working on finishing up his filmography.

[Eleven]

:frustrated: <--- This is me because I put off watching Howard Hawks' brilliant Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (1932) for so long.

In my Top 50, easily. Glad you loved it. Pre-Code is the shit. That is all.

[Rowland]

Pre-Code is the shit.Yeah, this stuff can be really surprising. I was recently taken aback by how seedy Michael Curtiz's The Mystery of the Wax Museum was, pleasantly so.

[Philosophe_rouge]

In my Top 50, easily. Glad you loved it. Pre-Code is the shit. That is all.
I should revisit your favourite list soon, we tend to agree often and I could always use recommendations. Pre-code is the shit, even when the film is just mediocre there is always something in there to hold your attention.


Yeah, this stuff can be really surprising. I was recently taken aback by how seedy Michael Curtiz's The Mystery of the Wax Museum was, pleasantly so.
I haven't even heard of that one. I'll see what I can do to get my hands on it.

[Mysterious Dude]

I used to think I liked Little Caesar and Public Enemy more than Scarface, but on reflection, Scarface is by far the most memorable.

[Eleven]

I should revisit your favourite list soon, we tend to agree often and I could always use recommendations.

If you're talking about Top 111 from RT, it's out of date, although I still at least like all of those films. Or you could be talking about the Top 11s blog in my sig, which is a better indicator right now. I'm in the preliminary stages of a possibly actor/actressy list, too.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I used to think I liked Little Caesar and Public Enemy more than Scarface, but on reflection, Scarface is by far the most memorable.
I STILL haven't seen Little Caesar although I'm very fond of the Public Enemy, which is a very good film, but falls just short in my books of being truly great.

[Philosophe_rouge]

If you're talking about Top 111 from RT, it's out of date, although I still at least like all of those films. Or you could be talking about the Top 11s blog in my sig, which is a better indicator right now. I'm in the preliminary stages of a possibly actor/actressy list, too.
I meant your 111 films, but I do check your top 11s often. I had noticed your top performances already, great work so far!

[MacGuffin]

I'm way behind lately. I might try and rewatch Last Days tonight, or give Flandres a go.

[Grouchy]

The murder sequences, to a large extent. Instead of portraying Michael as this sort of shadow slipping in and out of the corners of the frame as the camera elegantly dollies around, Zombie portrays him as this brutal physical force. Michael only knew Laurie as an innocent baby amidst the squalor of his childhood, and he kept that picture as a memento that drives him in his search for her in the second half. When he returns her to the basement, he even shows her the picture, and she responds with something along the lines of "I'm not who you think I am." It's allegorical, but definitely there. Critic Walter Chaw even goes so far as calling the movie a family melodrama first and foremost, only peppered with horror and exploitation elements, which is an interesting approach.
You're already halfway convincing me here. There might have been some prejudice on my part. I understood the family angle, but maybe I didn't see it follow through to the way Zombie staged the killing scenes. This is due for a rewatch as soon as it hits video.

[Russ]

Just watched Tears of the Black Tiger. Could've done without the stylized violence and gore (it didn't need it); still, it's probably the most enjoyable goofball western this side of Lemonade Joe. Recommended.

[Sven]

Philosophe, I just love your avatar. :up: :)

[Rowland]

You're already halfway convincing me here. There might have been some prejudice on my part. I understood the family angle, but maybe I didn't see it follow through to the way Zombie staged the killing scenes. This is due for a rewatch as soon as it hits video.Mind you, it's just how I interpret everything. I wouldn't say it's sitting there on the surface all obvious for anyone to see. The contrast between his unmitigated brutality and unwavering drive, and Laurie just at the cusp of worldly corruption, so to speak, is a telling one.

And furthermore, I don't even think the movie works as well as my defense might suggest. On the ratings scale, I gave it a weak **½ out of ****. Nevertheless, it is interesting enough to be worth the effort, and I hope the Director's Cut DVD will be an improvement, as I get the impression that there was a lot of post-production studio pressure.

[Sycophant]

We're here to do two things: kick ass and chew bubblegum... And we're all out of bubblegum. --Astaire & Rogers in Top Hat

It was kind of a trip seeing Edward Everett Horton's person in Top Hat, after two decades of knowing him only as the voice of Fractured Fairy Tales. However, he looked exactly as he should have and his performance was great fun. A highly entertaining film.

[Rowland]

Schager has nice things to say about The Mist.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3325

[Philosophe_rouge]

Philosophe, I just love your avatar. :up: :)
Thanks :P

[MadMan]

Schager has nice things to say about The Mist.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3325I think the flick looks pretty damn good. It appears to have a good cast and be really low scale, and I think such an approach will work.

PS: Good review by the way. The more I hear about this film the more I want to see it.

[Spinal]

iosos, I'm calling you out. I object to your categorization of Titus as a fluke. If you don't like Taymor's other films, fine, but Titus is no accident. It is an extraordinarily creative and controlled vision that demonstrates her ability to bring a text to life with striking, resonant visuals.

[lovejuice]

iosos, I'm calling you out. I object to your categorization of Titus as a fluke. If you don't like Taymor's other films, fine, but Titus is no accident. It is an extraordinarily creative and controlled vision that demonstrates her ability to bring a text to life with striking, resonant visuals.

both of you don't like frida? it's among very few biopic i can stand. not a particularly great film, but there's no obvious flaw except the flaw of the genre itself.

and yes, titus is great. particularly considered it's among shakespeare's less-known play.

[Qrazy]

iosos, I'm calling you out. I object to your categorization of Titus as a fluke. If you don't like Taymor's other films, fine, but Titus is no accident. It is an extraordinarily creative and controlled vision that demonstrates her ability to bring a text to life with striking, resonant visuals.

Meh, the last half hour is pretty god damn terrible.

After the bullet time I full expected Hopkins to suddenly exclaim... Now Neo, I stand as one upon a port. Environed with a wilderness of code, Who marks the waxing tide grow line by line, expecting ever when some envious surge will in his brinish matrix swallow him up.

[megladon8]

I watched George Romero's Martin last night.

While it wasn't as bad as Jen led me to believe, I also didn't think it was brilliant, either.

It has some great elements, but the terrible script and hammy acting really didn't allow me to enjoy it to it's fullest.

Granted, pretty much all of Romero's work is hammy and poorly written, but I also find that most of his work - aside from Night of the Living Dead - has a fair bit of inherent comedy. Martin, however, plays out pretty straight, and I found it hard to take a lot of it seriously.

However, like I said, it does have some great stuff in there.

[Raiders]

Martin is Romero's best film, and it has a pretty awesome screenplay. I love the conversations with the radio DJ. Also, the scene where Martin first attacks is remarkably poignant, as the entire film is the most affecting and powerful of Romero's career. It is the best vampire film I have seen. I also thought the acting overall was better than in almost any other Romero film, particularly Amplas in the lead role. Very good at portraying Martin's insecurity and unsureness with his own "condition."

[Mysterious Dude]

I think Near Dark is my favorite vampire movie (although the ending makes no sense).

[megladon8]

Martin is Romero's best film, and it has a pretty awesome screenplay. I love the conversations with the radio DJ. Also, the scene where Martin first attacks is remarkably poignant, as the entire film is the most affecting and powerful of Romero's career. It is the best vampire film I have seen. I also thought the acting overall was better than in almost any other Romero film, particularly Amplas in the lead role. Very good at portraying Martin's insecurity and unsureness with his own "condition."

Yes, I did really like the conversations with the radio DJ.

But so much of it just felt so forced to me. I didn't think Amplas was very good at all - I actually thought the best part of his performance was his offbeat look, which added to the whole "outcast loner" part of his character.

The frantic attack on the cheating couple in the woman's home was well played out, and had some great cinematography to boot. One shot I remember in particular is from a bird's eye view above two doors, as Martin struggles to grab the woman.

I also never quite understood why it took so damn long for the injections to set in...he says that the whole process used to be much harder before the needles, but the needles really don't seem to make it much easier since he has to fight and wrestle with his victims anyways for a good couple of minutes before they actually get knocked out.

I really would like to revisit it in a while.

[Raiders]

I think Near Dark is my favorite vampire movie (although the ending makes no sense).

That would be #2.

[Mysterious Dude]

That would be #2.I haven't seen Martin, so maybe you're right. I remember that list of yours. Good times.

[megladon8]

I actually really didn't like Near Dark...I found it quite boring to be honest, and that kid vampire bugged the living hell out of me.

I should watch that one again, too.

My favorite vampire movie would be Herzog's Nosferatu.

[Rowland]

It is the best vampire film I have seen. It's not really a vampire movie though. At least I don't think so... it's more like a subversion of one for the purposes of social commentary.

[Raiders]

It's not really a vampire movie though. At least I don't think so... it's more like a subversion of one for the purposes of social commentary.

Social commentary? Hm, I didn't see that very much except maybe in the way the cultural ideas of vampires feed into Martin's own self-mythos (like how the classic vampire scenes are used to give credence to the modern day events). It is very much a deconstruction of the genre, pinpointing the possibility of vampirism as simply a manifestation of disturbed sexual impulses and repression. I do love that the film's vampire is hardly the villain, but rather the maniacal vampire hunting uncle.

[megladon8]

Social commentary? Hm, I didn't see that very much except maybe in the way the cultural ideas of vampires feed into Martin's own self-mythos (like how the classic vampire scenes are used to give credence to the modern day events). It is very much a deconstruction of the genre, pinpointing the possibility of vampirism as simply a manifestation of disturbed sexual impulses and repression. I do love that the film's vampire is hardly the villain, but rather the maniacal vampire hunting uncle.

Yes, I did really like that despite the horrible things Martin does, he's never portrayed in a villainous light.

That was a neat twist on what could have otherwise been a pretty by-the-numbers story.

[Rowland]

Social commentary? Hm, I didn't see that very much except maybe in the way the cultural ideas of vampires feed into Martin's own self-mythos (like how the classic vampire scenes are used to give credence to the modern day events). It is very much a deconstruction of the genre, pinpointing the possibility of vampirism as simply a manifestation of disturbed sexual impulses and repression. I do love that the film's vampire is hardly the villain, but rather the maniacal vampire hunting uncle.I didn't think we were ever supposed to literally consider him a vampire, so I interpreted the movie entirely from that angle. It's funny that your favorite vampire movie is a self-consciously demythologizing deconstruction of vampire movies set in just about the least romantic setting ever... not that there is anything wrong with that, just an observation.

[number8]

Martin is Romero's best film, and it has a pretty awesome screenplay.

This is truth.

[Rowland]

Martin has a great soundtrack too. The direction is awfully raw, perhaps just a bit too much so for my taste, but that is inarguably a cohesive aesthetic choice.

Still, I like his Dead trilogy more.

[megladon8]

Martin has a great soundtrack too. The direction is awfully raw, perhaps just a bit too much so for my taste, but that is inarguably a cohesive aesthetic choice.


Yes, I noticed this as well.

I actually debated saying that it was the best part of the movie.

[Raiders]

I didn't think we were ever supposed to literally consider him a vampire, so I interpreted the movie entirely from that angle.

As do I, more or less. I mean, he does kill and drink blood, but clearly he is not a traditional vampire in that he has no deadly incisors and he can be out in the daytime. His undoing is his own fascination with what he perceives as his abilities and what defines him. He is a lonely, sexually frustrated outsider with a slight aversion to direct sunlight, and furthermore his uncle is his adversary, constantly calling him "nosferatu" and branding him a vampire. The film deftly intercuts classic vampire imagery of lynch mobs and such to sort of lend an understanding to how we can pinpoint the classic motifs in modern day scenes (car chase for a lynch mob, etc.).


It's funny that your favorite vampire movie is a self-conscious demythologizing deconstruction of vampire movies... not that there is anything wrong with that, just an observation.

Well, it is using the term broadly. The film is about the vampire mythos and a boy who believes himself a vampire, and it has killings and blood drinking and a stake through the heart, so it seems perfectly comfortable in the sub-genre regardless of its adherence to the accepted rules of vampirism.

[Bosco B Thug]

*cough*Habit*cough*

Well, it's #2, after Martin. And maybe tied with Nosferatu Herzog. Then Near Dark. Otherwise, vampire movies bore me, so these are special.

[megladon8]

*cough*Habit*cough*

Well, it's #2, after Martin. And maybe tied with Nosferatu Herzog. Then Near Dark.

I've actually been kind of hesitant to seek out Habit, because I hear there's a very uncomfortable - and real - sex scene between Fessenden and his at-the-time girlfriend.

Watching Larry Fessenden have sex is really not on my list of things I want to see any time soon.

[Mysterious Dude]

On another topic, I attempted to watch Tout va bien today, and decided it wasn't worth it. I feel like I would have just subjected myself to another Weekend. I fast-fowarded through it, though, and noticed a lot of long speeches addressed directly to the camera. I have no regrets.

[Rowland]

Well, it is using the term broadly. The film is about the vampire mythos and a boy who believes himself a vampire, and it has killings and blood drinking and a stake through the heart, so it seems perfectly comfortable in the sub-genre regardless of its adherence to the accepted rules of vampirism.Oh, I wasn't criticizing your classification so much as noting your apparent taste in vampire movies. :)

In retrospect, Martin feels less like a genre movie than it does a dirge for dying industrial cities, or at least that's what stands out most in my mind's eye. Romero's portrayal of Pittsburgh is downright oppressive.

[Rowland]

I've heard good things about Abel Ferrara's The Addiction, has anyone seen it? I also really want to see Guy Maddin's Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary.

[Raiders]

I've heard good things about Abel Ferrara's The Addiction, has anyone seen it?

Yep. I love it.

[Bosco B Thug]

I've actually been kind of hesitant to seek out Habit, because I hear there's a very uncomfortable - and real - sex scene between Fessenden and his at-the-time girlfriend.

Watching Larry Fessenden have sex is really not on my list of things I want to see any time soon. Yeah, there are some strong sex scenes, but I didn't know there were allegations of it being real! In any case, I still recommend the movie. :) I don't remember them being too bad - nothing close to, say, Cannibal Holocaust, or The Piano Teacher, or, going off that, well, porn. EDIT: Well, I take back Cannibal Holocaust, that wasn't sex first of all, and you do see more groin area in Habit.

And it's just as unvampirey as Martin, although this is 90s hipster boheme angst instead of monochromatic 70s complacency.

[megladon8]

Yeah, there are some strong sex scenes, but I didn't know there were allegations of it being real! In any case, I still recommend the movie. :) I don't remember them being too bad - nothing close to, say, Cannibal Holocaust, or The Piano Teacher, or, going off that, well, porn. EDIT: Well, I take back Cannibal Holocaust, that wasn't sex first of all, and you do see more groin area in Habit.

And it's just as unvampirey as Martin, although this is 90s hipster boheme angst instead of monochromatic 70s complacency.

I noticed it's DTV...is this really apparent? Like, is it one of those movies that's actually quite bad, but just happens to have a couple of redeeming qualities?

[Doclop]

Anyone seen Jindabyne?

I watched it yesterday and was fairly impressed. It's certainly no Lantana, but I thought it presented an interesting set of characters involved in unusual circumstances all filtered through a cultural and social perspective rarely seen in film. It's overwrought and awkward sometimes, but it worked for me and really established Lawrence as a director with character and a vision.

[Rowland]

this is 90s hipster boheme angst
That doesn't sound terribly appealing, but I'll give anything he does a chance after the fascinating and deeply compassionate Wendigo.

[MadMan]

*Looks over at post responding to Meg's post about Martin over at the Axis. Realizes that Rowland and Raiders pretty much covered most of what he was going to post. Posts it anyways it here anyways*

My review of Martin is featured on Jumpscare and in my old thread back on the Axis. I don't think its a masterpiece, but I did find it to be a damn good film, almost great in many respects. I really don't focus on acting too much unless its important or actually significant (read: really bad or really good), so any hamminess that was featured in the film I didn't take that much stock of. No I noted the movie's sharp, subtitle themes and the commentary on youth and the crumbling city of Pittsburgh and its decay. The youth aspect being how confused Martin was and his search for purpose, that in the end him being misunderstood (I believe he was mentally ill for sure) was largely to blame for many of the horrible things that happened as a result. That said, I felt his older cousin was even worse, if only because he let his religious fanaticism blind him to the fact that his cousin wasn't evil-he just needed help. Thus leading to an ending that isn't surprising, but rather tragic and haunting in nature.

Also the flashbacks were really trippy and at times made me wonder if Martin really was an eternally young vampire. I think they played more into his belief that he had been perscuted and hunted all of his life, when in fact they were more than likely really his past mixed in with the fiction that his mind had created. The more I think about the movie the more I really like it, and I'm glad that my community college library had it on VHS. This discussion also reminds me that I need to get back on track and view more of Romeo's work-I'm still hoping against hope that TCM shows their copy of The Crazies, and that I eventually get to Creepshow, Knightriders and Day of the Dead.

PS: I loved the scenes with the DJ. They were both funny and interesting, if only because of how he treated Martin as a side show freak to be poked and prodded at by the listeners.

[Grouchy]

I've heard good things about Abel Ferrara's The Addiction, has anyone seen it?
Yeah, and it's very good. A modern depcition like the one you're making Martin look like (I haven't seen it), but a quality one. In the half of Ferrara's filmography that's actually worth it.

[Bosco B Thug]

I noticed it's DTV...is this really apparent? Like, is it one of those movies that's actually quite bad, but just happens to have a couple of redeeming qualities? Nope, I really think it's a great movie, dramatically adept and thematically worth-a-damn. And if I remember correctly, the cinematography looks good and it doesn't have that DTV feel... just that "low-budget, stylistically free indie" feel (a la 'Wendigo').


That doesn't sound terribly appealing, but I'll give anything he does a chance after the fascinating and deeply compassionate Wendigo. I could do without emo zeitgeist myself, but the film has a good head on its shoulders, and its sense of reason, logic, and its own 'Martin'-esque offbeat mythos deconstruction keeps it away from overwroughtness.

[Qrazy]

Earth Entranced - Visually compelling, not much else. The central poet performance was one of the most obnoxious things I've witnessed in a while. There were a couple interesting editorial flourishes but they were few and far between. The script is needlessly verbally convoluted. Going to check out Vidas Secas next for some other work by the cinematographer Luiz Carlos Berreto.

[Grouchy]

The trippiest (and goriest) movie I've seen in a long time is Brain Damage, by cult director Frank Henenlotter. It's about this young man named Brian whose life changes when he meets Aylmer, a milleniums-old disembodied brain-eating brain which sprays some hallucinogenic purple fluid all over Brian. The story is an ellaborate never-too-subtle metaphor of drug addiction, focusing mainly on LSD, and it works as a film acid high in the same way Fear and Loathing is a cinematic drug. It's shot in saturated, contrasting colors and filled with fucking awe-inspiring manual FX and elaborate visual gags. Truly a work of love and a triumph over its evidently low budget. I'd say Henenlotter should re-cut his movie to shorten the lenght of some shots which drag on for way too long, sometimes letting the audience see the strings, but it's only a minor gruff in the middle of so much creativity and wrongness.

[Ezee E]

I got tricked by one of my old teachers and went to a Colorado-made film instead of seeing a Brazilian movie at the Denver Film Festival today.

There's just something about majority of these films that never see distribution that make me wonder why people try to rip off other movies so much. It was clearly an attempt at "Napoleon Dynamite." They even said that they were aiming for the audience. Perhaps next time, they should just make a movie that they think is good, then go for an audience.

It's very frustrating seeing these movies. Tomorrow will be glorious though. Lumet and Coen in one night.

[soitgoes...]

I also really want to see Guy Maddin's Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary.
This one's great. I liked it more than Cowards Bend the Knee, and its quite possibly the best vampire movie I've seen. Silent ballet version of an Asian Dracula = good times.

[Ezee E]

Well, what do you know, the movie I was speaking of won the SXSW Festival. Maybe I'm just wrong here.

[lovejuice]

Anyone seen Jindabyne?

I watched it yesterday and was fairly impressed. It's certainly no Lantana, but I thought it presented an interesting set of characters involved in unusual circumstances all filtered through a cultural and social perspective rarely seen in film. It's overwrought and awkward sometimes, but it worked for me and really established Lawrence as a director with character and a vision.

carver is perhaps my favorite american auther, so my expectation is high and i'm a bit sceptic. how's it compared to altman's short cuts?

[MacGuffin]

What the hell, Bruno?

[Qrazy]

La Joven was pretty damn good, in fact it's probably within the top 20 films or so which focuses on racism.

[number8]

Anyone seen Jindabyne?

I watched it yesterday and was fairly impressed. It's certainly no Lantana, but I thought it presented an interesting set of characters involved in unusual circumstances all filtered through a cultural and social perspective rarely seen in film. It's overwrought and awkward sometimes, but it worked for me and really established Lawrence as a director with character and a vision.

I loved it as well. I liked the way they gave a new perspective on the story by moving the setting.

[Spinal]

Anyone seen Jindabyne?



Wasn't that thrilled with it.

Review. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=jindabyne)

[origami_mustache]

The Skywalk is Gone (Ming-liang Tsai, 2002)
Rating: 8.5

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5655/afficheqx4.jpg

A short film bridging the gap between What Time Is It There? and The Wayward Cloud follows Chyi (Shiang-chyi Chen) upon her return to Taipai as she searches for the watch salesman, Hsiao-kang (Kang-sheng Lee). Due to the destruction of the overpass she is unable to find him, and he is auditioning for pornographic films. Tsai explores the city streets, filled with people under umbrellas to escape the heat that has left the river dry resulting in water rationing. Tsai's familiar stylistic traits and themes of alienation return as characters converse with each other through barriers.

[Winston*]

Those last, what, 20 minutes of Death Proof were pretty neat (Zoe Bell rulz). A pity about those interminable preceding 90.

[Philosophe_rouge]

This one's great. I liked it more than Cowards Bend the Knee, and its quite possibly the best vampire movie I've seen. Silent ballet version of an Asian Dracula = good times.
I'm happy to hear this because I just rented it. Woot!

[Rowland]

Walter Chaw:

"Been watching a lot of Disney classics lately what with a four-year-old needing “good night shows” and all and have come to the conclusion that most of them are psychotic when they’re not just garden-variety homicidal – they are almost to a one not useful in any significant way in dealing with conflict, preaching the idea that the best way to deflate The Shadow is to stick it with a knife. Tie in the racism and general misogyny and marvel no longer that Michael Bay’s flicks make bazillions. To suggest that there’s not a tie-in here to what we consent to as a society with what’s wrong with us as a society is blinkered and moronic. I hate Cinderella with its cat/mouse filler and I despise Peter Pan with its “they’re not as smart as us, but they’re cunning” – but I do like The Fox and the Hound and The Jungle Book for their social intelligence and native nihilism."

I haven't watched any of the classic Disney movies since I was a kid, so I can't comment... just thought this was interesting.

[Raiders]

:|

Those kinds of blanket statements need examples and evidence to back them up. Otherwise it is reductive, useless vitriol.

[Spinal]

I think Chaw is on to something. Which is why I love Kirikou so much. The contrast with most Disney films in the way it is resolved is very striking.

[Rowland]

:|

Those kinds of blanket statements need examples and evidence to back them up. Otherwise it is reductive, useless vitriol.He wrote that in his latest blog post. If you ask him to expound, I'm sure he will.

[Sven]

He complains about their racism, then applauds The Jungle Book for "social intelligence"? That makes zero sense, seeing as how The Jungle Book is the second most racist Disney cartoon out there (first being Peter Pan, of course).

[Sven]

Lumet and Coen in one night.

This should be interesting. The films are actually quite comparable in terms of content and theme, and I can see being able to pull of quite a comparison-contrast review of the two. I predict that Armond will offer this pairing up on his "Better than" list at the end of the year.

[number8]

How I despise The Jungle Book. That movie is positively useless.

[number8]

This is pretty obvious, but ties a little to what Chaw is saying... Disney movies are terrible when it comes to cultural context, and I wonder if that teaches warped things in kids. If you apply any real thought into the setting of Aladdin, the movie's main conflict is fucking retarded, but as a child, you just accept the fact that every culture in the whole world should perform the way Americans conduct their lives... which is a problem when those kids grow up to be adults.

Fact is:

Jasmine: How dare you talk of me like I'm some THING to be won!
Sultan: Uh, you're a woman. Why are you talking back?
Prince Ali: Yeah, wench. Marry me or I shall stone you.

[Sycophant]

preaching the idea that the best way to deflate The Shadow is to stick it with a knife. This right here is, I believe, the main thrust of Chaw's complaint and a very valid point as well. Even moreso than many other mainstream Hollywood fare, the Disney animated films espouse a warped sense of success and an oft-loathesome reverence for the wealthy and powerful. This is all on top of the cultural retardation number8 references.

There's much to enjoy about these films (God, I love the animation), but as far as moral instruction, they (generalizing; I'm sure there are some exceptions and perhaps even something really great that I'm not recalling at the moment) are at best weak. At worst, a little wretched.

[Sven]

Dumbo is morally superior to most movies I've seen. That film turns villains into friends through self-actualization.

[rocus]

Dumbo is morally superior to most movies I've seen. That film turns villains into friends through self-actualization.

Just don't mention those singin' blackbirds.

[Watashi]

I'll admit that Jungle Book and Peter Pan are racist films, but in no way does it alter my enjoyment of the overall product. Then again, I look at stuff like animation, direction, and voice-acting rather than the morals it preaches through cultural differences (which something like 8 said about Aladdin is completely misguided).

[Raiders]

Just don't mention those singin' blackbirds.

Oh come on. If we're going to get huffy over this, we might as well go out and desecrate the body of Al Jolson.

[rocus]

Oh come on. If we're going to get huffy over this, we might as well go out and desecrate the body of Al Jolson.It was just a joke. I'm not at all huffy about it at all. I've actually never even thought of this subject before it was raised here. It kind of reminds me of the discusion a while ago about people feeling badly for the extras that are killed in action movies.

[Qrazy]

This is pretty obvious, but ties a little to what Chaw is saying... Disney movies are terrible when it comes to cultural context, and I wonder if that teaches warped things in kids. If you apply any real thought into the setting of Aladdin, the movie's main conflict is fucking retarded, but as a child, you just accept the fact that every culture in the whole world should perform the way Americans conduct their lives... which is a problem when those kids grow up to be adults.

Fact is:

Jasmine: How dare you talk of me like I'm some THING to be won!
Sultan: Uh, you're a woman. Why are you talking back?
Prince Ali: Yeah, wench. Marry me or I shall stone you.

The rights, or lack of rights of women in the east have not been a constant over the course of history. The implementation of Sharia was quite a blow to femininity. That said, you're right that Jasmine (Badroulbadour) was quite submissive in the original tale but I don't see why a contemporary reworking of the character, providing her with some spirit, is necessarily a bad thing. Historical accuracy is all well and good when it provides something of value, but this is just an archetypal story given a semi-modern reworking.

On a related note... Disney films do often contain anti-semitic, racist and morally problematic underpinnings but it is not the case that other central moral issues raised within the films and the conclusions reached, don't have value of their own.

[Sven]

Just don't mention those singin' blackbirds.

They're not a racist caricature. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may have different ideas about what racism is than most do today. Too frequently I've noticed simple depictions of non-white peoples referred to as racist, without there being much in the way of judgments passed through those depictions. In my mind, and I think in many minds, the artist or movie or person or whom-/whatever has to make a judgment on or through that depiction in order for me to think it racist. The crow caricature, in my estimation, is not only not racist, but a rather positive portrait. They are not subservient to any whites (a la Bagger Vance), they are not magical (their feather is just a ruse), they are witty and talented (their number is a real highlight), they influence Dumbo positively on his road to discovering himself, though kinship and enthusiasm. If only all our friends were so wonderful.

[Sven]

It kind of reminds me of the discusion a while ago about people feeling badly for the extras that are killed in action movies.

Heh. Yeah, that was Raiders and me as well. I still feel strongly about that issue, too. Humans should not be NPCs.

[Doclop]

carver is perhaps my favorite american auther, so my expectation is high and i'm a bit sceptic. how's it compared to altman's short cuts?
It's not in the same league as Altman's film by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, the comparison does become quite explicit! I'm curious what you'd think as someone who's such a fan of the source material.

[Rowland]

They're not a racist caricature. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may have different ideas about what racism is than most do today. Too frequently I've noticed simple depictions of non-white peoples referred to as racist, without there being much in the way of judgments passed through those depictions. In my mind, and I think in many minds, the artist or movie or person or whom-/whatever has to make a judgment on or through that depiction in order for me to think it racist. The crow caricature, in my estimation, is not only not racist, but a rather positive portrait. They are not subservient to any whites (a la Bagger Vance), they are not magical (their feather is just a ruse), they are witty and talented (their number is a real highlight), they influence Dumbo positively on his road to discovering himself, though kinship and enthusiasm. If only all our friends were so wonderful.How about how the lead crow named Jim Crow is voiced by a white man, while all the other crows are voiced by black actors. Can't have a black as the leader of the pack... ;)

[Sven]

iosos, I'm calling you out. I object to your categorization of Titus as a fluke. If you don't like Taymor's other films, fine, but Titus is no accident. It is an extraordinarily creative and controlled vision that demonstrates her ability to bring a text to life with striking, resonant visuals.

Of course, I mean "fluke" as in, it's the only time I've seen her inarguably fine talents as a visualist work. Also, it's the only film of hers that I think is directed well. I don't look at it as some wowing bombastic accident that just happens to work... I'm just saying that I thought Frida and Across the Universe both showed the same kinds of faults (inexplicable stylistic flourishes, characters that operate in 2-dimensions, awkward pacing, etc). I look at those two and marvel that it's the same talent behind the extraordinary and miraculous work of Titus, which was, no doubt, a controlled vision.

[Sven]

How about how the lead crow named Jim Crow is voiced by a white man, while all the other crows are voiced by black actors. Can't have a black as the leader of the pack... ;)

Well, that's a political thing. It must be said that the Walt Disney Studios were a very discriminating establishment, and Disney himself was quite the bigot. I won't fault the film itself for Cliff Edwards getting the role (he is a great voice actor). As for the name "Jim Crow", I don't think that's racist either. Jim Crow laws were in effect until the 60s... I think it's just a cute reference and has nothing to do with the crows or their role in the movie.

[Eleven]

If Dumbo were remade today (God forbid), the crows would be named Russell, Sheryl, and, possibly, Cameron.

[Rowland]

I've never seen Dumbo, but this discussion inspired me to do a little research for the sake of curiosity. I found this analysis of a scene in the movie that doesn't feature the crows:

"A circus train has just stopped, and the animals are getting off - the site of a new circus has been found. And then, a multitude of faceless muscular coal-colored black men pile out of a boxcar and begin pounding tent stakes into the ground. As they work, they sing a song.

”Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hike
We work all day We work all night
We never learned to read or write
We’re happy-hearted roustabouts
Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hike
When other folks have gone to bed
We slave until we're almost dead
We're happy-hearted roustabouts
Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hike
We don't know when we get our pay
And when we do we throw our pay away
When we get our pay we throw our money all away”

In case it is not clear why the song sung by these faceless black men is of any importance, take note of the references to slavery in the second, third, and seventh lines - while the one in the seventh is the most severe. Also, it portrays these big black “slaves” as “happy-hearted roustabouts,” content in their place - as beasts of burden, animals. The last three lines reinforce quite savagely the portrayal of the intelligence of these men. They’re not smart enough to know to keep money, and spend it on frivolous things - alcohol, perhaps, or women - although that assumption may be going too far. What we do know is that they are still working, because they have no money, and because they are happy to work. We also know that the man they work for is the Ringmaster, a white fat man who carries a whip. Whether these were all incidental details or intentional ones, this scene still sticks out in my mind as one of the most deplorably racist scenes in any childrens’ media."

[Watashi]

If Dumbo were remade today (God forbid), the crows would be named Russell, Sheryl, and, possibly, Cameron.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4746/dumbo2an0.jpg

[D_Davis]

I've never seen Dumbo, but this discussion inspired me to do a little research for the sake of curiosity. I found this analysis of a scene in the movie that doesn't feature the crows:

"A circus train has just stopped, and the animals are getting off - the site of a new circus has been found. And then, a multitude of faceless muscular coal-colored black men pile out of a boxcar and begin pounding tent stakes into the ground. As they work, they sing a song.

”Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hike
We work all day We work all night
We never learned to read or write
We’re happy-hearted roustabouts
Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hike
When other folks have gone to bed
We slave until we're almost dead
We're happy-hearted roustabouts
Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hike
We don't know when we get our pay
And when we do we throw our pay away
When we get our pay we throw our money all away”

In case it is not clear why the song sung by these faceless black men is of any importance, take note of the references to slavery in the second, third, and seventh lines - while the one in the seventh is the most severe. Also, it portrays these big black “slaves” as “happy-hearted roustabouts,” content in their place - as beasts of burden, animals. The last three lines reinforce quite savagely the portrayal of the intelligence of these men. They’re not smart enough to know to keep money, and spend it on frivolous things - alcohol, perhaps, or women - although that assumption may be going too far. What we do know is that they are still working, because they have no money, and because they are happy to work. We also know that the man they work for is the Ringmaster, a white fat man who carries a whip. Whether these were all incidental details or intentional ones, this scene still sticks out in my mind as one of the most deplorably racist scenes in any childrens’ media."

Yep. I've always thought that Dumbo was one of the more blatantly racist films I've seen, and I am not one who usually points this kind of thing out. It's kind of uncomfortable and embarassing really.

[Eleven]

I'm getting "Image Hosted by Tripod," but looking at the URL, I can guess.

[Sycophant]

Heh. Yeah, that was Raiders and me as well. I still feel strongly about that issue, too. Humans should not be NPCs.

I'm sad I missed that argument. That's one I've long felt passionate about.

[number8]

It's funny: last week I rented a bootleg video compilation of the racist cartoons of the 30s and 40s, most of them Looney Tunes, a couple of them Fleischer (one of which was Superman fighting a "Japoteur" spy). They're actually mostly just jokey blackfaces and stereotypes, none of which are as blatantly racist as scenes you can find in some Disney movies. I was kind of disappointed, to be honest.

[Rowland]

So you are absolutely opposed to collateral damage in movies, or is this something you would judge on an individual basis? I just watched Frankenheimer's Ronin recently, which featured a great deal of sometimes startling collateral damage that served to heighten the dramatic stakes in the action sequences.

[Llopin]

Has anyone seen Ferran's Lady Chatterley yet?

[Sycophant]

So you are absolutely opposed to collateral damage in movies, or is this something you would judge on an individual basis? I just watched Frankenheimer's Ronin recently, which featured a great deal of sometimes startling collateral damage that served to heighten the dramatic stakes in the action sequences.When a hero is making a daring escape and manages to kill a couple dozen people in horrific car accidents or stray bullets, so he can go clear his own name or something, because his cause is right and good is just fucking irresponsible when not given proper weight. If it's played up as cool, it's sin. I'm blanking on specific scenarios and I haven't seen Ronin, so I can't comment.

It should be ruled case-by-case. One specific example of well-punctuated bystander violence would be Kitano's Violent Cop, where it's appropriately tragic and awful.

[number8]

Don't watch Hard Boiled. :)

[Raiders]

I do not in general have a huge issue with innocent bystanders being killed without mercy and acknowledgment by the filmmakers since I accept it as a genre trope and at times can be quite effective in making an event more horrific than it might otherwise be. I think the discussion that iosos was referring to was in regards to the climactic, big city showdown in Transformers where I quipped that it was ridiculous that the Autobots wouldn't attempt to take the fight outside the city and save the countless thousands that died. It made me feel a little uneasy that the filmmakers chose to kill off thousands (make believe or not) for the purpose of having a big machine fight look as cool and destructive as possible. Plus, there's a moment where a person is running in front of Megatron and he flicks them (which naturally kills the person) and it is played as a slapstick moment. It just felt tacky and useless.

[Sven]

It never even occurred to me until a little while ago that the Roustabouts number in Dumbo was even a racial thing. First of all, they say that it's all "black men" that do the work, when it's actually silhouettes. We never see any forms, just the shadowed outlines of workers. As if that mattered. Secondly, the reviewer doesn't seem to get the underlying irony of the song. It's a chain-gang song. All the hammering and chain clinks and percussive rhythms... he complains that they refer to themselves as "happy hearted" when, taking into consideration the oppressive animation, the minor key, etc, these roustabouts are clearly sad. They're lamenting their lot. How many of us that've ever worked slave wages and had to scramble from paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet have lamented it?

Plus, he leaves out the next refrain, which is:

"We get our pay when children say 'we're happy cuz it's circus day today'"

Which I think adds more to the song than just "we're oppressed roustabout slaves".

[Rowland]

I do not in general have a huge issue with innocent bystanders being killed without mercy and acknowledgment by the filmmakers since I accept it as a genre trope and at times can be quite effective in making an event more horrific than it might otherwise be. I think the discussion that iosos was referring to was in regards to the climactic, big city showdown in Transformers where I quipped that it was ridiculous that the Autobots wouldn't attempt to take the fight outside the city and save the countless thousands that died. It made me feel a little uneasy that the filmmakers chose to kill off thousands (make believe or not) for the purpose of having a big machine fight look as cool and destructive as possible. Plus, there's a moment where a person is running in front of Megatron and he flicks them (which naturally kills the person) and it is played as a slapstick moment. It just felt tacky and useless.That's an argument that I'd agree with. It occurred to me as well while watching the Bots crashing through entire buildings in slow-motion, undoubtedly causing multiple 9/11-style catastrophes in the process.

[number8]

I do not in general have a huge issue with innocent bystanders being killed without mercy and acknowledgment by the filmmakers since I accept it as a genre trope and at times can be quite effective in making an event more horrific than it might otherwise be. I think the discussion that iosos was referring to was in regards to the climactic, big city showdown in Transformers where I quipped that it was ridiculous that the Autobots wouldn't attempt to take the fight outside the city and save the countless thousands that died. It made me feel a little uneasy that the filmmakers chose to kill off thousands (make believe or not) for the purpose of having a big machine fight look as cool and destructive as possible. Plus, there's a moment where a person is running in front of Megatron and he flicks them (which naturally kills the person) and it is played as a slapstick moment. It just felt tacky and useless.

But that's also a genre trope -- the giant monster genre. You watch Power Rangers or Ultraman or any Japanese Sentai and Kaijyuu shows, they ALWAYS fight in the middle of a city. Cinematically, it's to show scope.

[Rowland]

"We get our pay when children say 'we're happy cuz it's circus day today'"

Which I think adds more to the song than just "we're oppressed roustabout slaves".They are oppressed roustabout slaves who are happy so long as all of the white kids enjoy the fruits of their efforts while fattening the coffers of their well-fed bullwhipping boss? :lol: :P

[Raiders]

But that's also a genre trope -- the giant monster genre. You watch Power Rangers or Ultraman or any Japanese Sentai and Kaijyuu shows, they ALWAYS fight in the middle of a city. Cinematically, it's to show scope.

And morally, it's reprehensible. So OK, that is a genre trope that does really bother me.

[Sven]

They are oppressed roustabout slaves who are happy so long as all of the white kids enjoy the fruits of their efforts while fattening the coffers of their well-fed bullwhipping boss? :lol: :P

The boss with the whip thing is ridiculous, because obviously he's supposed to be evil, therefore their subservience to him is mournful and not in the positive service of the voices of the makers of the movie. Secondly, he only has his whip when a ringleader would have a whip: in the ring. Also, we never actually see who's the foremen of these roustabouts, though I suppose we can assume it's the ringmaster since nobody else is seen. Thirdly, the lyric gives the roustabouts personal satisfaction. It ennobles their lives through hard work that is its own reward.

You are angering me with your devil's advocate self. :)

[D_Davis]

Don't watch Hard Boiled. :)

:lol:

[D_Davis]

What is most reprehensible about Dumbo is its message - a freak is only worth something if his freakish nature allows him to do something extraordinary. Well, what about all the freaks who are just freaks?

Sickening I tell ya!

[Sycophant]

Don't watch Hard Boiled. :)Aw, man. I effing love Hard-Boiled.

But I'd contend that its's different in that it doens't approach it quite so callously. Or maybe I'm just a hypocrite, who just wants to take Michael Bay and those of his ilk to task wherever I can.

[Ezee E]

Those last, what, 20 minutes of Death Proof were pretty neat (Zoe Bell rulz). A pity about those interminable preceding 90.
Bwah? I can understand not liking a good amount of the movie, but the first car crash is just as intense as the second half.

[origami_mustache]

It's hard to consider an intentionally bad movie, good.

[Ezee E]

Dumbo is as racist as Happy Feet.

Its been years since I've seen The Jungle Book, what was so bad about that?

[origami_mustache]

Dumbo is as racist as Happy Feet.

Its been years since I've seen The Jungle Book, what was so bad about that?

jazz jiving orangutan...yeah it's racist

[D_Davis]

It's hard to consider an intentionally bad movie, good.


Troll 2.

I can't imagine anyone ever thinking this was a good idea.

:lol:

[Sven]

Aw, man. I effing love Hard-Boiled.

But I'd contend that its's different in that it doens't approach it quite so callously. Or maybe I'm just a hypocrite, who just wants to take Michael Bay and those of his ilk to task wherever I can.

John Woo = Michael Bay with slanty eyes [/racist]

[D_Davis]

John Woo = Michael Bay with slanty eyes [/racist]

John Woo = Chang Cheh with guns

[Winston*]

Bwah? I can understand not liking a good amount of the movie, but the first car crash is just as intense as the second half.
That little bit was fine. I'm thinking more of the parts where people spoke words before and after that.

[origami_mustache]

John Woo = Michael Bay with slanty eyes [/racist]

Yeah but John Woo was making bad action movies while Michael Bay was still fluffing.

[Sven]

What is most reprehensible about Dumbo is its message - a freak is only worth something if his freakish nature allows him to do something extraordinary. Well, what about all the freaks who are just freaks?

Sickening I tell ya!

This kind of contextualization is most unfair and is a cynical flipside to the coin of individual empowerment. One takes one's gifts and applies them productively and one is actualized. Dumbo could've been "just a freak", but through positive affirmation and self-discovery became something marvellous and unique.

[Spinal]

That little bit was fine. I'm thinking more of the parts where people spoke words before and after that.

"The parts where people spoke words ..."

Exactly. :lol:

[origami_mustache]

This kind of contextualization is most unfair and is a cynical flipside to the coin of individual empowerment. One takes one's gifts and applies them productively and one is actualized. Dumbo could've been "just a freak", but through positive affirmation and self-discovery became something marvellous and unique.

"one of us...one of us"

[Rowland]

John Woo = Michael Bay with slanty eyes [/racist]The difference being that Woo is at heart a humanist interested in the cult of manhood, where Bay is a misanthropist who can only unconvincingly feign human interest, and that's putting aside their differences in craft.

[Sven]

The difference being that Woo is at heart a humanist interested in the cult of manhood, where Bay is a misanthropist who can only unconvincingly feign human interest, and that's putting aside their differences in craft.

The idea of Woo as a humanist is the funniest thing ever.

[D_Davis]

This kind of contextualization is most unfair and is a cynical flipside to the coin of individual empowerment. One takes one's gifts and applies them productively and one is actualized. Dumbo could've been "just a freak", but through positive affirmation and self-discovery became something marvellous and unique.

Dumbo should have been happy with himself and accepted by others regardless of his newly discovered extraordinary powers. This film teaches disabled children that they are useless unless their disability comes with a super power.

However, the sad truth is, those born with big ass ears can't fly - they just have big ass ears.

[D_Davis]

The idea of Woo as a humanist is the funniest thing ever.

Woo is a romantic who idolizes heroic bloodshed and the male body. His films, like those of Chang, are part of the body-genre, films that celebrate the body, its flesh, and its fluids.

[Rowland]

Woo is a romantic who idolizes heroic bloodshed and the male body. His films, like those of Chang, are part of the body-genre, films that celebrate the body, its flesh, and its fluids.Romanticist would have been a better term for me to use than humanist, but his best movies incorporate operatic levels of morality as well.

[origami_mustache]

Woo is a romantic who idolizes heroic bloodshed and the male body.

sooo basically a misogynist...

[Rowland]

sooo basically a misogynist...He doesn't disparage his female characters, unlike Bay. Unless you're saying that the very notion of making a movie specifically about manhood is misogynist, which is patently absurd.

[D_Davis]

sooo basically a misogynist...

No - because he doesn't degrade woman, or elevate the male body above the female body. He has simply chosen to focus on the male form because this is what he knows, and what his mentor Chang Cheh knew.

[Raiders]

Woo is a romantic who idolizes heroic bloodshed and the male body. His films, like those of Chang, are part of the body-genre, films that celebrate the body, its flesh, and its fluids.

Bodily fluids, huh? Yeah, those Commies are always trying to steal our precious bodily fluids.

[origami_mustache]

He doesn't disparage his female characters, unlike Bay. Unless you're saying that the very notion of making a movie specifically about manhood is misogynist.

The women characters always seemed secondary...helpless and overly reliant on the male hero in the films I've seen of his.

[origami_mustache]

Bodily fluids, huh? Yeah, those Commies are always trying to steal our precious bodily fluids.

hahaha well played

[D_Davis]

The women characters always seemed secondary...helpless and overly reliant on the male hero in the films I've seen of his.

Secondary doesn't mean he is a misogynist. He has simply chosen to focus on the male body because this is what he knows and it is a logical extension of his mentor's overriding thematic focus. Woo does not take a stance against females, he only choses to focus on the male.

[origami_mustache]

Secondary doesn't mean he is a misogynist. He has simply chosen to focus on the male body because this is what he knows and it is a logical extension of his mentor's overriding thematic focus. Woo does not take a stance against females, he only choses to focus on the male.

Absence and subtraction is worth noting though. It makes sense, as he comes from a highly patriarchal society.

[origami_mustache]

Absence and subtraction is worth noting though. It makes sense, as he comes from a highly patriarchal society.

Cinema is patriarchal in general though, consisting of a predominantly male targeted audience.

[D_Davis]

Although it must be noted that Chang Cheh was quite the misogynist. His films often had the male hero betrayed and come into harm's way because of the actions of the females. That is, the females often made conscious choices to make bad things happen to the male heroes. However, he was also a homosexual (by all accounts) and also focused on strange homo erotic themes. His heroes often bled from the anus after being penetrated by a sword. So, yeah.

[origami_mustache]

Although it must be noted that Chang Cheh was quite the misogynist. His films often had the male hero betrayed and come into harm's way because of the actions of the females. That is, the females often made conscious choices to make bad things happen to the male heroes. However, he was also a homosexual (by all accounts) and also focused on strange homo erotic themes. His heroes often bled from the anus after being penetrated by a sword. So, yeah.


well I'll be damned...fun fact of the day.

[Rowland]

His heroes often bled from the anus after being penetrated by a sword. So, yeah.Now that's auteurism, baby.

[Spinal]

His heroes often bled from the anus after being penetrated by a sword.

Often???

[Eleven]

This is when feminist critique runs smack dab into the just plain wackiness of the individual.

[D_Davis]

Absence and subtraction is worth noting though. It makes sense, as he comes from a highly patriarchal society.

However, he was updating the wuxia pian which is a feminine genre. Had he been updating the kung fu pian, a male dominated genre, I might agree. Hong Kong was among the first countries to feature female action heroes. As a matter of fact, before Chang Cheh came around, most of the heroes in their action films were female or very feminine males. Chang wanted to add a masculine twist to the sub-genre, a move that super producer Mono Fong (a woman) approved of. After the 1960s, there was a switch to the more male dominated kung fu pian. With Chang as Woo's mentor, one might think that he would continue to trend, but, instead, I believe this is one part of his tutelage that he left in the past. He only features male heroes, but I think this is done because this is what he knows and not because he is making a decision against woman.

[DavidSeven]

I'm not a fan of Asphalt Jungle either; I saw it right after Rififi and it seemed anemic in comparison. Maybe it deserves a second chance... actually, it doesn't. That is all.

Yeah, it's mighty forgettable.

[D_Davis]

Often???


What I meant was, even when stabbed somewhere else, they would often bleed from the anus. This was partially do to the iron armor technique, a technique that would render the body invincible, except for one spot - usually the balls or the anus.

[origami_mustache]

He only features male heroes, but I think this is done because this is what he knows and not because he is making a decision against woman.

well not consciously at least.

[Sycophant]

This is when feminist critique runs smack dab into the just plain wackiness of the individual.The Groucho avatar really sold this line for me.

[Sven]

Dumbo should have been happy with himself and accepted by others regardless of his newly discovered extraordinary powers. This film teaches disabled children that they are useless unless their disability comes with a super power.

However, the sad truth is, those born with big ass ears can't fly - they just have big ass ears.

Of course he wasn't happy with himself. Everybody but his mother mocked him for his freakishness. A lifetime of scorn weighs heavily on a 'phant, you know. Of course he should've been accepted without having to prove that he can fly. Which is what his friendship with Timothy (the mouse) signifies.

Reading the parable literally, there is something to be objected to regarding the disability-gift object. A kid with a cleft lip is probably not going to be able to use it magically. But I don't think it's about morphing your specific handicap into a plus, but rather, finding out that you have a plus. It's about actualization, not transformation. It's just a more specific illustration of that.

[Eleven]

The Groucho avatar really sold this line for me.

I once shot an anthropomorphic, racially-insensitive flying elephant in my pajamas...

[number8]

Chiming in the Woo vs Bay thing...

Bay is much more of a misogynist than Woo (visually, of course, I wouldn't dare to accus Bay of hating women, since that's just tacky). Woo may fall into the trap of using women as helpless characters like many action movies, but he never objectifies women in any of his films, unlike Bay, who manages to squeeze in Maxim shots even in a film supposedly aimed at kids.

And one substantial difference between them is that Woo is fascinated with morality plays, much more than Bay (if he's even remotely interested). He glorifies the gangster life and sympathizes male bonding and brotherhood much more than justice or the law, but he always has his main character either change or die at the end. A Better Tomorrow 2 is loaded with this. Even with Chow Yun Fat's non-gangster character, just the fact that he decides to involve himself in a game of revenge means that he has to die before the credit rolls. It's not just a bullets and bodies fracas like Bay's films.

One of the coolest things about Hard Boiled is that he gives the one-note badass henchman a heart that totally fits into Woo's signature morality. "Yes, I'm a mad dog, a psycho killer who wouldn't hesitate to kill 300 people in one siege -- but only those in the "game", only cops and criminals. Doctors and sick old people? No way."

[Sven]

Finally watched The Day the Earth Stood Still. :cool:

[Barty]

Finally watched The Day the Earth Stood Still. :cool:

Klaatu Barada Nikto!

:pritch:

[Watashi]

Klaatu Barada Nikto!

:pritch:

:eek:

Talk about a blast from the past.

[Torgo]

Finally watched The Day the Earth Stood Still. :cool:

Awesome! A true sci-fi classic.
Does Gort kick butt, or what? :cool:

[Sven]

Awesome! A true sci-fi classic.
Does Gort kick butt, or what? :cool:

I love the look of his legs when he walks... how the metal on the back of his knees bends like pants. It's not an ironic love either. It's awesome to think about a badass alien metal that is so unnaturally strong and yet still bends like pants.

[Ezee E]

Bodily fluids, huh? Yeah, those Commies are always trying to steal our precious bodily fluids.

:eek:

Sig-worthy. If I ever sigged quotes.

[D_Davis]

Of course he wasn't happy with himself. Everybody but his mother mocked him for his freakishness. A lifetime of scorn weighs heavily on a 'phant, you know. Of course he should've been accepted without having to prove that he can fly. Which is what his friendship with Timothy (the mouse) signifies.

Reading the parable literally, there is something to be objected to regarding the disability-gift object. A kid with a cleft lip is probably not going to be able to use it magically. But I don't think it's about morphing your specific handicap into a plus, but rather, finding out that you have a plus. It's about actualization, not transformation. It's just a more specific illustration of that.

But what happens when the kid with cleft lip sees Dumbo and is instilled with a desire to find his own magical ability? He or she will go through life with the harsh realization that the disability does not come bundled with some innate, magical super ability. I fear that once adulthood is reached, this poor unfortunate child will look back on Dumbo, and think, "goddamn that stupid elephant." A child who wants nothing more than the metaphorical ability to fly will have his soul broken when the cold hard facts come crashing down upon his world.

[Sven]

But what happens when the kid with cleft lip sees Dumbo and is instilled with a desire to find his own magical ability? He or she will go through life with the harsh realization that the disability does not come bundled with some innate, magical super ability. I fear that once adulthood is reached, this poor unfortunate child will look back on Dumbo, and think, "goddamn that stupid elephant." A child who wants nothing more than the metaphorical ability to fly will have his soul broken when the cold hard facts come crashing down upon his world.

So wrong. So cynical and so, so wrong. It's not about turning your cleft lip into a magical talent. That, I agree, is ridiculous. It's about finding out that you can be a spectacular and unique person. The kid with the cleft lip will watch Dumbo and go "Yes! I, too, can search for my own way to fly and overcome my obstacle!" THAT'S what the movie is about.

[Watashi]

Yeah, I have to agree with iosos. Davis is taking the message way too literally.

[Ezee E]

Maybe what you see in Dumbo, says more about you, then what's actually on the film.







:)

[D_Davis]

Yeah, I have to agree with iosos. Davis is taking the message way too literally.

I'm actually just messing around and being ultra-serious about a film, you know, for funnsies.

[Sven]

I'm actually just messing around and being ultra-serious about a film, you know, for funnsies.

Argh! You and Rowland both... :frustrated:

Oh well. I still love you guys.

[D_Davis]

So wrong. So cynical and so, so wrong. It's not about turning your cleft lip into a magical talent. That, I agree, is ridiculous. It's about finding out that you can be a spectacular and unique person. The kid with the cleft lip will watch Dumbo and go "Yes! I, too, can search for my own way to fly and overcome my obstacle!" THAT'S what the movie is about.

If he never learned to fly but instead learned that he was a special unique snowflake because of and in spite of his big ears, then I would agree, and I would also give the film the utmost props. But as the film clearly shows, he isn't special in anyone's eyes, beyond an insignificant mouse's and his own mother's, until he discovers his super power.

[D_Davis]

Argh! You and Rowland both... :frustrated:

Oh well. I still love you guys.

Oh shit---

I thought you were just playing along!

:lol:

[Eleven]

I'm actually just messing around and being ultra-serious about a film, you know, for funnsies.

Or maybe somebody grew up with large ears and waited around for the mutant power to kick in instead of making friends.

:P

[D_Davis]

Or maybe somebody grew up with large ears and waited around for the mutant power to kick in instead of making friends.

:P

I'm still waiting.

[Qrazy]

Well, that's a political thing. It must be said that the Walt Disney Studios were a very discriminating establishment, and Disney himself was quite the bigot. I won't fault the film itself for Cliff Edwards getting the role (he is a great voice actor). As for the name "Jim Crow", I don't think that's racist either. Jim Crow laws were in effect until the 60s... I think it's just a cute reference and has nothing to do with the crows or their role in the movie.

Cute? Come on man you're being startlingly obtuse.

[Spinal]

I was moved by iosos' words of inspiration for the cleft-lip kid.

[Sven]

Cute? Come on man you're being startlingly obtuse.

What does the character have to do with politics? How do the Jim Crow laws affect anything in the movie? I know the cuteness is reflecting a racist set of laws, but I don't think that means that it, itself, is racist.

[Sven]

I was moved by iosos' words of inspiration for the cleft-lip kid.

I feel like a regular Tony Robbins.

[Derek]

Yeah, it's mighty forgettable.

Oh good, I thought I was the only one that disliked it.

[Qrazy]

But what happens when the kid with cleft lip sees Dumbo and is instilled with a desire to find his own magical ability? He or she will go through life with the harsh realization that the disability does not come bundled with some innate, magical super ability. I fear that once adulthood is reached, this poor unfortunate child will look back on Dumbo, and think, "goddamn that stupid elephant." A child who wants nothing more than the metaphorical ability to fly will have his soul broken when the cold hard facts come crashing down upon his world.

Well that kid has bigger problems to worry about, like being a fucking retard who modeled their entire life after an anthropomorphic elephant for one.

[Qrazy]

What does the character have to do with politics? How do the Jim Crow laws affect anything in the movie? I know the cuteness is reflecting a racist set of laws, but I don't think that means that it, itself, is racist.

Look at it this way:

1) The creator is a racist.
2) He created a character who is essentially a racist caricature.
3) He named the character after a racist set of laws.
4) The end result is therefore racist.

I agree with you in your argument against Davis and I don't think the film should be dismissed because of it's racist inclinations, but it clearly has such inclinations.

[MadMan]

Damn I just missed a complete indepth anaylsis of films that, deep down inside are made for kiddies (the Disney discussion). Nuts. Honestly I don't think when I watched those films at a young age I was thinking "Whoa hold the phone-these movies are racist! Save me from the evil Klan Disney directors mommy!"

That's not to say the arguments aren't without merit. They certainly are. But in some ways they are easy foder for a cheap punchline :P

However if I do view the older Disney films again I'll try to look at them in a different light.

Speaking of race I just saw Dave Chappelle's Block Party. To me the film not only provided some social commentary and one kickass party, but also it was funny. And not afraid to dive into some rather interesting issues, and show that rap music (of course) isn't all about bitches, the bling and the blunts. I think its an awesome viewing experience because of that, along with the behind the concert interviews with the different artist and Dave's brand of funny and sharp racial humor. Quite the interesting experience to say the least.

[Sven]

Look at it this way:

1) The creator is a racist.
2) He created a character who is essentially a racist caricature.
3) He named the character after a racist set of laws.
4) The end result is therefore racist.

I agree with you in your argument against Davis and I don't think the film should be dismissed because of it's racist inclinations, but it clearly has such inclinations.

I argue that the caricature is not "racist", but "racial". Clearly, yes, the birds are supposed to be black people. But I don't automatically construe that as negative. Nor do I imagine was Walt Disney the creative voice behind their existence or the character's name. It was his studio, but not necessarily "his" picture (he didn't write or direct it).

[Qrazy]

Damn I just missed a complete indepth anaylsis of films that, deep down inside are made for kiddies (the Disney discussion). Nuts. Honestly I don't think when I watched those films at a young age I was thinking "Whoa hold the phone-these movies are racist! Save me from the evil Klan Disney directors mommy!"


The fact that kids aren't going to recognize the racism on an explicit level is kind of the point here.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Damn I just missed a complete indepth anaylsis of films that, deep down inside are made for kiddies (the Disney discussion). Nuts. Honestly I don't think when I watched those films at a young age I was thinking "Whoa hold the phone-these movies are racist! Save me from the evil Klan Disney directors mommy!"

That's not to say the arguments aren't without merit. They certainly are. But in some ways they are easy foder for a cheap punchline :P

However if I do view the older Disney films again I'll try to look at them in a different light.

Speaking of race I just saw Dave Chappelle's Block Party. To me the film not only provided some social commentary and one kickass party, but also it was funny. And not afraid to dive into some rather interesting issues, and show that rap music (of course) isn't all about bitches, the bling and the blunts. I think its an awesome viewing experience because of that, along with the behind the concert interviews with the different artist and Dave's brand of funny and sharp racial humor. Quite the interesting experience to say the least.
I adored Block Party, it was so much more than great music, which is all I went in expecting. I hate to use the word, but it was inspiring, at the very least positive. A joy to watch.

[MadMan]

I adored Block Party, it was so much more than great music, which is all I went in expecting. I hate to use the word, but it was inspiring, at the very least positive. A joy to watch.Yeah the music was pretty great. I want the film's soundtrack.


The fact that kids aren't going to recognize the racism on an explicit level is kind of the point here.Okay, fair enough. However I saw those same films and I didn't turn out to be racist. So I actually wonder if they can cause harm or not. That's not to say they don't, but I think the jury's still out on that.

Has Spinal or KF weigned in on this? They have kids. I want to hear their viewpoint.

[Qrazy]

I argue that the caricature is not "racist", but "racial". Clearly, yes, the birds are supposed to be black people. But I don't automatically construe that as negative. Nor do I imagine was Walt Disney the creative voice behind their existence or the character's name. It was his studio, but not necessarily "his" picture (he didn't write or direct it).

Racial caricatures ARE racist.

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/caricature/

The crows strike me as hybrid caricatures... Uncle Tom meets Coon.

Oh and Disney was the Producer and producers have and especially had a lot of power.

[Sven]

Racial caricatures ARE racist.

I'll save that link to read for later, but for now, I'll just say that I disagree with the quoted sentiment. Or, rather, if I DO agree, I just don't think that it's a bad kind of racism, if such a thing exists. There's no question that the makers were thinking racially, but I don't construe that as a bad thing in the instance of Dumbo. The Jungle Book, though, that's another story.

[Qrazy]

Yeah the music was pretty great. I want the film's soundtrack.

Okay, fair enough. However I saw those same films and I didn't turn out to be racist. So I actually wonder if they can cause harm or not. That's not to say they don't, but I think the jury's still out on that.

Has Spinal or KF weigned in on this? They have kids. I want to hear their viewpoint.

Racism isn't always overt or explicit and it's still very much a societal problem.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

If you're interested in testing yourself scroll down to the racist implicit association test. Correlative links between test results and racist inclinations have been successfully documented.

[Qrazy]

I'll save that link to read for later, but for now, I'll just say that I disagree with the quoted sentiment. Or, rather, if I DO agree, I just don't think that it's a bad kind of racism, if such a thing exists. There's no question that the makers were thinking racially, but I don't construe that as a bad thing in the instance of Dumbo. The Jungle Book, though, that's another story.

Ok then, in my next animated masterpiece I'm going to have a subset of characters known as The Saltine Crackers. They will be predominantly recognizable by their patronizing, grumpy, and 'square' modes of behavior.

[Sven]

Ok then, in my next animated masterpiece I'm going to have a subset of characters known as The Saltine Crackers. They will be predominantly recognizable by their patronizing, grumpy, and 'square' modes of behavior.

I'm sure I would find it funny.

[MadMan]

Racism isn't always overt or explicit and it's still very much a societal problem.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

If you're interested in testing yourself scroll down to the racist implicit association test. Correlative links between test results and racist inclinations have been successfully documented.That site is cool. If I have time I'll go through some of the tests.

[rocus]

Ok then, in my next animated masterpiece I'm going to have a subset of characters known as The Saltine Crackers. They will be predominantly recognizable by their patronizing, grumpy, and 'square' modes of behavior.

You just described almost every white character in any African-American comedy.

[D_Davis]

Speaking of race I just saw Dave Chappelle's Block Party. To me the film not only provided some social commentary and one kickass party, but also it was funny. And not afraid to dive into some rather interesting issues, and show that rap music (of course) isn't all about bitches, the bling and the blunts. I think its an awesome viewing experience because of that, along with the behind the concert interviews with the different artist and Dave's brand of funny and sharp racial humor. Quite the interesting experience to say the least.

I agree. I think it is a brilliant film. One of the best times I've ever had in the theatre. The film creates a strong, positive vibe that is simply infectious.

[Qrazy]

You just described almost every white character in any African-American comedy.

Haha yeah, and they're equally bad... although delicious with soup.

[Watashi]

Holy shit. My theater is getting Southland Tales this Friday.

I didn't expect this film into my area's radar at all.

[Rowland]

The Darjeeling Limited was disappointing. At least I'm glad that I waited to see Hotel Chevalier until the theater proper, because it appears to work a lot better as a prologue to the movie than I imagine it would viewed out of context.

[Melville]

lovejuice's post about After Life in the book discussion thread:


totally off topic but since i haven't seen you in the FDT. you're perhaps the first person on this forum that doesn't like this movie. me neither actually.

did you see nobody knows. i sort of have to watch it because it's this girl's favorite film.
I had two major problems with the film: one, I thought its portrayal of death and of human experience in general were pretty slight; and two, I thought it really should have depicted the scenes that the people were recalling. Regarding the former, I'm not sure why the film singled out the happiest moments—why not the saddest, or the most dispassionate, or whatever? It never really made a case for why these moments were so important. That's one reason that I wanted the film to actually show the happy moments, either in their original form, in their recreated form, or (the best option) in some combination of the two. Doing so would have instantly brought each of the characters to fruition, and would have allowed me to more fully relate to the themes of the film.

Nobody Knows, however, I loved. Its characters are much better developed, and it has several transcendent scenes depicting exactly the kinds of moments that After Life should have.

[Sven]

The Darjeeling Limited was disappointing. At least I'm glad that I waited to see Hotel Chevalier until the theater proper, because it appears to work a lot better as a prologue to the movie than I imagine it would viewed out of context.

Extended thoughts?

I agree that Chevalier works as a tie-in, but on its own I found it insufferably lame.

[MadMan]

I was actually thinking about posting my Top 10 of the 2000s complete with commentary here. Yey or nay? I already began writting commentary for some of them....

[Mysterious Dude]

The car chase is the only part of Ronin that I have seen, and I was kind of bothered by all the people killed/maimed during it.

[Rowland]

Extended thoughts?Maybe in a bit. For now, I'll just say that the first third works the best by a wide margin, after which each third introduces increasingly diminishing returns, while the Anderson stylistic/thematic tics/motifs are noticeably stagnating. The Life Aquatic struck me as a more mature and engagingly experimental effort.

I agree that Chevalier works as a tie-in, but on its own I found it insufferably lame.*shrug* As far as I can tell, it's clearly not meant to be viewed on its own. Offering it for download before the movie's release was a mistake.

[Rowland]

The car chase is the only part of Ronin that I have seen, and I was kind of bothered by all the people killed/maimed during it.Which one? There are at least three car chases.

[Lucky]

Rowland, I must hear what you thought about The Return. I didn't know anyone else on the planet saw that movie aside from me. I didn't care for it much by any means, but I think I liked it a little more than you. I thought the art direction and cinematography were exceptional for the genre, but the story felt like an elongated episode of the X-Files.

[Mysterious Dude]

Which one? There are at least three car chases.
I've only seen one of them, so I don't know how to distinguish it from the others. Robert De Niro was one of the drivers. Beyond that, all I know is that they caused someone else's car to burst into flames.

[Rowland]

Rowland, I must hear what you thought about The Return. I didn't know anyone else on the planet saw that movie aside from me. I didn't care for it much by any means, but I think I liked it a little more than you. I thought the art direction and cinematography were exceptional for the genre, but the story felt like an elongated episode of the X-Files.I initially gave it ** but dropped half a star in retrospect, because I simply couldn't ignore how much of it fails. Like you, just about the only aspect of the movie I responded positively to was the gorgeous cinematography, which may have been too polished for its own good but nevertheless kept the movie at least watchable even during its more interminable stretches, and some scenes were genuinely inspired from a directorial standpoint.

[Raiders]

lRegarding the former, I'm not sure why the film singled out the happiest moments—why not the saddest, or the most dispassionate, or whatever? It never really made a case for why these moments were so important. That's one reason that I wanted the film to actually show the happy moments, either in their original form, in their recreated form, or (the best option) in some combination of the two. Doing so would have instantly brought each of the characters to fruition, and would have allowed me to more fully relate to the themes of the film.

I'm not sure I understand. Why would there be sad or dispassionate moments?

[Sven]

*shrug* As far as I can tell, it's clearly not meant to be viewed on its own. Offering it for download before the movie's release was a mistake.

Even as a tie-in, though, I found it a flat and immobile 12 minutes. Watching it before the movie, I'm sure, I would've been tearing my hair out, dreading the feature film. And the references to it in the film itself are all rather redundant anyway, I think.

[Melville]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would there be sad or dispassionate moments?
Why not? It just wasn't clear to me why Koreeda chose to focus on the characters' happiest moments. What makes those moments important? How are they related to death? Obviously there are lots of good answers to those questions, but I didn't think the film put forth any such answers.

Now that I think of it, does anybody have a good explanation for why the film never explicitly depicts the characters' memories (well, except for one fleeting exception)? It seemed like a very deliberate choice, but I don't see the reasoning behind it.

[Raiders]

Why not? It just wasn't clear to me why Koreeda chose to focus on the characters' happiest moments. What makes those moments important? How are they related to death? Obviously there are lots of good answers to those questions, but I didn't think the film put forth any such answers.

Now that I think of it, does anybody have a good explanation for why the film never explicitly depicts the characters' memories (well, except for one fleeting exception)? It seemed like a very deliberate choice, but I don't see the reasoning behind it.

You mean to tell me that if you were asked to choose one memory to be remembered for all eternity after you died, it would be a sad or dispassionate moment? The film's central idea is not how these ideas are related to death, but to life. It is in what each character chooses to remember, and what they do not choose, that is telling of the character.

I would assume Kore-eda does not wish to actually depict the moment because it would be cumbersome and completely useless to the story. There is no need to actually see the moment. To us it will mean nothing. It isn't contextualized. But it means everything to the person, and it is in the reaction and the wish fulfillment that the film attempts to depict.

I love that the workers at this place are very much normal, 9-to-5 employees, like working at a Sears photo lounge, and yet they hang eternal peace in their hands.

[Rowland]

From Armond's review for Darjeeling:

"...So does Francis’s wondering why Peter never seeks his confidence. “What doesn’t he want me to know?” he asks, and Jack informs him, “We don’t trust each other.” This is heartbreaking. Any family-tied moviegoer will intuit that Jack refers to the uncertain desire for forgiveness."

Wait, how was I supposed to intuit that? I don't even really get that exchange.

[Watashi]

From Armond's review for Darjeeling:

"...So does Francis’s wondering why Peter never seeks his confidence. “What doesn’t he want me to know?” he asks, and Jack informs him, “We don’t trust each other.” This is heartbreaking. Any family-tied moviegoer will intuit that Jack refers to the uncertain desire for forgiveness."

Wait, how was I supposed to intuit that? I don't even really get that exchange.

That's because Armond got the exchange wrong. It's "Why doesn't he want me to know?" in regards to Peter's upcoming son.

[Rowland]

That's because Armond got the exchange wrong. It's "Why doesn't he want me to know?" in regards to Peter's upcoming son.Alright, that's what I thought. I wasn't sure if maybe my memory of the scene was wrong and my brain just stopped working or something.

[chrisnu]

I was actually thinking about posting my Top 10 of the 2000s complete with commentary here. Yey or nay? I already began writting commentary for some of them....
Sure. I'd welcome it.

[Melville]

You mean to tell me that if you were asked to choose one memory to be remembered for all eternity after you died, it would be a sad or dispassionate moment?
But they weren't asked to choose one memory, they were asked to choose their happiest memory. I don't think the film does enough to justify that restriction. And, given the option, I'm not sure if I would choose the happiest moment of my life. I would probably opt for the most defining moment, something that captures the most about my life. Or maybe I would break down and weep in terror at the magnitude of the choice. I don't know.


The film's central idea is not how these ideas are related to death, but to life. It is in what each character chooses to remember, and what they do not choose, that is telling of the character.
But the story is explicitly about the end of life, not the living of life. It really seems necessary to address that theme in more depth.


I would assume Kore-eda does not wish to actually depict the moment because it would be cumbersome and completely useless to the story. There is no need to actually see the moment. To us it will mean nothing. It isn't contextualized. But it means everything to the person, and it is in the reaction and the wish fulfillment that the film attempts to depict.
It is contextualized by the interviews with the characters. The one shot from the perspective of the woman on the park bench, looking down at her fiancee's hands, was magical; it perfectly captured the resonance of such fleeting moments—and that was depicting the memory of a character who wasn't even in the film! Just a few more shots like that would have drastically improved the whole film.


I love that the workers at this place are very much normal, 9-to-5 employees, like working at a Sears photo lounge, and yet they hang eternal peace in their hands.
I thought that was a bit too cute. But don't mind me; I tend to find a lot of things too cute.

Anyway, I did like the film, I just wish it had gone deeper into its subject.

[MadMan]

Sure. I'd welcome it.Cool. That's vote #1. If no one else says anything I'll start it oh around Thanksgiving. And at the rate I go I'll probably finish it by Christmas :lol:

[Rowland]

In Darjeeling, what was the deal with Bill Murray and the man-eating tiger being included in the lateral tracking shot when the brothers and their mother express themselves without words? Knowing Anderson, everything is a metaphor for something, but I didn't really get those.

[Sven]

In Darjeeling, what was the deal with Bill Murray and the man-eating tiger being included in the lateral tracking shot when the brothers and their mother express themselves without words? Knowing Anderson, everything is a metaphor for something, but I didn't really get those.

I felt it could've done without Natalie as well. Because without the separate prologue, you're like "Oh... that was Natalie Portman for no reason." At least you could tell Brodie's character's wife by her pregnancy. I presume the Murray bit was a nod to Anderson expressing his own artistic changes, seeing as how Murray'd been with him for 3 films. The tiger thing is probably just a ha-ha gag. But yeah, mostly I felt that shot in general didn't work, because it doesn't convey anything interesting.

[Rowland]

I felt it could've done without Natalie as well. Because without the separate prologue, you're like "Oh... that was Natalie Portman for no reason." At least you could tell Brodie's character's wife by her pregnancy. I presume the Murray bit was a nod to Anderson expressing his own artistic changes, seeing as how Murray'd been with him for 3 films. The tiger thing is probably just a ha-ha gag. But yeah, mostly I felt that shot in general didn't work, because it doesn't convey anything interesting.Yeah, I thought the Murray gag that opened the movie was cute, but I didn't get the point in his reappearance with that shot. As for Natalie being in the shot, I don't think anyone will be watching the movie without the prologue (it was attached to all the prints as far as I know), so considering how it would play out without the short attached is a moot point. That is one of the reasons that I commented how the movie seems designed to include the short.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Yeah, I thought the Murray gag that opened the movie was cute, but I didn't get the point in his reappearance with that shot. As for Natalie being in the shot, I don't think anyone will be watching the movie without the prologue (it was attached to all the prints as far as I know), so considering how it would play out without the short attached is a moot point. That is one of the reasons that I commented how the movie seems designed to include the short.
It was only attached to the wide releases, people like me who saw it in limited didn't get the short beforehand. It was even difficult for me to get my hands on Hotel as a non-US resident.

[Rowland]

It was only attached to the wide releases, people like me who saw it in limited didn't get the short beforehand. It was even difficult for me to get my hands on Hotel as a non-US resident.Hmm, well that's lame.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Hmm, well that's lame.
It's lame to the max :(

[Sycophant]

Tampopo was so good, I don't even want to bother coming up with a lame food metaphor to describe it.

[Qrazy]

Tampopo was so good, I don't even want to bother coming up with a lame food metaphor to describe it.

Indeed it is.

On another note, does anyone else here prefer Woyzeck to Stroszek?

[number8]

I expected Beowulf to be a cool movie. I expected it to be a kickass movie. I expected it to be a fun night of 3D.

I did not expect it to be a near-great film. But it is.

[lovejuice]

I expected Beowulf to be a cool movie. I expected it to be a kickass movie. I expected it to be a fun night of 3D.

I did not expect it to be a near-great film. But it is.

fuck yeah!

[Duncan]

In Darjeeling, what was the deal with Bill Murray and the man-eating tiger being included in the lateral tracking shot when the brothers and their mother express themselves without words? Knowing Anderson, everything is a metaphor for something, but I didn't really get those.


I felt it could've done without Natalie as well. Because without the separate prologue, you're like "Oh... that was Natalie Portman for no reason." At least you could tell Brodie's character's wife by her pregnancy. I presume the Murray bit was a nod to Anderson expressing his own artistic changes, seeing as how Murray'd been with him for 3 films. The tiger thing is probably just a ha-ha gag. But yeah, mostly I felt that shot in general didn't work, because it doesn't convey anything interesting.

I think that since Anderson is very much a humanist director, and has always used large ensembles it would be amiss to leave out any of the characters from that shot. He considers each one significant. Bill Murray's struggle (which is obviously about much more than catching a train) needs to be included because it acknowledges the anonymous. Any specifics about his character, or his omission altogether, would kill the idea that even the sufferings of those unknown to us are acknowledged, appreciated, and sympathized with. I assume Murray's inclusion is also just Anderson commenting on what we take with us and what we leave behind, both as an artist and in life.

The tiger is not just a gag. It's the point of the movie. The whole film is about three brothers dealing with the specter of a dead father looming over them. And so here is a bringer of death watching over all the characters in the film. The tiger, to me, was the potential for suffering that we all carry around with us. Sometimes he leaps unexpectedly into the fray causing catastrophe for many. Sometimes we provoke him with our own bitterness causing the smaller death of a relationship. I really don't think it was just a joke. I refer you guys back to the scene where their mother tells them that a tiger has recently eaten a man. They laugh, she tells them she's being serious.

Hmm, that was not satisfactorily written. I don't know if I got across what I wanted to say, but I'll conclude that I thought the shot of the tiger was the most significant shot of the film, thematically speaking.

[Derek]

Hmm, that was not satisfactorily written. I don't know if I got across what I wanted to say, but I'll conclude that I thought the shot of the tiger was the most significant shot of the film, thematically speaking.

You definitely did. I already liked the shot, but you've given me a greater appreciation of it.

[Ezee E]

Beowulf will be in 3-D in my area. I will watch it to see what the fuss is all about.

[Sycophant]

I expected Beowulf to be a cool movie. I expected it to be a kickass movie. I expected it to be a fun night of 3D.

I did not expect it to be a near-great film. But it is.Um, whoa. This is far better news than I expected to get tonight.

[lovejuice]

i just learned alan menken did music to enchanted. wow. fucking wow.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hmm, that was not satisfactorily written. I don't know if I got across what I wanted to say, but I'll conclude that I thought the shot of the tiger was the most significant shot of the film, thematically speaking. You definitely did. I already liked the shot, but you've given me a greater appreciation of it. Yeah, I think your insight's right on the mark. It might've been much more affecting without Anderson's aridifying penchant for droll and punchlines, but it was good of him to make manifest world suffering and/or death and/or the mother's non-normative sense of obligation (lion) and fortune (Murray) amongst the key players in the brothers' emotional well-being.


I expected Beowulf to be a cool movie. I expected it to be a kickass movie. I expected it to be a fun night of 3D.

I did not expect it to be a near-great film. But it is. Hmm, good, I suppose. I'm finally looking forward to this now.

Did you see the Cloverfield and/or Indiana Jones trailer?

[ledfloyd]

I just watched Down By Law. At first glance I'd give it a reserved 3 stars. However, Jarmusch's films tend to improve in my mind for a few days after I've seen them. Dead Man certainly did anyhow. There was alot to like. Especially Roberto Benigni. At times though it seemed to be dragging. It's certainly my least favorite Jarmusch film at this point. I still have a handful to go. Stranger Than Paradise, Mystery Train, and Night on Earth.

[balmakboor]

I just watched Down By Law. At first glance I'd give it a reserved 3 stars. However, Jarmusch's films tend to improve in my mind for a few days after I've seen them. Dead Man certainly did anyhow. There was alot to like. Especially Roberto Benigni. At times though it seemed to be dragging. It's certainly my least favorite Jarmusch film at this point. I still have a handful to go. Stranger Than Paradise, Mystery Train, and Night on Earth.

Down by Law has the softest, most laconic middle I've ever seen. Still, it is beautifully shot throughout and its first act is a knockout.

Btw, you still have my three favorite Jarmuschs ahead of you.

[balmakboor]

That's because Armond got the exchange wrong. It's "Why doesn't he want me to know?" in regards to Peter's upcoming son.

This happens a lot with critics in my experience. This memory failing, getting simple facts wrong thing. I wrote a review for Junebug recently that was handed out to about 200 moviegoers and in the opening paragraph I wrote that Ashley says to George, "I want to know what makes you tick" when she actually says it to Madeleine. I sure got called out for that.

Robin Wood once took Roger Ebert to the mat for his many factual errors in his review of The Last House on the Left. Then Robin Wood goes and does it himself in his book Sexual Politics and Narrative Film while writing about Ozu. He bases several pages on the significance of a bit of dialog about Katherine Hepburn when the dialog was actually about Audrey Hepburn.

Yes, Armond White does it too. So did Canby in a review I read recently and on and on ...

[Kurosawa Fan]

Beowulf will be in 3-D in my area. I will watch it to see what the fuss is all about.

Yeah, we got the 3-D print as well. I might go check it out just for that. It's not a priority though, so if No Country ever comes my way, or anything else I think looks great, Beowulf will wait for DVD.

[Ivan Drago]

I expected Beowulf to be a cool movie. I expected it to be a kickass movie. I expected it to be a fun night of 3D.

I did not expect it to be a near-great film. But it is.

Hells yeah. I cannot wait to see it.

[Dillard]

I just watched Down By Law. At first glance I'd give it a reserved 3 stars. However, Jarmusch's films tend to improve in my mind for a few days after I've seen them. Dead Man certainly did anyhow. There was alot to like. Especially Roberto Benigni. At times though it seemed to be dragging. It's certainly my least favorite Jarmusch film at this point. I still have a handful to go. Stranger Than Paradise, Mystery Train, and Night on Earth.

Thoughts on Broken Flowers?

[number8]

Robin Wood once took Roger Ebert to the mat for his many factual errors in his review of The Last House on the Left. Then Robin Wood goes and does it himself in his book Sexual Politics and Narrative Film while writing about Ozu.

Ebert does it intentionally. He's been public about it. He said that he too often sees texts that are plagiarized or reworked from his reviews, so he changes up the little facts (character names, bits of dialogue) he mentions, just to see who's copying.

[Sycophant]

Ebert does it intentionally. He's been public about it. He said that he too often sees texts that are plagiarized or reworked from his reviews, so he changes up the little facts (character names, bits of dialogue) he mentions, just to see who's copying.Well, I'm glad to hear it's intentional, because there seems to be at least one factual error in each review I've read lately (and for a long time, as well). Interesting reasoning. Now, I don't have to worry that he just isn't paying attention.

[Qrazy]

Ebert does it intentionally. He's been public about it. He said that he too often sees texts that are plagiarized or reworked from his reviews, so he changes up the little facts (character names, bits of dialogue) he mentions, just to see who's copying.

Seems kind of like a ready excuse not to be paying attention.

[D_Davis]

What I hate is when people completely dismiss a well written, insightful review/critique because of a small factual error, like who said what to whom, or the name of a character or an actor or place, and what not, or a incorrectly remembered quote. I read reviews for insight, not for factual information: this is what the various online data bases are for.

It's crazy, someone can write a damn good, super insightful, 1500 word review, and then someone will totally dismiss everything they say because the author accidentally calls a character Jeff when his name is really John. I notice this a lot online.

This actually happens a lot with video game reviews. A reviewer will go into great detail about why they like or dislike a game, and then accidentally forget that there are 9 levels, not 10, and suddenly the author's credibility comes into question. Lame.

[Watashi]

I had a dream last night that I got to direct The Legend of Zelda movie I've always wanted to do. The score was composed by The Flaming Lips and Bob Dylan was Ganondorf. It was literally the best dream I've ever had.

[balmakboor]

Ebert does it intentionally. He's been public about it. He said that he too often sees texts that are plagiarized or reworked from his reviews, so he changes up the little facts (character names, bits of dialogue) he mentions, just to see who's copying.

If Ebert does it on purpose, my opinion of him just dropped a few notches. Then again, the review of his in question had about two factual errors per sentence. Wood called it "something of a world record of factual inaccuracy."

[balmakboor]

Pauline Kael made it a point to never watch a movie more than once. Then she would write some of the longest and most visible reviews anywhere. I sure wish I had her memory.

[D_Davis]

I had a dream last night that I got to direct The Legend of Zelda movie I've always wanted to do. The score was composed by The Flaming Lips and Bob Dylan was Ganondorf. It was literally the best dream I've ever had.

Wow.

[Philosophe_rouge]

SO, Audition was disturbing.

[Llopin]

The other day I dreamt I was walking through some picturesque forest with Tarantino and we were discussing Plato.

Fuck Tarantino.

[Sycophant]

SO, Audition was disturbing.And amazing!

...Right?

[Sycophant]

Fuck Tarantino.His argument were unsound? :|

[Philosophe_rouge]

And amazing!

...Right?
Pretty much, I'm still a bit in schock, but the last hour or so is hard to beat cinema wise. Some of the best handled dream sequences I've ever seen.

[DavidSeven]

The Darjeeling Limited was disappointing.

:pritch:

About time someone agreed.

[Llopin]

His argument were unsound? :|

Why does he always talk so prepotently about everything, why did he have to enter my boring dream and pretend to know about Plato and talk absurdly and ruin my forest walk with verbal nonsense about poets being kicked out of the Republic, as if he did actually know all that and care about that (instead of blabbing about Socrates, the blind swordsman or whatever), the Tarantino of my dream, what the hell does he know, what the hell do I know, why didn't he commit suicide in the dream and prove my mind isn't stiff and lacking creativity and eliminate that nazi greek on his way out and let me just walk around silently in my void of emptiness and contempt?

I don't like Tarantino.

[Rowland]

:pritch:

About time someone agreed.I take it that the response around these parts has been overwhelmingly positive?

*shrug*

[DavidSeven]

I take it that the response around these parts has been overwhelmingly positive?

*shrug*


Judging by the thread at the old Match Cut, it has been.

[Melville]

Why does he always talk so prepotently about everything, why did he have to enter my boring dream and pretend to know about Plato and talk absurdly and ruin my forest walk with verbal nonsense about poets being kicked out of the Republic, as if he did actually know all that and care about that (instead of blabbing about Socrates, the blind swordsman or whatever), the Tarantino of my dream, what the hell does he know, what the hell do I know, why didn't he commit suicide in the dream and prove my mind isn't stiff and lacking creativity and eliminate that nazi greek on his way out and let me just walk around silently in my void of emptiness and contempt?

I don't like Tarantino.
Best post ever.

[Melville]

On another note, does anyone else here prefer Woyzeck to Stroszek?
They're pretty similar in quality, but I do slightly prefer Woyzeck. For my money, one can never have too many stories about jealous men going mad and killing their lovers. Now that's an archetypal story I can get behind.

[Derek]

They're pretty similar in quality, but I do slightly prefer Woyzeck. For my money, one can never have too many stories about jealous men going mad and killing their lovers. Now that's an archetypal story I can get behind.

Same here and I think Woyzeck is Herzog's most overlooked film. Stroszek has Bruno S. and the dancing chicken, but Woyzeck has this

http://www.wernerherzog.com/main/de/html/films/films_details/images/f10.jpg

[MadMan]

Why does he always talk so prepotently about everything, why did he have to enter my boring dream and pretend to know about Plato and talk absurdly and ruin my forest walk with verbal nonsense about poets being kicked out of the Republic, as if he did actually know all that and care about that (instead of blabbing about Socrates, the blind swordsman or whatever), the Tarantino of my dream, what the hell does he know, what the hell do I know, why didn't he commit suicide in the dream and prove my mind isn't stiff and lacking creativity and eliminate that nazi greek on his way out and let me just walk around silently in my void of emptiness and contempt?

I don't like Tarantino.I find Tarantino annoying, but this post makes it sounds like he shot your dog, posioned and raped your mother, and set fire to the family farm while laughing like an evil sadistic maniac :P