Match Cut Directors Consensus -- Bryan Singer

[Ezee E]

soitgoes is probably busy with Easter, so I'll post this for him.

http://www.crankycritic.com/qa/pf_articles/images/x2-singer2.jpg
RANK ME!

[Ezee E]

The Usual Suspects - 8.5
Apt Pupil - 3.5
X-Men - 6
X2 - 9
Superman Returns - 6
Valkyrie - 5

Sounds better than what he really is I guess.

[Pop Trash]

The Usual Suspects -10
Apt Pupil -6 (book is much better)
X-Men -7
X2 -7
Superman Returns -5 (I'm way too much of a Christopher Reeve fan to embrace this movie)

[Stay Puft]

X-Men - 5
X2 - 8
Superman Returns - 7

[Watashi]

The Usual Suspects - 8
X-Men - 6.5
X2 - 8.5
Superman Returns - 8
Valkyrie - 6

[Spinal]

Bryan Singer? If you say so ...

The Usual Suspects - 4.5
X-Men - 5.5
X-Men 2 - 7

[DavidSeven]

Man, talk about a well known director whose entire relevance is built around one OK film.

[Spinal]

Man, talk about a well known director whose entire relevance is built around one OK film.

Or you could say "one OK screenplay (that he did not write)."

[DavidSeven]

Or you could say "one OK screenplay (that he did not write)".

This is truer than what I wrote.

[EyesWideOpen]

The Usual Suspects - 8.5
Apt Pupil - 7
X-Men - 6
X2 - 8
Superman Returns - 7

[Ezee E]

Or you could say "one OK screenplay (that he did not write)."
Pretty much. I put him in on a request.

Looking at next year though, things are getting slim.

[Sycophant]

The Usual Suspects - 4.5
Superman Returns - 8.5

[Melville]

The Usual Suspects - 7
Apt Pupil - 2
X-Men - 6
X2 - 7.5
Superman Returns - 4

[D_Davis]

Man, talk about a well known director whose entire relevance is built around one OK film.


Or you could say "one OK screenplay (that he did not write)."

So true.

Usual Suspects - 8

The rest that I've seen (Apt Pupil, and the X-Men films) are various degrees of mediocre. I can't even really rank them.

[Mysterious Dude]

The Usual Suspects - 7
X-Men - 6.5
X2 - 8
Superman Returns - 7

[Lucky]

The Usual Suspects - 8
X-Men - 7
X2 - 9
Superman Returns - 6
Valkyrie - 5

[Winston*]

X2 is probably the best superhero movie. So he's got that.

[Grouchy]

The Usual Suspects - 8
X-Men - 6
X2 - 8
Superman Returns - 4

[Qrazy]

X2 is probably the best superhero movie. So he's got that.

Yeah, all the one decent film people need to revise their statement to two.

The Usual Suspects - 7.5
Apt Pupil - 4
X-Men - 6.5
X2 - 8.5
Superman Returns - 5.5

[soitgoes...]

soitgoes is probably busy with Easter, so I'll post this for him.

Thanks! Rather I am recovering from being drunk.

[soitgoes...]

The Usual Suspects (1995) - 7.5
Apt Pupil (1998) - 3.5
X-Men (2000) - 7.0
X2 (2003) - 7.0
Superman Returns (2006) - 6.5

[Weeping_Guitar]

The Usual Suspects - 8
X-Men - 7.5
X2 - 9.5
Superman Returns - 6

[soitgoes...]

Pretty much. I put him in on a request.

Looking at next year though, things are getting slim.
I think there are plenty of directors important enough for these consensuses left. The problem becomes availability and participation. Some directors might be obscure compared to Bergman, Kurosawa, etc., but they have put a solid body of work together. Guys like Jancso, Borzage, Garrel, Pialat, Breillat, Naruse, Wiseman and so on are definitely stronger than Singer, but at the most probably only 3 films from each will have been seen enough to be counted. Personally I think we should redo the ones we did at the old site so all the information is here. I have seen a lot of films in the last 3 years that weren't included on the first lists. Plus I would like to be able to reference what others thought of certain directors.

[Raiders]

The Usual Suspects (1995) 5.0
X-Men (2000) 6.0
X2 (2003) 7.0
Superman Returns (2006) 8.0

Well, going by the trend, the next one I see should be a masterpiece. I doubt I'll see Valkyrie, so looking forward to his next film!

[StanleyK]

The Usual Suspects - 7.5
X-Men - 7
X2 - 7.5

[eternity]

The Usual Suspects- 7
X-Men- 5
X-Men 2- 5
Superman Returns- 6
Valkyrie- 7

Meh.

[Derek]

Guys like Jancso, Borzage, Garrel, Pialat, Breillat, Naruse, Wiseman and so on are definitely stronger than Singer, but at the most probably only 3 films from each will have been seen enough to be counted.

Psh, we'll get to them once we get to Jon Favreau, Greg Mottola, Adam McKay, Ed Harris, Ben Stiller, Jake Kasdan, Craig Brewer, Andrew Niccol, John Madden, Jared Hess, Brad Anderson, Jay Roach, Jan de Bont, DJ Caruso, Gregory Hoblit, Doug Liman, Rob Cohen and Tom Shadyac. Get your priorities straight man!

The Usual Suspects - 7.0
Apt Pupil - 5.0
X-Men - 7.0
X2 - 7.5
Superman Returns - 6.5
Valkyrie - 4.5

[Ezee E]

Sounds like Derek has a problem. Hopefully Shohei Imamura will cheer him up.

[soitgoes...]

Sounds like Derek has a problem. Hopefully Shohei Imamura will cheer him up.:lol: I don't think Imamura's films can cheer anyone up, but I'm definitely looking forward to his week.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Usual Suspects - 6
X-Men - 7
X2 - 4

[Boner M]

The Usual Suspects - 5.5
Apt Pupil - 4.5
X-Men - 6.5
X2 - 5

Huh, seems like I need to see X2 again.

[Watashi]

Kurious and Boner is living in Bizarro World.

X2 is miles above X-Men. It's not even a debate.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Usual Suspects - 7.0
Apt Pupil - 2.5
X-Men - 6.5
X2 - 5.0
Superman Returns - 6.0

[Ezee E]

Can those that like X-Men explain why they like it more than X2.

It's completely mind-boggling to me.

[megladon8]

Superman Returns -5 (I'm way too much of a Christopher Reeve fan to embrace this movie)


Funny, my love for Reeve is part of what makes Superman Returns so wonderful.


The Usual Suspects - 7.5
X-Men - 7
X2 - 9
Superman Returns - 8.5

[Kurosawa Fan]

Can those that like X-Men explain why they like it more than X2.

It's completely mind-boggling to me.

I can say that I was bored stiff by X2. It seemed like a carbon copy of X-Men, only the characters had already been set up and seemed to go no further than the first film. I liked the introductions mixed with the action of the first film a bit more. But to be honest, I wouldn't care if I never saw either of them again, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Plus, I haven't seen either film since they were initially released.

[transmogrifier]

Should have stopped after The Usual Suspects.

[transmogrifier]

Can those that like X-Men explain why they like it more than X2.

It's completely mind-boggling to me.

I can't imagine caring for either of them, actually. Both shallow and dull.

[Bosco B Thug]

Valkyrie - 4.5

[Ezee E]

And after one day, Singer is at page two.

[Watashi]

I can't imagine caring for either of them, actually. Both shallow and dull.
Just like this post.

Zing?

[SirNewt]

Muahahaha!

The Usual Suspects - 5
X-MEN - 8
X2 - 4
Superman Returns - 2

[Ezee E]

Love the av newt.

[MadMan]

The Usual Suspects(1995)-10=No that is not a typo :P
X-Men(2000)-7.0
X-Men 2(2003)-8.5
Superman Returns-8.0

Appears to be rock solid, but then again I have avoided Apt Pupil and Valkyrie, the latter which will be a rental. Right now I regard him as a guy who hit one out of the park and has spent the rest of his career trying to even remotely capture that success. Which I think others already posted anyways.

[transmogrifier]

Just like this post.

Zing?

If that means you agreeing with the fact the X-Men films are shallow and dull, then, yes, yes, just like that post.

[B-side]

The Usual Suspects- 5
X2- 7
Superman Returns- 7

[dreamdead]

The Usual Suspects - 8
Apt Pupil - 4.5 (good performance by McKellen, though)
X-Men - 5
X2 - 6.5
Superman Returns - 6

I like the fluidity of his shots at times, especially in TUS, but his touch still feels fairly transparent. He should try his hand at genres other than comics and thrillers, though, because I think he could excel at dramas...

[Mara]

The Usual Suspects-- 7
Apt Pupil-- 3
X-Men-- 8
X2-- 8
Superman Returns-- 6

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/aabryan.jpg
Bryan Singer-- 9.5

*swoon*

*thud*

[Russ]

Psh, we'll get to them once we get to Jon Favreau, Greg Mottola, Adam McKay, Ed Harris, Ben Stiller, Jake Kasdan, Craig Brewer, Andrew Niccol, John Madden, Jared Hess, Brad Anderson, Jay Roach, Jan de Bont, DJ Caruso, Gregory Hoblit, Doug Liman, Rob Cohen and Tom Shadyac. Get your priorities straight man!

Don't forget McG.

[baby doll]

X2: X-Men United (200-who the fuck even remembers?) [4]

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of directors, aren't we? Maybe not many people would vote in a Chantal Akerman poll, or an Edward Yang poll, but I thought the whole point was that we were supposed to rate the work of great directors, not undistinguished hacks.

[Sycophant]

No, he's a distinguished hack.

And does anyone have the original Match Cut manifesto still? I wanna see if baby doll got the purpose behind the Consensuses right.

[baby doll]

X2 is probably the best superhero movie. So he's got that.I think Feuillade's Judex has best superhero movie pretty much wrapped up.

[Sycophant]

For some reason, I really didn't expect Brian Singer to look like that.

[Mara]

For some reason, I really didn't expect Brian Singer to look like that.

Unfortunately for me, you're more his type than I am.

And he's reportedly an asshat.

But I try to forget about those things when I google him.

[baby doll]

No, he's a distinguished hack.

And does anyone have the original Match Cut manifesto still? I wanna see if baby doll got the purpose behind the Consensuses right.If his films were distinguished, wouldn't he no longer be a hack?

He likes Nazis? So does Steven Spielberg. His films are crawling with Christian symbolism? So are Spielberg's. In X-Men, "mutant" is supposed to be code for "gay"? Congratulations, he's made a film as progressive as a 1950s Rock Hudson-Doris Day vehicle.

[Yxklyx]

The Usual Suspects - 7
X-Men - 7
X2 - 7

[Sycophant]

We're not an editorial board of one mind with one mission. Obviously, there are people here who think Singer is worth paying attention to. I thought his Superman Returns was pretty great. I don't think we're going to exclude anyone on the grounds of them being a hack, because there are motherfuckers on this board who think Akira Kurosawa and Jean-Luc Godard are hacks.

Basically, if Match Cut has a purpose beyond being a film discussion forum, I don't know what that purpose is--and if I did, I'd probably want out.

[baby doll]

We're not an editorial board of one mind with one mission. Obviously, there are people here who think Singer is worth paying attention to. I thought his Superman Returns was pretty great. I don't think we're going to exclude anyone on the grounds of them being a hack, because there are motherfuckers on this board who think Akira Kurosawa and Jean-Luc Godard are hacks.

Basically, if Match Cut has a purpose beyond being a film discussion forum, I don't know what that purpose is--and if I did, I'd probably want out.I think we can objectively say that any one who says Jean-Luc Godard or Akira Kurosawa is a hack is out their mind because their films stand apart from other films--in Godard's case, through his aggressive and highly original approach to sounds and images, and in the case of Kurosawa, the grandeur of his images. Their films are not like other films.

X2 is like other films. There's nothing special about Singer's way of framing a shot or cutting together a sequence. Even his personal themes (Nazis and Jesus and gays, oh my!) aren't that personal. X2 is not only a timid Pleading for Acceptance movie; it doesn't even have the balls to say who it's pleading acceptance for. The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, indeed.

[Raiders]

but I thought the whole point was that we were supposed to rate the work of great directors, not undistinguished hacks.

Not really. Anyone is fair game.

[Qrazy]

I think Feuillade's Judex has best superhero movie pretty much wrapped up.

Baby Doll your efforts to become king elitist in a forum filled with elitists brings the lolz. Where do you think you are anyway, RT? Who are you rebelling against? Do you have a gear other than reactionary?

I appreciate many of your thoughts but the niche you've carved out for yourself is just so silly.

[Raiders]

Baby Doll your efforts to become king elitist in a forum filled with elitists brings the lolz. Where do you think you are anyway, RT? Who are you rebelling against? Do you have a gear other than reactionary?

Though Judex is hardly a "superhero," does it really seem that hard to believe Feuillade could have made a film better than all the other superhero films?

[Sycophant]

Really, I'm tired of doing this every time we have someone who worked with a budget of $50 million or more in the last twenty years. It's tiresome.

[Qrazy]

Though Judex is hardly a "superhero," does it really seem that hard to believe Feuillade could have made a film better than all the other superhero films?

I quoted one of his posts for brevity, I was responding to the totality of his comments here and in the Matchie thread.

Just to be clear I think of myself as an 'elitist' and I don't think there's anything wrong with being one. What I find silly is the need and desire to want to come across as one and to put a great deal of effort into cementing this image.

[baby doll]

Though Judex is hardly a "superhero," does it really seem that hard to believe Feuillade could have made a film better than all the other superhero films?If Judex isn't a superhero, then wouldn't Batman not be a superhero either? After all, Batman is based pretty closely on Feuillade's film: a caped crime fighter who lives in a cave.

[Qrazy]

If Judex isn't a superhero, then wouldn't Batman not be a superhero either? After all, Batman is based pretty closely on Feuillade's film: a caped crime fighter who lives in a cave.

Batman is based pretty closely on Feuillade's film?


In early 1938, the success of Superman in Action Comics prompted editors at the comic book division of National Publications (the future DC Comics) to request more superheroes for its titles. In response, Bob Kane created "the Bat-Man".[3] Collaborator Bill Finger recalled Kane
“ ...had an idea for a character called 'Batman', and he'd like me to see the drawings. I went over to Kane's, and he had drawn a character who looked very much like Superman with kind of ... reddish tights, I believe, with boots ... no gloves, no gauntlets ... with a small domino mask, swinging on a rope. He had two stiff wings that were sticking out, looking like bat wings. And under it was a big sign ... BATMAN.[4] ”

Finger offered such suggestions as giving the character a cowl instead of a simple domino mask, a cape instead of wings, and gloves, and removing the red sections from the original costume.[5][6] Finger said he devised the name Bruce Wayne for the character's secret identity: "Bruce Wayne's first name came from Robert Bruce, the Scottish patriot. Wayne, being a playboy, was a man of gentry. I searched for a name that would suggest colonialism. I tried Adams, Hancock ... then I thought of Mad Anthony Wayne".[7]

Various aspects of Batman's personality, character history, visual design and equipment were inspired by contemporary popular culture of the 1930s, including movies, pulp magazines, comic strips, newspaper headlines, and even aspects of Kane himself.[8] Kane noted especially the influence of the films The Mark of Zorro (1920) and The Bat Whispers (1930) in the creation of the iconography associated with the character, while Finger drew inspiration from literary characters Doc Savage, The Shadow, and Sherlock Holmes in his depiction of Batman as a master sleuth and scientist.[9]

[baby doll]

I quoted one of his posts for brevity, I was responding to the totality of his comments here and in the Matchie thread.

Just to be clear I think of myself as an 'elitist' and I don't think there's anything wrong with being one. What I find silly is the need and desire to want to come across as one and to put a great deal of effort into cementing this image.I don't put any effort. Just as it's not a provocatively original thing to say that Feuillade's Judex is by far the best super hero movie (there's no competition, for one thing), I don't think there's anything very shocking about saying that Bryan Singer is a hack. (Does anyone disagree with that?) And while I apologize to Sychophant, since apparently this has happened before in another consensus thread, I really did think that the point of these polls was to rate the works of great directors.

[baby doll]

Batman is based pretty closely on Feuillade's film?Okay, maybe not directly (my research hasn't been profound), but as the article says, these things were in the popular culture of the time, and Feuillade's films was probably influential in that regard.

[Ezee E]

Renny Harlin got a pass when we did his. Why is this?

I'd also like to think that in 5-10 years, some of these "hacks" will be more respected along the lines of people like Joe Dante.

But, as long as participating continues, and people seek out films of "those that are qualified," I'll keep on doing these. Its one of my favorite things about Match Cut.

Perhaps next year I will go back to doing directors we've already done. I was sort of thinking about just having posters picking them all across the board.

[Qrazy]

I don't put any effort. Just as it's not a provocatively original thing to say that Feuillade's Judex is by far the best super hero movie (there's no competition, for one thing), I don't think there's anything very shocking about saying that Bryan Singer is a hack. (Does anyone disagree with that?) And while I apologize to Sychophant, since apparently this has happened before in another consensus thread, I really did think that the point of these polls was to rate the works of great directors.

It's not what you're saying. It's the way you're saying it.



Also, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for best cinematography? Do you guys even care about good cinematography, or do you just go along with the Academy's view that dark, contrasty lighting equals seriousness?


As for the action scenes, which are the film's real reason for being (if any one tries to pull that zeitgeist shit in here, I'll knock them out), the film doesn't even distinguish itself on that level.


Really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of directors, aren't we? Maybe not many people would vote in a Chantal Akerman poll, or an Edward Yang poll, but I thought the whole point was that we were supposed to rate the work of great directors, not undistinguished hacks.


He likes Nazis? So does Steven Spielberg. His films are crawling with Christian symbolism? So are Spielberg's. In X-Men, "mutant" is supposed to be code for "gay"? Congratulations, he's made a film as progressive as a 1950s Rock Hudson-Doris Day vehicle.

Why did you even bring up Spielberg here?

Anyway I don't like when things get personal and about posting style so I'll stop here. Who am I to judge really. But I mean come on.

[Mara]

Just as it's not a provocatively original thing to say that Feuillade's Judex is by far the best super hero movie (there's no competition, for one thing)

Don't be silly. There's no Platonic idealism in film. Film criticism is a field of educated opinion, no more.


I don't think there's anything very shocking about saying that Bryan Singer is a hack. (Does anyone disagree with that?)

I do.

[Qrazy]

Okay, maybe not directly (my research hasn't been profound), but as the article says, these things were in the popular culture of the time, and Feuillade's films was probably influential in that regard.

Judex the character probably influenced The Shadow which probably influenced the original Batman. But there's little reason to believe that Feuillade's film influenced Nolan's film.

[baby doll]

Judex the character probably influenced The Shadow which probably influenced the original Batman. But there's little reason to believe that Feuillade's film influenced Nolan's film.I would certainly never say that. (I specifically said it influenced Batman, as in the character, not The Dark Knight.)

[Qrazy]

I would certainly never say that. (I specifically said it influenced Batman, as in the character, not The Dark Knight.)

Fair enough.

[baby doll]

Don't be silly. There's no Platonic idealism in film. Film criticism is a field of educated opinion, no more.Okay, so what superhero movies do you think are more impressive than Feuillade's? Or if you haven't seen Feuillade's, which ones do you like and how do they distinguish themselves in terms of style and narrative?


I do.Well, don't keep me in suspense. What about Singer's style sets him apart from other filmmakers?

[Raiders]

If Judex isn't a superhero, then wouldn't Batman not be a superhero either? After all, Batman is based pretty closely on Feuillade's film: a caped crime fighter who lives in a cave.

I don't really think Batman is a superhero, but he has attained that moniker over time I suppose and certainly the movies seem to argue for it. There really is nothing "super" about Judex.

[baby doll]

Why did you even bring up Spielberg here?I was preemptively mocking the idea that Singer is an auteur with distinctive themes. (Incidentally, I don't think Spielberg's view of the Nazis is very personal either, since he has no real life experience with the subject--unlike, say, Fritz Lang--which is why he can portray them as silly in one movie and then seriously in the next.)

[Qrazy]

I don't really think Batman is a superhero, but he has attained that moniker over time I suppose and certainly the movies seem to argue for it. There really is nothing "super" about Judex.

He attained that moniker at the time of his creation. Superhero does not imply superpowers.

[Mara]

Okay, so what superhero movies do you think are more impressive than Feuillade's? Or if you haven't seen Feuillade's, which ones do you like and how do they distinguish themselves in terms of style and narrative?

No, I haven't seen it. My point was that it's a little unfair to dismiss X2 out of hand because it didn't fit into your ideal of what a film should be. Obviously, other people have different ideals, and the film fit those.


Well, don't keep me in suspense. What about Singer's style sets him apart from other filmmakers?

The only definition of "hack" that I have ever heard is someone who does something artistic purely for the money. (From the word "hackeny," meaning a horse bred for common hire.) So, do I think that Bryan Singer is making films solely for commercial purposes? I do not. He seems to have an intense connection to his work (love for it, even) that has just happened to translate into commercial success.

I mean, I'm not saying he's Orson Welles, but I think he has merit.

[baby doll]

No, I haven't seen it. My point was that it's a little unfair to dismiss X2 out of hand because it didn't fit into your ideal of what a film should be. Obviously, other people have different ideals, and the film fit those.When you quoted me above, I was saying that Feuillade's Judex is the best superhero movie I've seen. As much as I love Feuillade's long takes and graceful way of directing the viewer's gaze through the frame (the very opposite of what Christopher Nolan does in his static, over-cut exposition scenes), I'm not averse to other approaches. I love Bresson, who favored medium shots and inserts of hands, and Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is one of my favorite movies. And I'm certainly not saying contemporary filmmakers should aspire to earlier works as some kind of Platonic ideal--in fact, my criticism of Singer's style is that it's not personal enough. There's nothing singular about his work that would distinguish him from any other commercial filmmaker in Hollywood.


The only definition of "hack" that I have ever heard is someone who does something artistic purely for the money. (From the word "hackeny," meaning a horse bred for common hire.) So, do I think that Bryan Singer is making films solely for commercial purposes? I do not. He seems to have an intense connection to his work (love for it, even) that has just happened to translate into commercial success.

I mean, I'm not saying he's Orson Welles, but I think he has merit.Whether he makes movies for money or because he truly wants to make good films doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to see his dedication in a theatre or going to rent it on DVD. If his films are different from those of other filmmakers (like Welles, who you mentioned), that's what matters. For all I know, Welles only made Citizen Kane to get a paycheck and stay out of the war, but it's still a better movie than X2.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Usual Suspects - 6
Apt Pupil - 6
X-Men - 6
X2 - 8
Superman Returns - 6

Much of my rating for X2 comes from Nightcrawler, who deserves a standalone much more than Wolverine or Magneto.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I quite like The Usual Suspects, actually. I'm a little surprised at it's response here, it has to be said.

The Usual Suspects - 7.5
X-Men - 5.0
X2 - 6.5

[megladon8]

I think we can objectively say that any one who says Jean-Luc Godard or Akira Kurosawa is a hack is out their mind because their films stand apart from other films--in Godard's case, through his aggressive and highly original approach to sounds and images, and in the case of Kurosawa, the grandeur of his images. Their films are not like other films.

X2 is like other films. There's nothing special about Singer's way of framing a shot or cutting together a sequence. Even his personal themes (Nazis and Jesus and gays, oh my!) aren't that personal. X2 is not only a timid Pleading for Acceptance movie; it doesn't even have the balls to say who it's pleading acceptance for. The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, indeed.



Singer > Godard.

I haven't seen anything by Godard that I enjoyed.

[Ezee E]

Singer > Godard.

I haven't seen anything by Godard that I enjoyed.
You killed him Meg. You killed baby_doll.

[megladon8]

You killed him Meg. You killed baby_doll.


I'm devastated.

*goes to watch Superman Returns*

[Ezee E]

By the way, baby_doll's criticism of not even saying who X2 defends is silly. He can already tell who its calling acceptance for, why hammer it in even more than it already is? If it did, he'd say that its being hammered down. A no win situation really.

[Watashi]

X2 came out in 2003, baby doll.

[Sycophant]

X2 came out in 2003, baby doll.

Yeah, that year thing was weird.

[megladon8]

Yeah, that year thing was weird.


No way. It was like, a totally jaded viewpoint showing a Godard-ian pastiche that enables the viewer to see the mis-en-scene as something devoid of humanistic reproach while simultaneously eliminating any semblance of cylindrical output.

And stuff.

Like, d'uh.

You guys are such peasants.

[Sycophant]

I disagree with baby doll frequently, and I am highly suspect of his approach to cinema, in particular how he limits himself so much to films he already suspects are "worth" something. At least, I don't find such an approach useful.

But what he says means stuff and is of value. It's reactionary, it's abrasive, it's pedantic, it's condescending at times, sure, but he says stuff and is an asset to the forum.

That's why I think singling out the year thing makes sense, because what the fuck.

[baby doll]

By the way, baby_doll's criticism of not even saying who X2 defends is silly. He can already tell who its calling acceptance for, why hammer it in even more than it already is? If it did, he'd say that its being hammered down. A no win situation really.My problem is less with the allegorical watering down process (they're gay and proud, but it's okay, Middle America, you don't have to watch Wolverine make out with Captain Picard) than the fact that Bryan Singer, grown up, feels he needs to ask straight people's permission to be gay. Maybe it's a nice message for twelve year old gay kids who feel like they don't belong, but I'm a grown up and I like to watch grown up movies.

[baby doll]

X2 came out in 2003, baby doll.Thanks. I couldn't remember.

[baby doll]

Singer > Godard.

I haven't seen anything by Godard that I enjoyed.My point wasn't whether or not you like Godard. My point was that Godard has a distinctive style and Singer does not. Care to argue that point?

[transmogrifier]

I disagree with baby doll frequently, and I am highly suspect of his approach to cinema, in particular how he limits himself so much to films he already suspects are "worth" something. .

But don't we ALL do that? You may disagree with his idea of worth, but surely you're not out there salivating after the next Larry the Cable Guy release? I know that I only ever watch films that I think I will get some value out of, otherwise, why waste such a short life?

The only thing baby doll trips up on is when he tries to criticise a film he hasn't seen. That's just silly.

[Sycophant]

But don't we ALL do that? You may disagree with his idea of worth, but surely you're not out there salivating after the next Larry the Cable Guy release? I know that I only ever watch films that I think I will get some value out of, otherwise, why waste such a short life?

You're right (about the part I didn't quote, too). Everyone has to set a threshold somewhere. His just seems exceptionally limiting.

[baby doll]

You're right (about the part I didn't quote, too). Everyone has to set a threshold somewhere. His just seems exceptionally limiting.And yet, I'm out there, watching Frost/Nixon, giving it a shot but not expecting it to be great (which it wasn't), even though it seems half (or more) of Match-Cut has already decided they hated it because, I guess, Ron Howard raped their mother.

[transmogrifier]

And yet, I'm out there watching Frost/Nixon, giving it a shot but not expecting it to be great, even though it seems half (or more) of Match-Cut has already decided they hated it because Ron Howard raped their mother.

Ron Howard, narrator > Ron Howard, actor > Ron Howard, astrophysicist > Ron Howard, director

[Sycophant]

And yet, I'm out there, watching Frost/Nixon, giving it a shot but not expecting it to be great (which it wasn't), even though it seems half (or more) of Match-Cut has already decided they hated it because, I guess, Ron Howard raped their mother.

Well, I'm glad you did. And I'm going to get around to that film sooner or later myself.

[baby doll]

Well, I'm glad you did. And I'm going to get around to that film sooner or later myself.Well, if I were you, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it. I saw it because it was playing in town and I wanted to see a movie. It's not a movie that you watch on video, where you have more to choose from.

[transmogrifier]

I'll most likely never see Frost/Nixon for the following reasons:

- the story it tells doesn't interest me for a second. If it were fictional, it would never have gotten past the first draft, it's such a nothing premise.
- it's directed by one of my least favorite directors in the world
- it features no actors I really love, with the possible exception of Kevin Bacon, though he's more hit and miss

[Sycophant]

Well, if I were you, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it. I saw it because it was playing in town and I wanted to see a movie. It's not a movie that you watch on video, where you have more to choose from.

See, I don't quite believe in segregating films this way. But you do, so whatever.

[baby doll]

Ron Howard, narrator > Ron Howard, actor > Ron Howard, astrophysicist > Ron Howard, directorBut what makes him a bad director? He's made some bad movies, like Cinderella Man, but are they poorly directed? Certainly that film had a lousy script, and the art direction sucked, so maybe the problem is the scripts he chooses to work with rather than what he does with them.

[DavidSeven]

Not that I think Singer is even worth discussing in the context of auteur theory, but shouldn't someone be required to view more than one of his films before they can write him off as an undistinguished hack? What distinguishes a director lies in their body of work. When you've only seen one film, you're writing about what distinguishes (or does not distinguish) that film, and a statement like "this director is an undistinguished hack" holds no credibility.

[baby doll]

See, I don't quite believe in segregating films this way. But you do, so whatever.Why not? What's in theatres right now? A very small number of films, most of them terrible. What can you watch on video: many many many movies, quite a few of them great. Gee, should I rent Tropic Thunder (good film) or Playtime (great film)? Not a hard choice.

[Winston*]

- it features no actors I really love, with the possible exception of Kevin Bacon, though he's more hit and miss
You should love Sam Rockwell because he's great. Also you should at least be in friends with benefits territory with Oliver Platt.

[Sycophant]

Gee, should I rent Tropic Thunder (good film) or Playtime (great film)? Not a hard choice.

How do I know till I've watched them that they're a "good film" and a "great film."

Besides, I thought Tropic Thunder was a meh film.

[Izzy Black]

I am quite sure it is not correct to say Spielberg's films contain "Christian" symbolism. His films are rather decidedly Jewish, if anything.

[baby doll]

Not that I think Singer is even worth discussing in the context of auteur theory, but shouldn't someone be required to view more than one of his films before they can write him off as an undistinguished hack? What distinguishes a director lies in their body of work. When you've only seen one film, you're writing about what distinguishes (or does not distinguish) that film, and a statement like "this director is an undistinguished hack" holds no credibility.I would need to see more than one if I thought his other films were better, but I don't. Conversely, I only needed to see one film by Tarkovsky to know he wasn't a hack because that one film, Solaris, was so singular.

[baby doll]

How do I know till I've watched them that they're a "good film" and a "great film."

Besides, I thought Tropic Thunder was a meh film.You read about the films and make an educated guess.

[Sycophant]

But I might be more in the mood to take a chance on Tropic Thunder. I guess I'm not so worried that I will always be watching the absolute best movie available to me.

[baby doll]

I am quite sure it is not correct to say Spielberg's films contain "Christian" symbolism. His films are rather decidedly Jewish, if anything.I remember reading somewhere (I think it was a book review in Cineaste of a critical study of Spielberg's films) that he deliberately incorporated Christian symbolism into his films (i.e., E.T. as a Christ-figure) in order to make them more palatable to Jew-hating Middle America.

[baby doll]

But I might be more in the mood to take a chance on Tropic Thunder. I guess I'm not so worried that I will always be watching the absolute best movie available to me.In any event, having read about both films, you'd be in a better position to make a decision.

[Ezee E]

My problem is less with the allegorical watering down process (they're gay and proud, but it's okay, Middle America, you don't have to watch Wolverine make out with Captain Picard) than the fact that Bryan Singer, grown up, feels he needs to ask straight people's permission to be gay. Maybe it's a nice message for twelve year old gay kids who feel like they don't belong, but I'm a grown up and I like to watch grown up movies.
I'd say he does that much more in Superman Returns than X2, which makes SR the far worse movie. X2, above all things, still tries to dazzle with special effects, and make it an entertaining movie. With the fascinating Nightcrawler scene at the beginning, and the tunnel sequences at the end, I think he does it right there.

Nightcrawler's scenes alone make the movie for me.

[Spinal]

Hmmm, it seems that this thread needs more Ben Lyons too. Unexpected.

[Sycophant]

In any event, having read about both films, you'd be in a better position to make a decision.

I actually try to go in without too much expectations or knowledge of what others think about any given movie, so my reaction can be more a reaction to the film than a reaction to its existing reaction or my own, imposed preconceptions.

Admittedly, being as, ahem, adventurous as I am, I probably watch more outright shitty movies than you. In just the last week, I dropped 3.5 hours on The Big Tease and Dragonball: Evolution. And I still haven't seen half of Scorsese's filmography or anything by Tarr.

Your way works for you. Mine works for me.

[Watashi]

I've never seen Lawerence of Arabia or The Godfather Part II, yet The Spirit is #1 on my Netflix queue.

[baby doll]

I'd say he does that much more in Superman Returns than X2, which makes SR the far worse movie. X2, above all things, still tries to dazzle with special effects, and make it an entertaining movie. With the fascinating Nightcrawler scene at the beginning, and the tunnel sequences at the end, I think he does it right there.

Nightcrawler's scenes alone make the movie for me.But it's all dazzle and special effects. There's no story, just teases of one (who's Wolverine's father?, the promise of a war between humans and mutants), so at the end, I felt ripped off, like I had just watched a two hour trailer for X3.

[Izzy Black]

I remember reading somewhere (I think it was a book review in Cineaste of a critical study of Spielberg's films) that he deliberately incorporated Christian symbolism into his films (i.e., E.T. as a Christ-figure) in order to make them more palatable to Jew-hating Middle America.
I would need to see the source. I have heard this criticism before. It was rather popular at the time, but it was not intentional, as I understand it:


Self-described 'nice Jewish boy' Steven Spielberg insists he never intended for E.T. to be taken as a Christ figure. In a 1994 interview with the BBC, the filmmaker declared he and screenwriter Melissa Matheson 'never anticipated religious parallels', instead simply wishing to create a tale of friendship and letting go. However, Spielberg admitted that he enjoyed re-watching E.T. after hearing of the supposed symbolism, as it gave him a fresh perspective on the film.

http://fantasy-films.suite101.com/article.cfm/religious_symbolism_in_et

Spielberg's films are self-consciously Jewish in the most serious sense. Understanding the significance of Spielberg's Jewishness is an essential factor in appreciating his otherwise commercial work.

[Izzy Black]

And to be fair to Singer, a semiotic reading of Superman Returns would possibly allow the film worthwhile attention -- specifically with regards to Singer's somewhat reactionary Christian moralism, not in spite of it.

[Ezee E]

But it's all dazzle and special effects. There's no story, just teases of one (who's Wolverine's father?, the promise of a war between humans and mutants), so at the end, I felt ripped off, like I had just watched a two hour trailer for X3.
Again, Nightcrawler's story, which you've already made the allegory about, is the best thing about the movie. The dazzle and special effects certainly help out the movie, and I don't see how it would hurt a movie.

Anyways, to Wats and Syc, I have the same approach to movies. I like a little bit of every genre. I have The Conformist and a Michael Powell movie at home, but I'll probably be getting The Spirit from Redbox and seeing that first. :eek:

But I'm really looking forward to The Conformist. Can't say I've heard one negative thing about that movie.

[transmogrifier]

But what makes him a bad director? He's made some bad movies, like Cinderella Man, but are they poorly directed? Certainly that film had a lousy script, and the art direction sucked, so maybe the problem is the scripts he chooses to work with rather than what he does with them.

My point wasn't whether or not you like Godard the directors I like. My point was that Godard the directors I like have a distinctive style and Singer Howard does not. Care to argue that point?

[baby doll]

I would need to see the source. I have heard this criticism before. It was rather popular at the time, but it was not intentional, as I understand it:


Self-described 'nice Jewish boy' Steven Spielberg insists he never intended for E.T. to be taken as a Christ figure. In a 1994 interview with the BBC, the filmmaker declared he and screenwriter Melissa Matheson 'never anticipated religious parallels', instead simply wishing to create a tale of friendship and letting go. However, Spielberg admitted that he enjoyed re-watching E.T. after hearing of the supposed symbolism, as it gave him a fresh perspective on the film.

http://fantasy-films.suite101.com/article.cfm/religious_symbolism_in_et

Spielberg's films are self-consciously Jewish in the most serious sense. Understanding the significance of Spielberg's Jewishness is an essential factor in appreciating his otherwise commercial work.The book being reviewed was titled "Citizen Spielberg" if that helps. I think. I don't have my old film magazines with me at the moment, so I can't give you the issue or page numbers.

As for understanding the significance of Spielberg's Jewishness, I'm intrigued. Are you saying that his films are without interest apart from their Jewish aspects, or that Judaism deforms his seemingly commercial films? Are Judaism and commercial filmmaking mutually exclusive? Can one properly enjoy Schindler's List, A.I. and Minority Report without viewing them through a prism of Jewishness, or is liking them for their narrative and stylistic interest the same as watching Dead Man because you think Johnny Depp is a hunk? Is that an invalid reason to watch a film?

[baby doll]

My point wasn't whether or not you like Godard the directors I like. My point was that Godard the directors I like have a distinctive style and Singer Howard does not. Care to argue that point?But that doesn't make Frost/Nixon a bad movie, necessarily. Howard may not have a distinctive style, but he's technically competent.

[transmogrifier]

And Singer? And his movies? And this consensus?

[baby doll]

Again, Nightcrawler's story, which you've already made the allegory about, is the best thing about the movie. The dazzle and special effects certainly help out the movie, and I don't see how it would hurt a movie.Dazzle is fine, but there's very little else there. Nightcrawler didn't do much for me (he's just another colorful mutant), and he's not in very many scenes anyway.

[baby doll]

And Singer? And his movies? And this consensus?X2 is a bad movie. I'm sure some of his movies are okay, but he seemed like an odd choice for a consensus. It's like we ran out of great directors, so he's the only one left.

[transmogrifier]

Has Howard made a bad movie before?

[baby doll]

Has Howard made a bad movie before?Oh, definitely. But I don't think we'll be doing a consensus of his work anytime soon.

[Watashi]

Oh, definitely. But I don't think we'll be doing a consensus of his work anytime soon.
I'm pretty sure we already did.

[baby doll]

I'm pretty sure we already did.Yikes! There must be some old Hollywood directors we haven't done, like Lubitsch or Preminger. I'm sure those would get a good turn out.

[Spun Lepton]

The Usual Suspects - 8/10
Apt Pupil - 5/10
X-Men - 7/10
X2 - 9/10
Superman Returns - 4/10
Valkyrie -- N/A

[Sycophant]

I'm pretty sure we already did.
Yeah, I thought we did too, though I can't find it on this site. Might've been at the old matchcut.org.

I mean, hell, we did Jason Reitman (attached to his father, Ivan, but still), so we can pretty much do anybody.

[soitgoes...]

Yikes! There must be some old Hollywood directors we haven't done, like Lubitsch or Preminger. I'm sure those would get a good turn out.
They've both been done, and I remember Lubitsch had a one or one and a half page turn out.

[transmogrifier]

I mean, hell, we did Jason Reitman (attached to his father, Ivan, but still), so we can pretty much do anybody.

That to me was the strangest decision ever. I say Gavin Hood next, or Jody Hill! Woot!

[Izzy Black]

The book being reviewed was titled "Citizen Spielberg" if that helps. I think. I don't have my old film magazines with me at the moment, so I can't give you the issue or page numbers.

Thanks. I'll look into it.


As for understanding the significance of Spielberg's Jewishness, I'm intrigued. Are you saying that his films are without interest apart from their Jewish aspects, or that Judaism deforms his seemingly commercial films? Are Judaism and commercial filmmaking mutually exclusive? Can one properly enjoy Schindler's List, A.I. and Minority Report without viewing them through a prism of Jewishness, or is liking them for their narrative and stylistic interest the same as watching Dead Man because you think Johnny Depp is a hunk? Is that an invalid reason to watch a film?

I am not necessarily implying there is one proper mode of valuation and appraisal. As I said, it is an essential factor in appreciating his work, that is, fully appreciating it, but not the only factor. He has some stylistic and thematic merits that are perhaps interesting on their own, but what makes him an important director, I think, is the personal quality of his films. Yes, this element most certainly augments these other factors insofar as they are connected to one another. Which is to say, his Jewishness and his commercial filmmaking are not mutually exclusive; nor is his Jewishness and his thematic interests, the structures of his storytelling (i.e. the resolve of War of the Worlds), and the visual style of his cinema (i.e. his near perpetually moving camera). I have actually discussed this in the past, so I would probably be better off quoting myself than trying to explain it as I did before. This was written in response to a poster who quoted Kubrick's dismissal of Schindler's List as a true Holocaust film:


Kubrick: "That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. Schindler's List was about six hundred people who don't."

Sure, Kubrick said that (I actually own the memoir by screenwriter Arthur Schnitzler from which the quote originates, but the reliability of the statement is somewhat conflicted given the nature of memoirs and the fact that it was taken from notes in a series of phone conversations), but in reality Spielberg's entire career is about success. Indeed, it works self-reflexively and thematically. It's a kind of dejected Jew's form of rationalization spun into an almost myth-like optimism. Spielberg's films can be read as quite dark - actually - if you consider this point. A great many of his films - War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan - are about the few surviving insurmountable (and absurd) odds in the face of death, mass destruction, and despair. He's like the (lowbrow) antithesis to Beckett. So, yeah, Kubrick's worldview is quite different, and perhaps more honest, but Spielberg, at least deconstructively, is a fantasy myth-maker, possibly with a dark undercurrent. I am sure Kubrick understood this, and why he understood A.I. was probably a film only Spielberg could direct. It is a beautiful synthesis - Kubrick's ironic cynicism matched with Spielberg's optimism and success stories - to make for, indeed, a success story, but an incredibly qualified success story at that. This is what you get when two artists of polarizing world-views meet in the middle. Oddly enough, despite how misleading all this may sound with the following, I am not a huge fan of Spielberg, but he deserves his props, and Schindler's List, even as borderline offensively humanizing as it is, still is one of Spielberg's finest films - arguably his best. It also colors a broad web of context to the rest of his filmography.

This was a little while back, but my sentiments are close to about the same.

[soitgoes...]

X2 is a bad movie. I'm sure some of his movies are okay, but he seemed like an odd choice for a consensus. It's like we ran out of great directors, so he's the only one left.
There are still plenty of "great" directors on the slate for this year. Heck, Powell, Imamura, Dreyer, Brakhage, and the Satyajit are all coming up in the next 2 months. The problem is finding directors that will pull enough votes. I mean who would generate more interest, Singer or Garrel?

[Izzy Black]

Garrel generates my interest more. I otherwise only post in these threads if interesting discussion arises.

[soitgoes...]

Garrel generates my interest more. I otherwise only post in these threads if interesting discussion arises.

But who would you discuss Garrel films with? How many people here have even heard of him, let alone seen one of his films? Criticize Singer, but when all is said and done, his consensus will have filled out at least 5 pages (sure some is based on his even being included), Garrel would be lucky to get 30 posts.

[Izzy Black]

But who would you discuss Garrel films with? How many people here have even heard of him, let alone seen one of his films? Criticize Singer, but when all is said and done, his consensus will have filled out at least 5 pages (sure some is based on his even being included), Garrel would be lucky to get 30 posts.

5 pages because criticism sparked some discussion. The past 3-4 pages have been pure discussion. On Match-Cut, the general member base has seen most arthouse directors. Even if they have only seen one or two films, they can post. What's more, a Garrel thread is more likely to bring in members that will engage in meaningful discussion, I find. Would a Singer poll really poll that much better than a Powell or Brakhage poll? As mentioned, this is not RT.

[Spinal]

I've never really felt like Match Cut was about extended high-brow discussion, although some people seem to have that expectation. People joke about elitism, but it really doesn't exist much here. There's a pretty reasonable blend of appreciation for arthouse/foreign and populist films as long as they're good. I mean, I know that a comic book fan like meg enjoys Bergman a lot and Raiders (who considers Persona his favorite film) has a fondness for Last House on the Left. Even Nick has a soft spot for cheesy 80s teen comedies if I remember right. That's the typical Match Cut poster to me and why I enjoy the site.

[soitgoes...]

5 pages because criticism sparked some discussion. The past 3-4 pages have been pure discussion. On Match-Cut, the general member base has seen most arthouse directors. Even if they have only seen one or two films, they can post. What's more, a Garrel thread is more likely to bring in members that will engage in meaningful discussion, I find. Would a Singer poll really poll that much better than a Powell or Brakhage poll? As mentioned, this is not RT.King Hu managed 20 posts, Aldrich just a shade more. Powell is much more "popular" than both those two and should poll well. What remains to be seen is if he polls much past a handful of films.

I'd venture to guess Garrel would have at the most one film (Regular Lovers) that would register as having enough viewers to be counted. Sure I guess it would get a few of those who haven't seen a Garrel film to check one out.

You say this not RT, but this site generates just as much (or more) interest for those that love the blockbusters as those that dwell only in the arthouses. Generally it is a mix of the two one way or the other. The longest movie thread on this site would probably be for The Dark Knight. Try starting a Frontier of the Dawn thread and see it peter out after 10 posts.

[Sycophant]

I've never really felt like Match Cut was about extended high-brow discussion, although some people seem to have that expectation.

Even more people seem to be under the impression that this is a horror fan site, as someone seems to say that every few months. Still not sure what that's about.

[megladon8]

My point wasn't whether or not you like Godard. My point was that Godard has a distinctive style and Singer does not. Care to argue that point?


Yes I would.

Singer certainly has a distinctive style in both his filming techniques (framing, colour, depth of image) and the way he tells his stories by combining these techniques with his writing.

I cannot think of another film in the last decade that so elegantly used pastels for its entire colour range as Superman Returns.

But there's really no point in arguing this with you. You turn the subjective medium of film into some sort of dictatorial, objective look at what is "worthwhile" and what is "bad". You're incredibly narrow-minded, and my trying to argue why Singer's style is distinctive is pointless.

It's worse than arguing religion.

[transmogrifier]

I disagree with meg. Singer has no distinctive style at all. Doesn't mean he can't make a good movie now and then, though.

[Ezee E]

I've never really felt like Match Cut was about extended high-brow discussion, although some people seem to have that expectation. People joke about elitism, but it really doesn't exist much here. There's a pretty reasonable blend of appreciation for arthouse/foreign and populist films as long as they're good. I mean, I know that a comic book fan like meg enjoys Bergman a lot and Raiders (who considers Persona his favorite film) has a fondness for Last House on the Left. Even Nick has a soft spot for cheesy 80s teen comedies if I remember right. That's the typical Match Cut poster to me and why I enjoy the site.
Exactly. Hence my reason for going for all different types of directors as well. Even if it is Reitman (Ghostbusters fared pretty damn well actually).

We still have a good list of directors to go. Milos Forman, Stuart Gordon are a few I have in mind next year, but Singer has had more (and better) discussion then the past three or four directors who would all be "quality directors."

[Ezee E]

Exactly. Hence my reason for going for all different types of directors as well. Even if it is Reitman (Ghostbusters fared pretty damn well actually).

We still have a good list of directors to go. Milos Forman, Stuart Gordon are a few I have in mind next year, but Singer has had more (and better) discussion then the past three or four directors who would all be "quality directors."
I can't really think of something that would say, "Oh, that's a Bryan Singer movie."

[megladon8]

I disagree with meg. Singer has no distinctive style at all. Doesn't mean he can't make a good movie now and then, though.


At least you disagree, rather than baby_doll's "you are wrong, I am right".

[Sycophant]

Exactly. Hence my reason for going for all different types of directors as well. Even if it is Reitman (Ghostbusters fared pretty damn well actually).

Ivan we pretty much had to do. Ghostbusters is pretty great. It's when Jason came along for the ride that I was all like "WTF?"

[Sycophant]

At least you disagree, rather than baby_doll's "you are wrong, I am right".
He disagrees with you, too. He'd rather phrase it in "you are wrong, I am right" terms, though.

[megladon8]

He disagrees with you, too. He'd rather phrase it in "you are wrong, I am right" terms, though.


Oh, well, that makes it OK then :rolleyes:

Sorry but I don't see much difference between baby_doll and the infamous Mariah Carey. The former just has a more extensive vocabulary.

[Ezee E]

Ivan we pretty much had to do. Ghostbusters is pretty great. It's when Jason came along for the ride that I was all like "WTF?"
Mostly my fault. Tried to do something out of ordinary and failed. Did the same with the Marx Brothers films which got mixed results. So this year I simply stayed with what works.

[Ezee E]

I've never really felt like Match Cut was about extended high-brow discussion, although some people seem to have that expectation. People joke about elitism, but it really doesn't exist much here. There's a pretty reasonable blend of appreciation for arthouse/foreign and populist films as long as they're good. I mean, I know that a comic book fan like meg enjoys Bergman a lot and Raiders (who considers Persona his favorite film) has a fondness for Last House on the Left. Even Nick has a soft spot for cheesy 80s teen comedies if I remember right. That's the typical Match Cut poster to me and why I enjoy the site.
By the way. Fantastic post here which explains why I've spent so much time on this board over the years and will continue to do so.

I would never get such a good discussion about Observe & Report, the vailidity of Bryan Singer, baseball, and find about some great books on any other site.

[Sycophant]

Mostly my fault. Tried to do something out of ordinary and failed. Did the same with the Marx Brothers films which got mixed results. So this year I simply stayed with what works.

Hey, no problem. It wasn't a bad thing rating the two films of Jason Reitman. It allowed me the opportunity to flaunt how much I hate Juno and how I thought Thank You for Smoking was meh, which I'm always eager to do.

[Qrazy]

I actually try to go in without too much expectations or knowledge of what others think about any given movie, so my reaction can be more a reaction to the film than a reaction to its existing reaction or my own, imposed preconceptions.

Admittedly, being as, ahem, adventurous as I am, I probably watch more outright shitty movies than you. In just the last week, I dropped 3.5 hours on The Big Tease and Dragonball: Evolution. And I still haven't seen half of Scorsese's filmography or anything by Tarr.

Your way works for you. Mine works for me.

Or does it? :P

[Qrazy]

But that doesn't make Frost/Nixon a bad movie, necessarily. Howard may not have a distinctive style, but he's technically competent.

Singer is also technically competent. In fact I found X2 and The Usual Suspects to be more formally appealing than Cinderella Man or The Missing. Still I don't think Howard is all bad. Apollo 13 and Willow are alright films.

[Robby P]

I never realized "Middle America" was the hotbed of homophobia and antisemitism. Perhaps I should relocate?

[Sycophant]

Or does it? :P

You raise a good point. But I actually still got something out of the experience of watching those movies, so it was worth it to me.

[Qrazy]

I can't really think of something that would say, "Oh, that's a Bryan Singer movie."

Still and I've argued this many times (not saying you are arguing it), I don't buy into this a priori belief that distinctiveness and auteurship necessarily reduce to 'greater value'.

[Spinal]

I never realized "Middle America" was the hotbed of homophobia and antisemitism. Perhaps I should relocate?

And you're fat, too.

[Ezee E]

Still and I've argued this many times (not saying you are arguing it), I don't buy into this a priori belief that distinctiveness and auteurship necessarily reduce to 'greater value'.
Definitely not. Directors that do have that authentic look like Wes Anderson have worn old on me. So you've got your distinct style. Nice. It looks good, but I feel like I've seen this a few times already.

Understand you completely.

[Grouchy]

This whole "distinctive style" debate is something that seems to pop out very often here regarding filmmakers like Nolan or Singer. It seems like if you don't have your "distinctive style" thingy (like Wes Anderson) you can't be considered an auteur, you oughta be spanked or something.

But, for example, today I saw a film directed by an auteur of comics, Frank Miller, who carried over to the new medium all his "distinctive style" of blacks and whites, blend of humor and violence, satire of hard-boiled writing and such. It was a steaming pile of shit with nothing to offer apart from Frankmillerism - absolutely no story or characters. The Darjeeling Limited is also a movie that would benefit from being a little less distinctive and more "ordinary", in my opinion.

On the other hand, you get classic Hollywood filmmakers like Michael Curtiz or Howard Hawks, whose works are revered, but when you get down to it, they don't have that "distinctive shot", or that strange quirk that seems to be required by some schools of taste to stand apart from the crowd. They didn't seem to need it, either. Other filmmakers like Hitchcock or Spielberg have distinctive quirks and typical takes, but it doesn't look like they have been desperately searching for that style. It looks like they just feel that that's the best way to tell a story. In fact, Hithcock and Spielberg are more easily identifiable because of their thematic concerns. Just like the Howard Hawks quirk would be playful sexual banter, I guess. Which isn't part of a quirky way to set up the camera.

I guess I'd just like to defend Bryan Singer on the grounds that not every filmmaker frames his films in a totally personal way. Some are more in line with the conventions of cinema, and that doesn't mean they're not telling personal stories - which Singer is obviously doing.

[Izzy Black]

The funny thing is that both Nolan and Singer are more important filmmakers than Wes Anderson -- notwithstanding their relative lack of "stylistic distinction."

[Grouchy]

The funny thing is that both Nolan and Singer are more important filmmakers than Wes Anderson -- notwithstanding their relative lack of "stylistic distinction."
Huh? How do you figure that out?

[transmogrifier]

The funny thing is that both Nolan and Singer are more important filmmakers than Wes Anderson -- notwithstanding their relative lack of "stylistic distinction."

By "funny", do you mean "completely false and faintly ridiculous"? Both Nolan and Singer peaked with their first breakout critical successes and have subsequently spun in circles relying on the residual critical glow and cosying up to fanboys.

[Qrazy]

The spider sense is tingling... I sense a...

http://kokuun.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/flamewar.jpg

...on the horizon.

And/or just a discussion for those offended by the above image or those who wish to have a semantics debate.

[Amnesiac]

I guess I'd just like to defend Bryan Singer on the grounds that not every filmmaker frames his films in a totally personal way. Some are more in line with the conventions of cinema, and that doesn't mean they're not telling personal stories - which Singer is obviously doing.

Yeah, a distinctively unique and idiosyncratic visual style isn't necessarily synonymous with value or interest. There are many instances where this is the case. But then there's someone like Curtiz or Jim Sheridan, where there is a lack of any particularly pronounced stylistic traits... and yet I'm sure their films can still be defended as works of great value and interest. And even regarded as ostensibly personal works. And there's still, of course, a visual style to be gleaned from the films. A style that is serviceable and accommodates the thematic preoccupations and the trajectory of the narrative. Those directors who give themselves over to convention can still produce great stories.

Then again, those directors who do employ a distinctive aesthetic rather than mining extant conventions can also produce great works, i.e. McLaren's Neighbours.

And, as mentioned with the example of Wes Anderson, a pronounced visual style can often enervate itself into superfluity or banality through the force of sheer repetition. Or, more specifically, repetition alongside a lack of interesting thematic concerns or a compelling narrative trajectory (I like The Royal Tenenbaums but I haven't seen enough of Anderson's work to either agree with, or side with, this criticism). There's nothing wrong with styles that are reemployed but there's got to be something new that comes along with that reemployment, something worthwhile.

[Izzy Black]

By "funny", do you mean "completely false and faintly ridiculous"? Both Nolan and Singer peaked with their first breakout critical successes and have subsequently spun in circles relying on the residual critical glow and cosying up to fanboys.

I do not mean that at all, actually. Nolan's peak is bookended with Following and The Dark Knight as far as I am concerned. Singer peaked, arguably, with his debut, but Superman Returns is still an interesting film. Both are interesting directors, even if on a typical day I would be criticizing them against knee-jerk fan boy worship. Wes Anderson is idiosyncratic and fashionable, but that hardly makes him interesting or important. Neither Anderson nor Singer have made a film that is as important and relevant as the The Dark Knight, but at least Singer has an interesting personal worldview that has resounding cultural implications. Wes Anderson is probably the superior dramatist and entertainer of the bunch, but I am not sure this superlative places him above the merits of Singer and Nolan.

[transmogrifier]

Neither Anderson nor Singer have made a film that is as important and relevant as the The Dark Knight......

And this is where you and I depart from even being in the same ballpark when it comes to what we want out of cinema.

And neither of those two adjectives have anything to do with the quality of a film, by the way.

The Dark Knight is a tonal, narrative mess, poorly directed and hooribly shaped, bouyed by the acting and...well, the feeling that anything could happen (as you often get with messes), though in the end what DID happen was shallow yet needlessly convoluted. It is the film of a director without a clear vision, but instead someone content to throw anything into his film and hope that stuff sticks.

I'm not the hugest fan of Burton's Batman, as it suffers from many of the same problems...BUT it has a vision, a concept, a warped sense of its own world and ideals and what it is trying to achieve. It's the product of a real director. Batman Returns is even better.

[Izzy Black]

And this is where you and I depart from even being in the same ballpark when it comes to what we want out of cinema.

I can accept that, but I am skeptical how different our standards are. It may very well be that we have arrived at different conclusions as to how well those standards have been met. (I am inclined to think that people generally tend to have the same, albeit diverse, standards of assessing art. We tend to categorize them differently, however, which leads to linguistic confusion. Call this digression, though, as I will try to avoid, for once, a semantic debate which Qrazy so loathes and is destined to derail discussion.)


And neither of those two adjectives have anything to do with the quality of the film, by the way.

Why? Can they not - at least sometimes - be factors of consideration in determining greatness?

[transmogrifier]

Why? Can they not - at least sometimes - be factors of consideration in determining greatness?

Nope. Just look at all the films coming out from Iraq. Relevant as all hell, and barely a good one in the bunch (apparently, as I haven't seen them all of course).

And importance is a far too nebulous concept, and often too wrapped up with the external focus on box office, influence and technical revolution, none of which has anything to say about the quality of the filmmaking on show. (which brings me to my main point that the quality of the filmmaking in The Dark Knight is quite poor at times)

[Izzy Black]

The Dark Knight is a tonal, narrative mess, poorly directed and hooribly shaped, bouyed by the acting and...well, the feeling that anything could happen (as you often get with messes), though in the end what DID happen was shallow yet needlessly convoluted. It is the film of a director without a clear vision, but instead someone content to throw anything into his film and hope that stuff sticks.

How is it a tonal, narrative mess? What is horribly shaped about it? Even if I concede these points, which I can partially already, as I do not think that it is that great narratively (but my concern is less with narrative incoherence or messiness than with narrative conventionality and cliche), can a film still not be worthwhile, notwithstanding its narrative shortcomings? As for the acting - this is a significant point. The acting is an important element of this film and not something we can dislodge from the director's credit. Moreover, I am not sure what about this film is lacking in vision. It contains the thematic preoccupations of Nolan while also maintaining a strong narrative intention that is maintained throughout the film. (i.e. the problem of "escalation" as it lends itself to a deconstruction of the hero-myth; the problem of heroic vigilantism, consequentialism, and moral idealism, and its sociopolitical implications; and lastly, the merits of a compromising utilitarian system of ethics.)


I'm not the hugest fan of Burton's Batman, as it suffers from many of the same problems...BUT it has a vision, a concept, a warped sense of its own world and ideals and what it is trying to achieve. It's the product of a real director. Batman Returns is even better.

The movies are OK - but I am not sure how Knight is lacking in vision and conception. At best, we can say it is lacking in cinematic vision and visual style, which I would be hard-pressed to disagree (since I would be arguing my own previous stances), but value goes beyond style, as we have been arguing.

[Izzy Black]

Nope. Just look at all the films coming out from Iraq. Relevant as all hell, and barely a good one in the bunch (apparently, as I haven't seen them all of course).

I am not sure you gathered what I wrote. I said a factor (or factors) - not the factor. Take away that these films are coming out of Iraq, and let us say they are coming out of L.A. about the relative ease of life in the 1990s. Pretty irrelevant stuff. Now, let us say these films were narratively competent. That's all fine and well, but their lack of relevance can be a component worth addressing. Add narrative competence and relevance to a film and you have a more important film on your hands, I think. I do not think this is a radical sentiment.


And importance is a far too nebulous concept, and often too wrapped up with the external focus on box office, influence and technical revolution, none of which has anything to say about the quality of the filmmaking on show. (which brings me to my main point that the quality of the filmmaking in The Dark Knight is quite poor at times)

Influence, box-office factors, and technical innovations have nothing to say about the quality of the filmmaking? Is it not, more accurately said, that the quality of the filmmaking often says something about these things? They are certainly related, even if not essentially so. Aside from this, though, when I talk about importance, I am talking about what is valuable in a film. What makes a film deep, challenging, relevant, and significant by virtue of the filmmaking quality -- not irrespective of its quality.

[transmogrifier]

It contains the thematic preoccupations of Nolan while also maintaining a strong narrative intention that is maintained throughout the film. (i.e. the problem of "escalation" as it lends itself to a deconstruction of the hero-myth; the problem of heroic vigilantism, consequentialism, and moral idealism, and its sociopolitical implications; and lastly, the merits of a compromising utilitarian system of ethics.)

I can't argue that the themes aren't there, but I don't think they are very well handled at all, and that is the point. For example, the issue with the surveillance system, and the token objections from Morgan Freeman is a cynical nod to the mood of the times, and the film kind of makes a big deal about it before dropping it rather abruptly (I can't remember well, but he uses it once and then blows it up, or something, and that's the last time it's even referred to?). And that's the whole film, several themes thrown together in a random mess, with no real point of view on offer, but rather a string of "What about THIS?" scenes that don't lead to anything at all - you could say Nolan is going for ambiguity, but I would argue he's simply unable to bring the themes together into a satisfying whole. It's hollow touchstone intellectualism with no guiding, to use that word again, vision.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think what we're all trying to get at is not so much (or so solely) distinctive "style" or any sort of superficial attribute involving "worldview," social messages, or technical competence. The real deal in the end seems to be theoretical and analytical value. Hawks may not have a distinctive and overt aesthetic style, but his films can often be seen as struggling with the tenets of form, representation, and etc. in cinema; re-evaluating narrative and discursive structures; detailing some sensibility of the sublime and subliminal in filmic drama. Etcetera. Yes, that last sentence was just out-my-ass wankery (I doubt my ability to give any fully developed thoughts on Hawks), but you get my gist.

"Lesser value" directors can make technically proficient films, but themes are just themes, cinematography is just cinematography, and there is no struggle with form and/or narrative. They'll "wow" you, emotionally sway you with tawdry affects, but they won't challenge you. Wes Anderson has an aesthetic, yes, but what makes the discerning latch onto his films is the way his aesthetic (and other formalist attributes) serve dense and difficult rhetorical constructions. The problem with The Dark Knight is it is all story, without any sense of deconstructing its presentation of the story, so entrenched in social philosophy and whatnot.

I'll agree with baby_doll with the fact that a film must have to some extent "the arthouse approach" and make "arthouse risks" to be good, but it always seems like you (baby_doll) assume a commercial film or commercial director (with any degree of commercial/shallow motives, which I find you often find the need to call out on a director rather despotically) cannot make a film that is at some level of analytical worth.


I do not mean that at all, actually. Nolan's peak is bookended with Following and The Dark Knight as far as I am concerned. Singer peaked, arguably, with his debut, but Superman Returns is still an interesting film. Both are interesting directors, even if on a typical day I would be criticizing them against knee-jerk fan boy worship. Wes Anderson is idiosyncratic and fashionable, but that hardly makes him interesting or important. Neither Anderson nor Singer have made a film that is as important and relevant as the The Dark Knight, but at least Singer has an interesting personal worldview that has resounding cultural implications. Wes Anderson is probably the superior dramatist and entertainer of the bunch, but I am not sure this superlative places him above the merits of Singer and Nolan. Having resounding cultural implications I imagine as something that would require a work setting some sort of foundation itself. The Dark Knight more plays into an already existent worldview/sensibility than it provokes or urges forth a worldview/sensibility. Wes Anderson's critical exposes of personal drama may not have immediate social messages inlaid into them, but I think their self-made intellectuality (for the record, not that big a fan of Wes) has much more of the ability to provoke and call into question than the narrative conventionality and propagandic thematics of the X-Men films. They may make the marginalized identify with the mutant characters (which is all well and good and I'm glad popcorn entertainment with a message films are made - I love myself bad slasher films with strange moral affinities... I'd just never call them great works of art), but it does so without calling to attention this identification through theoretical play. The social story-telling of 'Dark Knight' and the X-Men films is just sort of stagnant, place-setting, innocuous, dare I say it, bourgeoisie.

[baby doll]

I never realized "Middle America" was the hotbed of homophobia and antisemitism. Perhaps I should relocate?I was joking. If Singer feels he has to plead for acceptance in this way, he must have a really low opinion of what the majority of American moviegoers are like.

[baby doll]

Yes I would.

Singer certainly has a distinctive style in both his filming techniques (framing, colour, depth of image) and the way he tells his stories by combining these techniques with his writing.

I cannot think of another film in the last decade that so elegantly used pastels for its entire colour range as Superman Returns.

But there's really no point in arguing this with you. You turn the subjective medium of film into some sort of dictatorial, objective look at what is "worthwhile" and what is "bad". You're incredibly narrow-minded, and my trying to argue why Singer's style is distinctive is pointless.

It's worse than arguing religion.Marie Antoinette also did some lovely things with pastels, but I'll concede the point as I haven't seen Superman Returns. My question is how does this use of colour stand apart from other films? When we talk about the distinctiveness of an Ozu or a Wes Anderson, it's because they've rigorously pursued a limited number of stylistic options. Ozu for instance, always filmed people and things from a low angle, and never moved his camera, so even if you just saw one of his films, you'd have to notice that his way of framing things is unique. Even if Singer doesn't use pastels in his other films (X2 was butt ugly if memory serves), that's not to say Superman Returns can't have a distinctive look. But it still sounds to me (and maybe I'm not understanding you correctly) that your case for Singer--or at least Superman Returns--boils down to the film having an attractive production design.

[baby doll]

Nope. Just look at all the films coming out from Iraq. Relevant as all hell, and barely a good one in the bunch (apparently, as I haven't seen them all of course).I would argue that the problem with the Iraq war movies that I've seen, In the Valley of Ellah (which I liked) and Redacted (which I didn't), is that both filmmakers seem to be relying on Youtube as research tool, which prevents them from giving a fresh take on the subject. Not that I expect De Palma and Haggis to walk into a war zone and see what's going on, but maybe they should stick to subjects they know more about personally (and I think part of the reason In the Valley of Ellah is the more successful film is that it sticks mainly to the home front).

[trotchky]

I do not mean that at all, actually. Nolan's peak is bookended with Following and The Dark Knight as far as I am concerned. Singer peaked, arguably, with his debut, but Superman Returns is still an interesting film. Both are interesting directors, even if on a typical day I would be criticizing them against knee-jerk fan boy worship. Wes Anderson is idiosyncratic and fashionable, but that hardly makes him interesting or important. Neither Anderson nor Singer have made a film that is as important and relevant as the The Dark Knight, but at least Singer has an interesting personal worldview that has resounding cultural implications. Wes Anderson is probably the superior dramatist and entertainer of the bunch, but I am not sure this superlative places him above the merits of Singer and Nolan.

How are you defining "important" here? Whether or not you like him it's difficult to argue that Wes Anderson hasn't been one of the most influential figures in American film in the past two decades.

[baby doll]

This whole "distinctive style" debate is something that seems to pop out very often here regarding filmmakers like Nolan or Singer. It seems like if you don't have your "distinctive style" thingy (like Wes Anderson) you can't be considered an auteur, you oughta be spanked or something.

But, for example, today I saw a film directed by an auteur of comics, Frank Miller, who carried over to the new medium all his "distinctive style" of blacks and whites, blend of humor and violence, satire of hard-boiled writing and such. It was a steaming pile of shit with nothing to offer apart from Frankmillerism - absolutely no story or characters. The Darjeeling Limited is also a movie that would benefit from being a little less distinctive and more "ordinary", in my opinion.

On the other hand, you get classic Hollywood filmmakers like Michael Curtiz or Howard Hawks, whose works are revered, but when you get down to it, they don't have that "distinctive shot", or that strange quirk that seems to be required by some schools of taste to stand apart from the crowd. They didn't seem to need it, either. Other filmmakers like Hitchcock or Spielberg have distinctive quirks and typical takes, but it doesn't look like they have been desperately searching for that style. It looks like they just feel that that's the best way to tell a story. In fact, Hithcock and Spielberg are more easily identifiable because of their thematic concerns. Just like the Howard Hawks quirk would be playful sexual banter, I guess. Which isn't part of a quirky way to set up the camera.

I guess I'd just like to defend Bryan Singer on the grounds that not every filmmaker frames his films in a totally personal way. Some are more in line with the conventions of cinema, and that doesn't mean they're not telling personal stories - which Singer is obviously doing.Let's keep in mind that in the days of Curtiz and Hawks, it was expected that Hollywood filmmakers told stories with character and resolution and other niceties. X2 merely bombards the viewer with spectacle in between passages of clumsy exposition, and at the end, everything's left up in the air so that you have to come back and see the sequel--like a comic book designed to run on ad infinitum. Even if Casablanca isn't at all distinguished in its style (though, to put things in perspective, the anonymous studio style of the 1940s was a lot more elegant than it is today), it still had a bang-up script and Curtiz was at least smart enough not to botch it--as I feel Ron Howard does, to a much lesser extent of course, in Frost/Nixon.

I think content can distinguish a filmmaker, but Singer's timid plea for acceptance and Christian symbolism are hardly unique. I haven't seen Valkyrie but it would be interesting to compare it with Black Book (also starring Carice van Houten), as one was made by a European born in 1938 and the other by an American with no first hand knowledge of the subject. I suspect Verhoeven's take on World War II is a lot more original and personal.

[Thirdmango]

The Usual Suspects -- 8
X-Men -- 7
X2 -- 7
Superman Returns -- 3

[SirNewt]

Love the av newt.

Thanks, it had to be done.

[Izzy Black]

I can't argue that the themes aren't there, but I don't think they are very well handled at all, and that is the point. For example, the issue with the surveillance system, and the token objections from Morgan Freeman is a cynical nod to the mood of the times, and the film kind of makes a big deal about it before dropping it rather abruptly (I can't remember well, but he uses it once and then blows it up, or something, and that's the last time it's even referred to?).

This is not one of the film's finer moments. It is agreed by most to be superficially topical and awkward, but I am not sure this weakness is enough to dislodge the value of the entire development of the film. The escalation in the beginning with the copycats, the tenuous moral stance of transgressing all rules except murder, and the face-off between Joker and Batman are still very compelling elements in the film narratively.


And that's the whole film, several themes thrown together in a random mess, with no real point of view on offer, but rather a string of "What about THIS?" scenes that don't lead to anything at all - you could say Nolan is going for ambiguity, but I would argue he's simply unable to bring the themes together into a satisfying whole. It's hollow touchstone intellectualism with no guiding, to use that word again, vision.

This is quite simply incorrect. The film is not a mixed bag of random themes thrown around. The entire film capstones the Batman mythos. It explores the entire premise of Batman as a hero, ultimately concluding that he is not exactly hero, but rather a dark knight; a hero Gotham deserves but cannot have. The entire film culminates with this point. He is positioned at odds with the image of Harvey who is the "white knight" of Gotham; yet, he is but a shattered image; a verisimilitude; an illusion of security and sui generis virtue that Gotham buys into but is really a lie. Likewise, their true hero dons the image of the villain. The hero identity, then, is deconstructed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction); the binary of right and wrong are reversed both in agency and appearance. Which is to say, Batman has never been a hero in the traditional sense. He is a vigilante; a detective and a utilitarian crime-fighter. His ethics follow a development - from wrathful vengeance, to a compromised moral idealism. He thought he could be a symbol of fear, but that symbol collapsed on itself. The film is about his failure to manifest as a symbol of justice, and his ostensible success in becoming an agent of justice notwithstanding appearance. This is a very clear thematic and narrative trajectory that is not only evinced in the film, but is culled from decades of Batman mythos.

The film is by no means perfect. The dialogue is clunky, there are narrative missteps, some of the acting is weak, and it is visually uninteresting, but all the same, Nolan certainly had something pointed to say with the film. It is not some mixed bag of rehashed themes and "touchstone" intellectualism (whatever that means). He discussed the theme of "escalation" at length in interviews, and the progression of Batman from a fear symbol to a villainous symbol - putting his symbol at odds, and in correspondence, with his ethical campaign. It is tied up and connected from beginning to end. The film is very coherent, narratively.

[Amnesiac]

Ozu for instance, always filmed people and things from a low angle, and never moved his camera

Just a pedantic clarification. A lot of people seem to refer to Ozu's use of low camera angles, but I believe that technique can be more accurately classified as "low camera height".

[Izzy Black]

Having resounding cultural implications I imagine as something that would require a work setting some sort of foundation itself. The Dark Knight more plays into an already existent worldview/sensibility than it provokes or urges forth a worldview/sensibility.

What do you mean by setting a foundation itself? By resounding cultural implications, I mean that it resonates in a broader sociocultural sense. That is not to suggest it must establish some radical or groundbreaking theory or stance. I was mostly referring to Singer's film in this case - particularly his Christian themes.


Wes Anderson's critical exposes of personal drama may not have immediate social messages inlaid into them, but I think their self-made intellectuality (for the record, not that big a fan of Wes) has much more of the ability to provoke and call into question than the narrative conventionality and propagandic thematics of the X-Men films. They may make the marginalized identify with the mutant characters (which is all well and good and I'm glad popcorn entertainment with a message films are made - I love myself bad slasher films with strange moral affinities... I'd just never call them great works of art), but it does so without calling to attention this identification through theoretical play. The social story-telling of 'Dark Knight' and the X-Men films is just sort of stagnant, place-setting, innocuous, dare I say it, bourgeoisie.

Not going to defend the X-Men series here, but I can say that none of Anderson's films have the cultural implications of The Dark Knight and Superman Returns. The latter awakens in a Nietzschean age where God is dead. Modern society no longer needs Christ. There is a sense that the film, and perhaps Singer, has an awareness of an American society that has become increasingly secular with the current generation. As such, Singer positions himself as a reactionary conservative, canvassing for a Christ-like savior. The film is intimately self-conscious of not only Superman's increasing irrelevance but of the religious mythos on which Superman is inspired, or has long been associated. It is revisionist myth-making in the tradition of Spielberg. Anderson's surface psychological insights and dramatic historinics might be niche, but I am not sure what you mean by "self-made intellectuality."

[Izzy Black]

How are you defining "important" here? Whether or not you like him it's difficult to argue that Wes Anderson hasn't been one of the most influential figures in American film in the past two decades.

I would argue against that quite easily, I think. And have done so. But perhaps I am mistaken. How exactly is he one of the most influential American film figures in the past two decades? I can name about 10 currently working influential Americans, and he is not one of them. I would say he is pretty low on the list -- if even on it.

[Bosco B Thug]

What do you mean by setting a foundation itself? By resounding cultural implications, I mean that it resonates in a broader sociocultural sense. That is not to suggest it must establish some radical or groundbreaking theory or stance. I was mostly referring to Singer's film in this case - particularly his Christian themes. I get what you mean. I don't remember much about Superman Returns but I'm sure it has some stirring evocations included within it. What I was trying to get at in my post was to distinguish that an auteur's "style" is much more instilled in how they work formalistically and theoretically with the film medium. I think your appreciation of 'Superman Returns's (or any films') thematics and my wish to promote cinematic "constructionism" can work mutually... it's just my experiences with Singer don't lead me to believe his films have much analytical worth formalistically.

Where we are diametrically opposed is our ideas of what is socially/culturally productive. I guess Wes Anderson will lie most front and center with this. By the sole distinction that his works are more formalist, and thus more tangled and thorny and self-consciously constructed, I think his films are much more productively resonant than Singer's films, and especially from an academic viewpoint. I see where you are coming from (SR does have a very emotionalist cultural/philosophical resonance), and I understand that you don't have to like Wes Anderson's films even if you do concede to the fact of his films' "formalist intellectuality," but to say his films are more frivolous than Superman Returns or The Dark Knight doesn't sit right for me. Film as an art form is all about formal sculpturing, and the escapism of SR and DK, while they might be moving films, I just personally don't see as being more "culturally resonant" than works that call attention to their function as art form.


Not going to defend the X-Men series here, but I can say that none of Anderson's films have the cultural implications of The Dark Knight and Superman Returns. The latter awakens in a Nietzschean age where God is dead. Modern society no longer needs Christ. There is a sense that the film, and perhaps Singer, has an awareness of an American society that has become increasingly secular with the current generation. As such, Singer positions himself as a reactionary conservative, canvassing for a Christ-like savior. The film is intimately self-conscious of not only Superman's increasing irrelevance but of the religious mythos on which Superman is inspired, or has long been associated. It is revisionist myth-making in the tradition of Spielberg. Anderson's surface psychological insights and dramatic historinics might be niche, but I am not sure what you mean by "self-made intellectuality." I'm pretty sure everyone I know can talk rings around me regarding philosophy, and I'm glad to take your word for it. Makes me actually want to see SR again. But again, I think our divide lies in Anderson. I think the worth critical-minded people find in his films is the opposite end of the spectrum from what you cite (character psychology and the story-drama); it is in his formalist tendencies (which is what I meant by "self-made intellectuality" - the thought and anti-conventionalism he puts into his composition) and the methodic ways he conveys his drama. I don't find his formalist tendencies that strong, but the argument was in comparison to Singer and Nolan, and there's no contest.

[Grouchy]

And, as mentioned with the example of Wes Anderson, a pronounced visual style can often enervate itself into superfluity or banality through the force of sheer repetition. Or, more specifically, repetition alongside a lack of interesting thematic concerns or a compelling narrative trajectory (I like The Royal Tenenbaums but I haven't seen enough of Anderson's work to either agree with, or side with, this criticism). There's nothing wrong with styles that are reemployed but there's got to be something new that comes along with that reemployment, something worthwhile.
I think Rushmore and The Royal Tenembaums set up a very high standard for Anderson that he never bothered to live up to. His main goal since those films seems to be making comedy more and more outlandish and deadpan, but never incorporating the dramatic qualities those films managed to mix in the middle of all the absurdity. Bill Murray described Rushmore as a movie about maintaining dignity in the face of pain or something like that. You could never say something like that about Anderson's latest, which are too mannered and too in love with their own quirks to get so in depth about any character.

Then again, some people really loved Darjeeling Limited, so this is still a very personal take on the guy's career.


Let's keep in mind that in the days of Curtiz and Hawks, it was expected that Hollywood filmmakers told stories with character and resolution and other niceties.
Huh? It still is.


X2 merely bombards the viewer with spectacle in between passages of clumsy exposition, and at the end, everything's left up in the air so that you have to come back and see the sequel--like a comic book designed to run on ad infinitum.
Well... No. X2 is quite self-contained in its story and message even if it does obviously leave open threads.


Even if Casablanca isn't at all distinguished in its style (though, to put things in perspective, the anonymous studio style of the 1940s was a lot more elegant than it is today)
That's just your taste speaking. Every era has its own "studio style".


it still had a bang-up script and Curtiz was at least smart enough not to botch it--as I feel Ron Howard does, to a much lesser extent of course, in Frost/Nixon.
Yeah, obviously, and you just made an example of what I was trying to say. Your belief that great filmmaking depends on a director with "his own style" crumbles on the face of films like Casablanca, which are simply the result of excellency in writing, directing, acting, production design, music, etc.


I think content can distinguish a filmmaker, but Singer's timid plea for acceptance and Christian symbolism are hardly unique.
Well, if a director's typical themes were too unique, then he probably wouldn't be part of the human race, right? Ingmar Bergman's concern for the meaning of existence is also hardly unique. Lots of people have thought about it besides Bergman.


I haven't seen Valkyrie but it would be interesting to compare it with Black Book (also starring Carice van Houten), as one was made by a European born in 1938 and the other by an American with no first hand knowledge of the subject. I suspect Verhoeven's take on World War II is a lot more original and personal.
Blah blah blah. Naming random films. Suspect it's better. Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda.

[Pop Trash]

I would argue against that quite easily, I think. And have done so. But perhaps I am mistaken. How exactly is he one of the most influential American film figures in the past two decades? I can name about 10 currently working influential Americans, and he is not one of them. I would say he is pretty low on the list -- if even on it.

I'm not a big Wes Anderson fan by any means, but even I can see a clear influence on recent indie comedies or dramadies like Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno. Even on French filmmakers like Arnaud Desplechin (A Christmas Tale)Who is on your list of ten influential American filmmakers?

[Grouchy]

I would argue against that quite easily, I think. And have done so. But perhaps I am mistaken. How exactly is he one of the most influential American film figures in the past two decades? I can name about 10 currently working influential Americans, and he is not one of them. I would say he is pretty low on the list -- if even on it.
Well, Rushmore was a highly influential film, even if most of the indie by-products that came out of it sucked balls.

I find this whole debate about the "relevance" of movies dull. Intimate character stories are not less important to me than films that tackle issues about society and such. I just don't see it.

[Sycophant]

How many more posts before this devolves into an unsalvageable screaming match about "why we go to the cinema," "what film is," or, oh God, "what is the point of art?"

[transmogrifier]

This is quite simply incorrect. The film is not a mixed bag of random themes thrown around. The entire film capstones the Batman mythos. It explores the entire premise of Batman as a hero, ultimately concluding that he is not exactly hero, but rather a dark knight; a hero Gotham deserves but cannot have. The entire film culminates with this point. He is positioned at odds with the image of Harvey who is the "white knight" of Gotham; yet, he is but a shattered image; a verisimilitude; an illusion of security and sui generis virtue that Gotham buys into but is really a lie. Likewise, their true hero dons the image of the villain. The hero identity, then, is deconstructed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction); the binary of right and wrong are reversed both in agency and appearance. Which is to say, Batman has never been a hero in the traditional sense. He is a vigilante; a detective and a utilitarian crime-fighter. His ethics follow a development - from wrathful vengeance, to a compromised moral idealism. He thought he could be a symbol of fear, but that symbol collapsed on itself. The film is about his failure to manifest as a symbol of justice, and his ostensible success in becoming an agent of justice notwithstanding appearance. This is a very clear thematic and narrative trajectory that is not only evinced in the film, but is culled from decades of Batman mythos.

The film is by no means perfect. The dialogue is clunky, there are narrative missteps, some of the acting is weak, and it is visually uninteresting, but all the same, Nolan certainly had something pointed to say with the film. It is not some mixed bag of rehashed themes and "touchstone" intellectualism (whatever that means). He discussed the theme of "escalation" at length in interviews, and the progression of Batman from a fear symbol to a villainous symbol - putting his symbol at odds, and in correspondence, with his ethical campaign. It is tied up and connected from beginning to end. The film is very coherent, narratively.

See, I dislike talking about themes, because mostly it is the view of the audience member that predominates, and I think you are being exceedingly generous in affording The Dark Knight this depth, and I think you are reading more into it than is actually there. My concern is also that you are implying that just because a theme can be read into a film, that means the film is incontrovertibly better.

Walking out of that film, I thought the whole idea of the citizens of Gotham not being able to handle the idea of Harvey Dent being a bad guy as complete and utter tosh, complete childishness, and in fact the whole Dent story arc was ridiculous in the extreme. Yes, it is probably in service to the themes (real or imagined) that you mentioned above, but it distorts the story, rendering the entire backhalf at once rushed and ponderous; rushed in that it crams in the plot, and ponderous in that it thinks it's saying more than it actually is.

Just because a director intended for a certain theme doesn't negate the possibility that, in the actual process of making the film, it came across as a grabbag mess of random ideas slung together. Intentions don't mean anything. The film is a complete and utter mess.

[transmogrifier]

Not going to defend the X-Men series here, but I can say that none of Anderson's films have the cultural implications of The Dark Knight and Superman Returns. The latter awakens in a Nietzschean age where God is dead. Modern society no longer needs Christ. There is a sense that the film, and perhaps Singer, has an awareness of an American society that has become increasingly secular with the current generation. As such, Singer positions himself as a reactionary conservative, canvassing for a Christ-like savior. The film is intimately self-conscious of not only Superman's increasing irrelevance but of the religious mythos on which Superman is inspired, or has long been associated. It is revisionist myth-making in the tradition of Spielberg. Anderson's surface psychological insights and dramatic historinics might be niche, but I am not sure what you mean by "self-made intellectuality."

So Superman=Christ is something we should be in awe of? You seem enamoured by subtextual readings without actually evaluating their depth, and especially their utility to the film in question.

[Grouchy]

How many more posts before this devolves into an unsalvageable screaming match about "why we go to the cinema," "what film is," or, oh God, "what is the point of art?"
Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is the meaning of this?

[Qrazy]

If anyone is interested in exploring an argument for Curtiz as auteur, this book is interesting... The Casablanca Man...

http://books.google.com/books?id=UJYOAAAAQAAJ&dq=the+casablanca+man&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=aU3Rza-n9L&sig=gsrf94HOUHswEnPcwGfVn2mex8 8&hl=en&ei=8e_kScyeHZ3slQfe9LHgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA150,M1

I have not read the entire book so I do not know how strong and/or effective the authors argument finally is. Here is a book review also.

http://members.tripod.com/~candide/

[Qrazy]

Walking out of that film, I thought the whole idea of the citizens of Gotham not being able to handle the idea of Harvey Dent being a bad guy as complete and utter tosh, complete childishness, and in fact the whole Dent story arc was ridiculous in the extreme. Yes, it is probably in service to the themes (real or imagined) that you mentioned above, but it distorts the story, rendering the entire backhalf at once rushed and ponderous; rushed in that it crams in the plot, and ponderous in that it thinks it's saying more than it actually is.

Oh? You don't think if it had been discovered that there were strong ties between Blagojevich and Obama it wouldn't have had a harmful effect on the mentality of the nation? You don't think Clinton's sex scandal (more specifically his lying) had any effect on W's rise to power? Or Nixon's Watergate? Or that martyrs help people rally more effectively than fallen leaders? The moral sensibilities of a nation's leaders has an effect on and interacts with the zeitgeist of the society.

[transmogrifier]

Oh? You don't think if it had been discovered that there were strong ties between Blagojevich and Obama it wouldn't have had a harmful effect on the mentality of the nation? You don't think Clinton's sex scandal (more specifically his lying) had any effect on W's rise to power? Or Nixon's Watergate? Or that martyrs help people rally more effectively than fallen leaders? The moral sensibilities of a nation's leaders has an effect on and interacts with the zeitgeist of the society.

Not AS PRESENTED IN THE FILM, which is my point all along! They rush the Harvey Dent arc, cramming everything in for the sake of...well, let me know, will you? To me, Dent was a slightly boring B-story character in an ensemble drama, the film then flipping a switch and relying on a rushed character transformation in order to provide dramatic momentum that never arrives. The film is a mess. Trying to make parallels to real life examples doesn't change that fact; as depicted in the film, the whole story arc is unconvincing and hollow. In fact, by bringin up real life theoretical examples, you do the film further disservice, because it's story (you know, the one we are actually judging here) doesn't get even close to the fascination real life could provide. I dislike it when people make analogies outside of the film and assume that, because the analogy can be made, the film is suddenly blessed with unassailable depth. Give me a break.

[Qrazy]

Not AS PRESENTED IN THE FILM, which is my point all along! They rush the Harvey Dent arc, cramming everything in for the sake of...well, let me know, will you? To me, Dent was a slightly boring B-story character in an ensemble drama, the film then flipping a switch and relying on a rushed character transformation in order to provide dramatic momentum that never arrives. The film is a mess. Trying to make parallels to real life examples doesn't change that fact; as depicted in the film, the whole story arc is unconvincing and hollow.

I was responding to your criticism that it was tosh that Gotham would not be able to handle Harvey's shift to antagonist. I do not feel it is tosh and I think I've argued that point with real world examples effectively.

As to his Two-Face arc. I agree that it was rushed. He should have become Two-Face and then left the story and come back for the third film. Still if he hadn't made the shift and then died then Batman wouldn't have had a reason to become the 'villian/anti-hero' which was sort of the point of the film. I don't think that Two-Face's transformation was rushed. All the scenes and motivations were put in place for that transformation. What I felt was rushed was his premature death.

[Qrazy]

In fact, by bringin up real life theoretical examples, you do the film further disservice, because it's story (you know, the one we are actually judging here) doesn't get even close to the fascination real life could provide. I dislike it when people make analogies outside of the film and assume that, because the analogy can be made, the film is suddenly blessed with unassailable depth. Give me a break.

Thankfully I am not doing that, use your head.

[transmogrifier]

I was responding to your criticism that it was tosh that Gotham would not be able to handle Harvey's shift to antagonist. I do not feel it is tosh and I think I've argued that point with real world examples effectively.


It's tosh as presented in the film. I'm not sure what else to say.

[transmogrifier]

Thankfully I am not doing that, use your head.

What are you doing if not defending the film because you can make parallels to the outside world?

[DavidSeven]

I think you are being exceedingly generous in affording The Dark Knight this depth, and I think you are reading more into it than is actually there.

Why? This is a common interpretation of the film. Maybe you just missed it or were disinterested. To call the film a narrative or technical failure is more than legitimate, but the substantive concerns of the film clearly outweigh other like films in the genre.

And while I like Wes, I'd agree with Israfel that he hasn't made a film that's nearly as interesting on substantive level.

Schager (Slant):


Having turned most of Gotham's organized hoods into sniveling cowards, a situation that has given District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) an opening to become the lawful "White Knight" which the city requires, Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) discovers the terrible ramifications of his vigilantism with the appearance of the Joker (Heath Ledger). Unlike his prior adversaries, the Joker is a nihilistic lunatic driven not by idealism or greed but, instead, by the irrational desire for all-consuming chaos. A madman incapable of listening to logic or engaging in negotiation, he's the criminal flipside to Batman's whatever-it-takes mentality, a foe who recognizes that power comes from fear (the prior movie's de facto catchphrase), as well as from a willingness to cross all boundaries in order to achieve one's objectives. The poster's tagline, "Welcome to a World Without Rules," is in effect the Joker's salutation to Gotham and its nocturnal crimefighter, his sudden arrival ushering in the dreadful prospect of terror unshackled from sanity. "It's not about money," he cackles to an unsettled mobster. "It's about sending a message: Everything burns."

"Terrorist" is a term uttered twice in Nolan and brother Jonathan's speech-heavy script (from a story by Nolan and David S. Goyer), but the impression that the Joker represents fanatical contemporary forces reverberates throughout. Whereas Batman (who unconvincingly asserts that he "has no limits") strains to toe the line between right and wrong, the Joker commences from a different set of standards, which is to say no standards at all save for a conviction that the societal constraints preventing man from indulging his basest instincts are flimsy and counterfeit and must be torn asunder by every available method. The Joker is, essentially, a radical extension of Batman Begins's Ra's Al Ghul, who sought to cure Western metropolitan degeneracy through a cleansing fire. And as a result, Dark Knight resounds with a throbbing topical undercurrent, its superficially good-versus-evil setup slowly revealed to be a complex examination of the ways in which democracies can, and must, combat zealotry. For Batman, the Joker poses not simply a practical dilemma (i.e. how does he stop this lunatic?) but also, fundamentally, an ethical one, centered on the necessity, and repercussions, of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Dark Knight is a series of pertinent moral predicaments delivered via sleek procedural-genre circumstances, so that the film's attention to difficult, contentious issues—concerning violence, the application of might, and the questionable sanctity of civil liberties (specifically surveillance-free privacy) in times of crisis—is filtered through a barrage of tense, breakneck centerpiece sequences.

. . . .

In Dent's destruction lies the film's estimation of the chances for decency to survive against unrepentant wickedness. This overarching air of gloom and doom, however, is complemented by unsentimental pragmatism, an edge supplied by Batman's struggle—which also engulfs loyal compatriots Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Wayne Enterprises CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman)—to inspire Gotham by giving it a guiding image of unassailable virtue. The dawning realization that setting this example might be both impossible and counterproductive plagues Batman (once again brought to tortured, brooding life by Bale) as well as the film, which inevitably wends its way toward a climax in which solutions for intractable problems are rooted not in rah-rah heroism but, rather, in making, as trusted Wayne butler Alfred (Michael Caine) puts it, "the hard choice." It's a stance that's doggedly conservative (in a political sense), positing the circumnavigation of laws as the only truly effective course of action against enemies not beholden to sensible codes of conduct. Yet if Dark Knight ultimately backs Batman into a by-any-means-necessary corner, it does so while simultaneously (and morosely) acknowledging that the decisions he makes, regardless of their immediate success, carry with them enduring, potentially harmful consequences.

[Izzy Black]

I get what you mean. I don't remember much about Superman Returns but I'm sure it has some stirring evocations included within it. What I was trying to get at in my post was to distinguish that an auteur's "style" is much more instilled in how they work formalistically and theoretically with the film medium. I think your appreciation of 'Superman Returns's (or any films') thematics and my wish to promote cinematic "constructionism" can work mutually... it's just my experiences with Singer don't lead me to believe his films have much analytical worth formalistically.

It is a fair claim to say that Singer is not a visual stylist - nor a formalist. I cannot say that I agree with the claim, however, that what distinguishes an auteur's style is purely formal. What distinguishes an auteur is their entire conception of the cinema; it's inclusive - both formal and thematic, where the two concepts become blurred and are essentially one and the same. The problem that we have here with Wes and Bryan is that we have split their value; we have a thematically conventional formal stylist and a stylistically conventional sentimentalist. One might next assume that it's apples and oranges. The issue, however, is that I find it dogmatic to give visual primacy over thematic depth. There is nothing inherently valuable about "distinctive" visual style as far as I am concerned. I am a formalist leaning cinephile, but I am interested in form as it relates to the conceptual; not form as it relates to the fashionable, pleasurable, and stimulating. I would go so far as to say conventional formal mechanics can be more formally fascinating than a overblown stye with no substance.

For example, Bergman (Bergman purists read this next sentence twice before reading on and getting your feathers ruffled), although certainly a visual stylist and cinematic innovator in his own right, created a film devoid of visual style with Scenes From A Marriage. He opted for an entirely conventional filming approach (admittedly designed for television), but stripped down to bear-bones essentials. This non-distracting, self-consciously unstylistic mise-en-scene is not without value, however. It mirrors the naked purity of the acting ensemble: filmed theater examined as a near experimental project, but devoid of theatrical stagings. Bergman is no doubt the master manipulator of the camera and his actors are his subjects - subjugated to his tortured will. The transparency of the mise-en-scene allowed the actors, particular their faces, to overwhelm the frame. The de-emphasized surroundings only augmented their performance and their human, flesh presence.

Now, do not mistake this as me saying that Singer's lack of style is the equivalent of Bergman's brilliant stripped down mechanics. What I am trying to emphasize is that "style" and "formalism" can be ambiguous terms, and often times empty of real meaning without context. What makes a formal medium meaningful is its relationship to the viewer and the content. As such, Singer's decidedly conventional, CGI-induced, big-budget Hollywood visuals, then, should not be ignored/marginalized by virtue of its conventionality. Form and content are often times inseparable. Now, certainly Singer forewent the opportunity to make a truly progressive and great film by exploring new formal spaces, but that does not render his film invaluable or formally worthless because he opted against this. The formal mechanics drive the film insofar as it reflects his ambition to capture the grandiose nature of his subject and a mass-appealing message; his aim was not to alienate or auto-pilot, but sweep the masses. His mixed results in this endeavor is just as telling of the theme and form as anything.


Where we are diametrically opposed is our ideas of what is socially/culturally productive. I guess Wes Anderson will lie most front and center with this. By the sole distinction that his works are more formalist, and thus more tangled and thorny and self-consciously constructed, I think his films are much more productively resonant than Singer's films, and especially from an academic viewpoint.

Not sure what you mean by "especially from an academic viewpoint." I find nothing terribly rigorous in Anderson's cinema worth deep academic analysis - from a strictly formal or thematic level. Again, though, my contention is against this notion that distinctive, fashionable style is more resonating than conventional style. Formal conventionality can be quite valuable. The formal conventionality of Eric Rohmer, Whit Stillman, Woody Allen and Gillian Armstrong are a testament to their auterurism - not a detriment. There is something to be said about their conventionality (which is not to say they have no respective visual style, but they certainly rely heavily on many conventional mechanics). Again - make no mistake - it is not my argument that Singer's conventionality should be valued the same as the aforementioned auteurs (it is less meaningful, but still relevant), but that Wes Anderson's stylism is not inherently more valuable than Singer's conventionality.


I see where you are coming from (SR does have a very emotionalist cultural/philosophical resonance), and I understand that you don't have to like Wes Anderson's films even if you do concede to the fact of his films' "formalist intellectuality," but to say his films are more frivolous than Superman Returns or The Dark Knight doesn't sit right for me. Film as an art form is all about formal sculpturing, and the escapism of SR and DK, while they might be moving films, I just personally don't see as being more "culturally resonant" than works that call attention to their function as art form.

The "formalist intellectuality" still does not register for me. I have not the faintest idea as to what this should mean. Film as an art-form is about about the moving image and its relationship to the viewer - regardless of its stylistic distinctiveness. The framed image and the content of the image are not mutually exclusive concerns. In other words, the conventionally framed image can be every bit as powerful as the distinctively framed image - not in spite of convention, but because of the convention.


I'm pretty sure everyone I know can talk rings around me regarding philosophy, and I'm glad to take your word for it. Makes me actually want to see SR again. But again, I think our divide lies in Anderson. I think the worth critical-minded people find in his films is the opposite end of the spectrum from what you cite (character psychology and the story-drama); it is in his formalist tendencies (which is what I meant by "self-made intellectuality" - the thought and anti-conventionalism he puts into his composition) and the methodic ways he conveys his drama. I don't find his formalist tendencies that strong, but the argument was in comparison to Singer and Nolan, and there's no contest.

I find that most people try to convince themselves it is the visual style that draws them to Anderson, and to an extent, sure, this is true, but I think it is his accessible emotionalism that really sells him to most. Anderson's cinema is about pleasure: eye-candy and emotion. I do not find that his cinema resonates deeply cinematically - that is, visually or thematically - but I do not see these concerns as necessarily dichotomous; binary ways of thinking about cinema troubles me. What we are left with is a stylist with not a whole lot to say, and two non-stylists who resonate, if only slightly more.

[Izzy Black]

Well, Rushmore was a highly influential film, even if most of the indie by-products that came out of it sucked balls.

I'll let this point speak for itself.


I find this whole debate about the "relevance" of movies dull. Intimate character stories are not less important to me than films that tackle issues about society and such. I just don't see it.

OK - I was never really talking about relevance by mere virtue of technical innovations though. Relevance can mean a vast plethora of things. I only made the point that it is something we consider in our valuations, which is true; not that it is the grand monolith of good criticism.

[Izzy Black]

I'm not a big Wes Anderson fan by any means, but even I can see a clear influence on recent indie comedies or dramadies like Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno. Even on French filmmakers like Arnaud Desplechin (A Christmas Tale)Who is on your list of ten influential American filmmakers?

I do not really see Anderson in these films, at least not by direct influence. The only semblance is in content, not style, which is the subject of debate. The content is deadpan ennui. This is hardly a new deal. I would say Jim Jarmusch, Richard Linktar, Hal Hartley, and Todd Haynes are the American pioneers of the Gen X 90s deadpan that players like Anderson among many inherited.

[Izzy Black]

Who is on your list of ten influential American filmmakers?

Some named in the above. I would throw Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Woody Allen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, and David Lynch out there too just to name a few.

[Izzy Black]

Noah Baumbach is among the deadpan bunch, but he came around about the same time as Anderson. Significant enough though that he was obviously not influenced by Wes.

[Pop Trash]

I do not really see Anderson in these films, at least not by direct influence. The only semblance is in content, not style, which is the subject of debate. The content is deadpan ennui. This is hardly a new deal. I would say Jim Jarmusch, Richard Linktar, Hal Hartley, and Todd Haynes are the American pioneers of the Gen X 90s deadpan that players like Anderson among many inherited.

Jim Jarmsch I could kind of see, even if his style is a little "too-cool-for-school" sometimes to be too much of an influence on the recent indie dramadies I mentioned. Movies like Safe or Velvet Goldmine, I don't see the influence at all. Hal Hartley maybe, but his stuff is too underseen I think. Linklater maybe.

[Pop Trash]

Quentin Tarantino: yeah definately influential on 90s indie cinema

Steven Spielberg: well yeah, practically ushered in lots of new directors in the 80s, not sure how big his influence is now however

Tony Scott: possibly, but mostly on shitty ones like Michael Bay, I really never read any interviews with up and coming directors who admit to liking Tony Scott though

Michael Mann: hmmm maybe but on who? Christopher Nolan maybe

Woody Allen: well yeah

Mike Nichols: The Graduate as a singular film was very influential (Wes Anderson himself stole some shots from this for Rushmore) but has he made anything influential in the past 20 years or so? I don't hear many new filmmakers saying "yeah Working Girl really changed my life and made me want to pick up a camera."

Terrence Malick: David Gordon Green, Andrew Dominik, possibly some others

David Lynch: Richard Kelly, possibly some others

But honestly, for better or worse, the two contemporary filmmakers who seem to be mentioned a lot and seem to have a psychic hold on people studying films where I live are Wes Anderson and Michel Gondry.

[Izzy Black]

See, I dislike talking about themes, because mostly it is the view of the audience member that predominates, and I think you are being exceedingly generous in affording The Dark Knight this depth, and I think you are reading more into it than is actually there. My concern is also that you are implying that just because a theme can be read into a film, that means the film is incontrovertibly better.

Everything discussed here is widely written on. I am not just pulling random stuff out of thin air. I have discussed these themes at length with several individuals and a majority of them came to these conclusions on their own. Nothing I said here is especially radical. I can also cite interviews with Nolan, as I noted in my post, where he verifies the majority of the themes discussed. As for the theme / form emphasis - see my response to Bosco.


Walking out of that film, I thought the whole idea of the citizens of Gotham not being able to handle the idea of Harvey Dent being a bad guy as complete and utter tosh, complete childishness, and in fact the whole Dent story arc was ridiculous in the extreme. Yes, it is probably in service to the themes (real or imagined) that you mentioned above, but it distorts the story, rendering the entire backhalf at once rushed and ponderous; rushed in that it crams in the plot, and ponderous in that it thinks it's saying more than it actually is.

Why not? That's like President Obama turning out to be a serial killer. Harvey was universally loved. He was the proclaimed "white knight" of the city - the beacon of hope in a city of anomie overrun by crime. Is it so difficult to believe? That people can be so disillusioned by the thought of their one, united symbol of hope is just like everyone else when a terrorist is running around town releasing threats on video tapes and hanging people from buildings? What is more - who is to say that Gotham would be so distraught at such news? (I would contend that they would be given the reasons above.) It is just as interesting should Batman's judgment had been rash and faulty, and once again, his ethics failed to materialize realistically; yet another illusion to tackle. What of it? I do not see anything particularly ponderous here.


Just because a director intended for a certain theme doesn't negate the possibility that, in the actual process of making the film, it came across as a grabbag mess of random ideas slung together. Intentions don't mean anything. The film is a complete and utter mess.

Intentions do not mean anything? Oh, you are one of the Barthes-esque "author is dead" types? I find such positions highly untenable. If the author is dead, it is pointless to invoke Nolan's name to begin with; or to enter "directorial consensus" threads. Much better off not speaking of the director in any meaningful case. Beyond this, though, yes, I think intentions are important, but no, this does not mean they are the only thing that matters; or that they are monolithic and pervasively salient; or that a film is beyond critical reproach if the intentions are sound. Quite the contrary - the intentions are precisely what set up a film for sound criticism. They give us a standard to work with so we may ascertain and evaluate as to how the work measures up to the director's intentions. You talk about a grab-bag mess of random ideas slung together, but this strikes me as a rather knee-jerk and groundless position. I would say you would be more successful in calling the film wooden, dull, boring, irrelevant, uninteresting, trite, cliche, bad, or anything else you like rather than calling it narratively incoherent, because one of the few things this film succeeds in is conveying a narratively coherent concept and realizing the vision, as far as I am concerned. If I am not correct, and neither is the great deal of writing that has discussed the narrative structure on this film that is out there, you are going to have to do some work to show me what I am missing here; because as it stands, I am not seeing the mess here.

[Izzy Black]

Quentin Tarantino: yeah definately influential on 90s indie cinema

Steven Spielberg: well yeah, practically ushered in lots of new directors in the 80s, not sure how big his influence is now however

Tony Scott: possibly, but mostly on shitty ones like Michael Bay, I really never read any interviews with up and coming directors who admit to liking Tony Scott though

Michael Mann: hmmm maybe but on who? Christopher Nolan maybe

Woody Allen: well yeah

Mike Nichols: The Graduate as a singular film was very influential (Wes Anderson himself stole some shots from this for Rushmore) but has he made anything influential in the past 20 years or so? I don't hear many new filmmakers saying "yeah Working Girl really changed my life and made me want to pick up a camera."

Terrence Malick: David Gordon Green, Andrew Dominik, possibly some others

David Lynch: Richard Kelly, possibly some others

But honestly, for better or worse, the two contemporary filmmakers who seem to be mentioned a lot and seem to have a psychic hold on people studying films where I live are Wes Anderson and Michel Gondry.

Unbelievable. I believe you. But not really. In the sense that people say that. But not directors. Yeah, OK!

[Izzy Black]

Jim Jarmsch I could kind of see, even if his style is a little "too-cool-for-school" sometimes to be too much of an influence on the recent indie dramadies I mentioned. Movies like Safe or Velvet Goldmine, I don't see the influence at all. Hal Hartley maybe, but his stuff is too underseen I think. Linklater maybe.

The only point is that it's been around. We were mostly discussing Anderson's visual style.

[baby doll]

Huh? It still is.How much story is in, say, The Pirates of the Carribean? I don't think it's controversial to say that mindless spectacle is the new storytelling, at least as far as Hollywood blockbusters are concerned.


Well... No. X2 is quite self-contained in its story and message even if it does obviously leave open threads.I think there's a difference between something like The Lord of the Rings, which was from the outset conceived as a trilogy, and The X-Men which is designed to go on forever. Even if the main thread in Jackson's films, of Frodo going to Mount Doom to destroy the ring, is left open at the end of part one and two, there's still a clear end point in sight. Conversely, X2 has no end point. The war between humans and mutants is forever just on the horizon; they keep talking about it but nothing ever happens. And Wolverine is forever just on the verge of learning the big secret about his past. Only the smaller, less dramatic subplots see any kind of resolution. And also, I really hate the narrative style of the film, which is like a TV show in terms of its mechanical cross-cutting between several different mini-plots, in which small chunks narrative get dolled out to the viewer in three to five minute segments. When I go to the movies, I want to see a movie, not The West Wing in spandex.


That's just your taste speaking. Every era has its own "studio style".But, to build on what I talk about above, Hollywood filmmaking in the age of intensified continuity (to use David Bordwell's term) is clearly, even objectively inferior to studio filmmaking in previous decades. Curtiz had a whole range of options, from group stagings in deep focus to close-ups in soft focus, longer takes to flurries of fast editing, and so on. A director like Christopher Nolan can only do fast editing because his blocking of the dialogue scenes in The Prestige and The Dark Knight is static and boring.


Yeah, obviously, and you just made an example of what I was trying to say. Your belief that great filmmaking depends on a director with "his own style" crumbles on the face of films like Casablanca, which are simply the result of excellency in writing, directing, acting, production design, music, etc.Curtiz was a competent craftsman (far more so than Singer), who excelled when he had good material to work with, but more often didn't (Mildred Pierce is a terrible movie, albeit a technically well made one). The difference between a personal filmmaker, like Nicholas Ray or Douglas Sirk, and Curtiz is that Curtiz took whatever script he was assigned.

Compare that with Ray, who took a much more active role in shaping his scripts. His treatment of masculinity and violence in films as seemingly diverse as In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar and Rebel Without a Cause is not merely consistent (which hints at his personal investment in the material) but very particular and different from representations of the subject in the work of any other filmmaker I can think of.


Well, if a director's typical themes were too unique, then he probably wouldn't be part of the human race, right? Ingmar Bergman's concern for the meaning of existence is also hardly unique. Lots of people have thought about it besides Bergman.But how many people are so obsessed with these questions that they go out and make film after film on the subject? (I can't think of very many, other than those who've consciously tried to hijack Bergman's style and content, like Woody Allen.) And I think Bergman's unique take on the subject has a lot to do with his upbringing (I think his father was a Lutheran priest), so it's not the same view that a lot of people would have because they don't have the same background. One of my favorite Bergman films, Faithless (which was directed by Liv Ullmann but written by Bergman), is a very different take on infidelity than, say, In the Mood for Love (which came out at the same time) because it's a different culture with different attitudes, and Wong is drawing far less extensively on his own experiences than Bergman and Ullmann, who are reflecting on something that happened to them and their feelings about it.


Blah blah blah. Naming random films. Suspect it's better. Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda.Calm down, Mr. Limbaugh, it's just a discussion forum.

[Izzy Black]

So Superman=Christ is something we should be in awe of? You seem enamoured by subtextual readings without actually evaluating their depth, and especially their utility to the film in question.

Not at all. It's a very old notion this idea of Superman=Christ. What is interesting is the reactionary nature of the criticism. That it is premised on a secular society that no longer needs a savior, and how Singer endeavors his hardest to show us why a savior is still relevant. It is a fascinating tension, I find. Certainly you are entitled to disagree, but I find such notions quite interesting. It even says something about a particular, arguably now mainstream conservative mindset. That social conservativism is becoming the moral minority rather than the moral majority - or rather, the arguments are from a minority standpoint, irrespective of the actuality of the majority. These things fit (or contrast) themselves in a contemporary social milieu that I think is rather compelling. Any person is inclined to disagree, of course, but I think these things are worth talking about.

[Sven]

So much interesting reading.

The Usual Suspects - 4, because it was a riddle where the answer was obvious at the point where the guy says "Hey, wanna hear a riddle?"

Apt Pupil - 4, second R-rated film I ever saw in a theater. That is about the extent of its importance.

X-mehn - 4, because you see what I did there?

X2 - 4, because I can't remember it being any better or worse than the first.

Despite my clearly high opinion, I kind of want to see Superman. I like pastels and meg was all like "Check out the pastels."

[megladon8]

How much story is in, say, The Pirates of the Carribean? I don't think it's controversial to say that mindless spectacle is the new storytelling, at least as far as Hollywood blockbusters are concerned.



There is absolutely nothing new in Hollywood selling spectacle in place of story.

80 years ago a film was considered incredible if it had "a cast of thousands!!"

[MadMan]

How many more posts before this devolves into an unsalvageable screaming match about "why we go to the cinema," "what film is," or, oh God, "what is the point of art?"I like art. I like movies. I like cinema. But I don't like screaming. What do I win? :P


Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is the meaning of this?According to Garfield the Cat its "To get fed." I can't say I disagree with that statement.

[Qrazy]

What are you doing if not defending the film because you can make parallels to the outside world?

I made parallels to show why a specific plot point does not seem that far fetched to me (I assumed that's what you meant by tosh). The argument you made that I was originally addressing seemed to suggest that as a plot point it was unnecessary and absurd to save Dent's public image... i.e. save him face (I know, I'm hilarious!!! :P).

I am not doing what you are accusing me of doing and which I have seen others do in the past. I agree it is annoying... which is to say such and such an element of the film can be interpreted as a parallel for such and such an event or political moment (9/11, The Iraq War) and doesn't such a reading therefore make the film brilliant!?

[Qrazy]

I'm not too sure about this whole out of hand dismissal of the visual stylings of Nolan and Singer. If you're all just saying that they don't have particularly strikingly unique and constant visual approaches than I guess that's reasonable. However I find both to be a cut above the average visualist, albeit not at the utter pinnacle.

[Qrazy]

And also, I really hate the narrative style of the film, which is like a TV show in terms of its mechanical cross-cutting between several different mini-plots, in which small chunks narrative get dolled out to the viewer in three to five minute segments. When I go to the movies, I want to see a movie, not The West Wing in spandex.

So cross cutting = TV! OK!


A director like Christopher Nolan can only do fast editing because his blocking of the dialogue scenes in The Prestige and The Dark Knight is static and boring.

The first half of your sentence is false. The second half is much more subjective and debatable but in my eyes also false.


Curtiz was a competent craftsman (far more so than Singer), who excelled when he had good material to work with, but more often didn't (Mildred Pierce is a terrible movie, albeit a technically well made one). The difference between a personal filmmaker, like Nicholas Ray or Douglas Sirk, and Curtiz is that Curtiz took whatever script he was assigned.

Mildred Pierce is quite solid actually.


Compare that with Ray, who took a much more active role in shaping his scripts. His treatment of masculinity and violence in films as seemingly diverse as In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar and Rebel Without a Cause is not merely consistent (which hints at his personal investment in the material) but very particular and different from representations of the subject in the work of any other filmmaker I can think of.

And yet I prefer Curtiz to Ray. Give me Casablanca over a Lonely Place. Give me The Adventures of Robin Hood over Johnny Guitar. Give me Angels with Dirty Faces over Rebel Without a Cause.

I still actually do like all three of those Ray films. I just don't slabber all over him as many seem to.

[megladon8]

Oh jeez, I don't know if I could choose between some of those movies.

In a Lonely Place was just...wow. That was an incredible film there. My favorite Bogey performance by far.

And I agree with you about Mildred Pierce - it made my list last year of "top 10 films seen for the first time".

[baby doll]

So cross cutting = TV! OK!The way it's done here it does.


The first half of your sentence is false. The second half is much more subjective and debatable but in my eyes also false.Unless I'm hallucinating (or at least remembering the film wrong), it's not subjective to say that the actors are standing still during the exposition scenes when they are. (The only exception I can recall is Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal's walk and talk through the halls of justice, which is no less a cliché of intensified continuity.) It's not subjective to say that a film resorts to quick cutting to compensate for the director's static blocking. If these things are false and debatable, let's see some examples.


Mildred Pierce is quite solid actually.

And yet I prefer Curtiz to Ray. Give me Casablanca over a Lonely Place. Give me The Adventures of Robin Hood over Johnny Guitar. Give me Angels with Dirty Faces over Rebel Without a Cause.

I still actually do like all three of those Ray films. I just don't slabber all over him as many seem to.I guess there's no accounting for taste.

[Grouchy]

How much story is in, say, The Pirates of the Carribean? I don't think it's controversial to say that mindless spectacle is the new storytelling, at least as far as Hollywood blockbusters are concerned.
That's incredibly naive of you. Not only is there a lot of story in the Pirates films (to the point where I think it's too much for my tastes), but Hollywood has always favored "mindless spectacle". Look at De Mille historical epics. Dinosaur films. '50s sci-fi. Fucking Cinerama and 3D.


I think there's a difference between something like The Lord of the Rings, which was from the outset conceived as a trilogy, and The X-Men which is designed to go on forever. Even if the main thread in Jackson's films, of Frodo going to Mount Doom to destroy the ring, is left open at the end of part one and two, there's still a clear end point in sight. Conversely, X2 has no end point. The war between humans and mutants is forever just on the horizon; they keep talking about it but nothing ever happens. And Wolverine is forever just on the verge of learning the big secret about his past. Only the smaller, less dramatic subplots see any kind of resolution. And also, I really hate the narrative style of the film, which is like a TV show in terms of its mechanical cross-cutting between several different mini-plots, in which small chunks narrative get dolled out to the viewer in three to five minute segments. When I go to the movies, I want to see a movie, not The West Wing in spandex.
Well, sure. The Lord of the Rings is the adaptation of a novel. The X-Men characters have been published non-stop since the '60s. The war between humans and mutants thing is obviously never going to end with one side's victory because it's the whole premise of the mutant books. Same reason Batman won't age and die. And, although they never adapted it into the movies, Wolverine does eventually get answers about his past in the comics. If you don't like that you don't like superhero comics, period.

And yeah, the cross cutting = TV equation is rubbish.


But, to build on what I talk about above, Hollywood filmmaking in the age of intensified continuity (to use David Bordwell's term) is clearly, even objectively inferior to studio filmmaking in previous decades. Curtiz had a whole range of options, from group stagings in deep focus to close-ups in soft focus, longer takes to flurries of fast editing, and so on. A director like Christopher Nolan can only do fast editing because his blocking of the dialogue scenes in The Prestige and The Dark Knight is static and boring.
I don't see it, buster. In fact, Nolan does leave lingering shots with no cuts in The Dark Knight. But, even supposing you're right about his editing style, that is most definitively not proof that Hollywood filmmaking as a whole is worse nowadays than before. That's the crappiest strawman argument I've ever heard.


Curtiz was a competent craftsman (far more so than Singer), who excelled when he had good material to work with, but more often didn't (Mildred Pierce is a terrible movie, albeit a technically well made one). The difference between a personal filmmaker, like Nicholas Ray or Douglas Sirk, and Curtiz is that Curtiz took whatever script he was assigned.

Compare that with Ray, who took a much more active role in shaping his scripts. His treatment of masculinity and violence in films as seemingly diverse as In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar and Rebel Without a Cause is not merely consistent (which hints at his personal investment in the material) but very particular and different from representations of the subject in the work of any other filmmaker I can think of.
You talk more than a rescued shipwrecked man. But you miss my point. Sure, Ray is an author and Curtiz just a craftsman to you. But what does that mean in terms of the quality of his movies? Pretty much nothing. You seem to equate auteur leanings with quality. That's what I'm trying to say.

And read Qrazy's link to the excerpt of a book on Curtiz. It makes a good case with tons of examples about common themes and characters throughout his work.

And Mildred Pierce is an excellent movie.


But how many people are so obsessed with these questions that they go out and make film after film on the subject? (I can't think of very many, other than those who've consciously tried to hijack Bergman's style and content, like Woody Allen.) And I think Bergman's unique take on the subject has a lot to do with his upbringing (I think his father was a Lutheran priest), so it's not the same view that a lot of people would have because they don't have the same background. One of my favorite Bergman films, Faithless (which was directed by Liv Ullmann but written by Bergman), is a very different take on infidelity than, say, In the Mood for Love (which came out at the same time) because it's a different culture with different attitudes, and Wong is drawing far less extensively on his own experiences than Bergman and Ullmann, who are reflecting on something that happened to them and their feelings about it.
Again, this whole rant's all very fine and dandy, and it has nothing to do with my post. There are tons of literature, film, etc. made about existencial questions, infidelity, and every other subject known to man. The truth is, none is an original as far as themes are concerned, because everyone's concerns are limited to the human experience.


Calm down, Mr. Limbaugh, it's just a discussion forum.
I'm calm. Who the fuck is Limbaugh?


Unless I'm hallucinating (or at least remembering the film wrong), it's not subjective to say that the actors are standing still during the exposition scenes when they are. (The only exception I can recall is Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal's walk and talk through the halls of justice, which is no less a cliché of intensified continuity.) It's not subjective to say that a film resorts to quick cutting to compensate for the director's static blocking. If these things are false and debatable, let's see some examples.
Generally, when I speak, I remain standing. Mostly so that the person I'm chatting with doesn't have to follow me around to hear. I guess you'd like the movie better if Batman and Alfred were running through Wayne Manor like goofballs while talking. With the Benny Hill theme music on.

[Sycophant]

I guess you'd like the movie better if Batman and Alfred were running through Wayne Manor like goofballs while talking. With the Benny Hill theme music on.

...I would. But I think that has little to do with baby doll's arguments here.

[Grouchy]

I'm not too sure about this whole out of hand dismissal of the visual stylings of Nolan and Singer. If you're all just saying that they don't have particularly strikingly unique and constant visual approaches than I guess that's reasonable. However I find both to be a cut above the average visualist, albeit not at the utter pinnacle.
Not only that, in the case of Nolan there is a particular way of eliptic (sp) cutting, usually carried by the soundtrack, which is in all of his films.

[Izzy Black]

Again, this whole rant's all very fine and dandy, and it has nothing to do with my post. There are tons of literature, film, etc. made about existencial questions, infidelity, and every other subject known to man. The truth is, none is an original as far as themes are concerned, because everyone's concerns are limited to the human experience. .

But soori is not really talking about theme here, as I read it. The point is that Bergman's films are a variation on a theme; that is, the theme as it relates to the personal. No one has lived Bergman's life except Bergman. His films are deeply subjective and individualized. This is something that makes his films unique and distinctive. They are not just rehashing of age-old themes of infidelity and religion, but themes explored through several contextual lenses - as in, infidelity as it pertains to modern society, Bergman's relationship with women, and his ethical concept of God.

[Russ]

Who the fuck is Limbaugh?
That's a question that gets asked a lot here in the U.S.








He's a popular right-wing radio show host / self-anointed de facto leader of the Republican Party.

[soitgoes...]

How in hell did a Bryan Singer rating thread evolve to include Ingmar Bergman?

[Izzy Black]

How in hell did a Bryan Singer rating thread evolve to include Ingmar Bergman?

Cinephilia tends to do that.

[Qrazy]

The way it's done here it does.

Not really.


Unless I'm hallucinating (or at least remembering the film wrong), it's not subjective to say that the actors are standing still during the exposition scenes when they are. (The only exception I can recall is Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal's walk and talk through the halls of justice, which is no less a cliché of intensified continuity.) It's not subjective to say that a film resorts to quick cutting to compensate for the director's static blocking. If these things are false and debatable, let's see some examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oq_2M4248Q&feature=related

Here's the first part of The Prestige. There are a few dialogue scenes here with a great deal of character movement. So your blocking claim is wrong. So I guess you're right, it's not subjective. You're simply wrong. Next time remember better. In terms of the number of cuts itself and cutting rather than using a single shot, that's a conscious decision on Nolan's part to keep up the film's momentum. In the case of The Prestige such a style meshes with the content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3P63pv2C0

Here's another moving dialogue scene in The Dark Knight and a shot that lasts 30 seconds or so.

If you were hoping for Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos or Tarr I suggest you watch their films. Not every director chooses to hold their shots forever. Not everyone subscribes to the belief that longer shot length = better filmmaking (see Welles F for Fake for instance or Marker's Sans Soleil... the cuts come quickly). Now that being said there are times when I wish Nolan had held a shot longer or refrained from a cross cut during an exchange. Ultimately however I don't find that it hurts the final film that much.


I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Indeed.

[Bosco B Thug]

It is a fair claim to say that Singer is not a visual stylist - nor a formalist. I cannot say that I agree with the claim, however, that what distinguishes an auteur's style is purely formal. What distinguishes an auteur is their entire conception of the cinema; it's inclusive - both formal and thematic, where the two concepts become blurred and are essentially one and the same. I totally agree with you that ultimately the two concepts should essentially become one and the same.


The problem that we have here with Wes and Bryan is that we have split their value; we have a thematically conventional formal stylist and a stylistically conventional sentimentalist. I don't think "formal stylist" quite encompasses what I'm trying to get at in regards to the "auteurist" worth of Wes Anderson (although I should probably stop bringing auteurism in to this). I understand your lack of enthusiasm for Anderson. I too am not particularly compelled by the thematic topics he tackles - to put it superficially, "Dysfunctional families? Yawn." - and I find myself often dismissing them as unrevealing, unedifying, and lacking in scope. Your claim involved Superman Returns having much more social worth and relevance in terms of thematic depth. I totally get your perspective, but the one I'm trying to argue in this thread is a totally different angle. And, in very pacifistic spirit, I don't think yours and my current arguments are opposed - although I foresee any further debate over the overall merits of Singer's best versus Anderson's best will ultimately lead us to an irreconcilable divide.

Anyway, what I'm claiming is that Wes makes films that are formally intricate, and thus rich for formal and thematic analysis. Are we not in agreement that they come hand-in-hand? Formal complexity = thematic complexity? Thematic complexity =/= social relevance? I know we probably disagree on this, but I think Anderson's films reach a degree of emotional nuance that, while personal rather than political/philosophical (certain professors of mine would argue "Definitely philosophical" though), is achieved because of his formal gestures, flourishes, abstractions, compositional detail, etc. Superman Returns - as I currently am going to believe, anyway, a re-watch might be in order - is popcorn entertainment, straightforward, plot-driven, lacking in formal idiosyncracy - formal idiosyncracy that is one and th same with thematic depth, at least thematic depth defined not as social relevance but as the difficulty, nuance, and layerings of any breed of thematic depth, whether the purely emotional and personal (thus conventional and irrelevent?), or the emphatically political.

Keep in mind, I don't want to force anyone into thinking, "Superman Returns = bad film!" I just was refuting your dismissal of Anderson in relation to Singer, in which I find no comparison. Anderson's films may be cloying and pandering and flawed, but his attempts at dramatic depth through formal idiosyncracy I feel is what defines auteurist worth, instead of someone whose films are loaded with personal thematic motifs, but who contributes no distinct stamp in regards to working with the theory of film. A director can film a stage play loaded with thematic depth, throwing in a beautiful-as-a-car-commercial visual sequence in there whenever inspiration strikes him, but a director who formalizes a film around theory and self-defined sculpturing of the medium (regardless of exactly how substantial are his themes of choice) is doing what I see as the most relevant to social construction, merely due to the fact it is more constructive as a contribution to the art of film itself.


One might next assume that it's apples and oranges. The issue, however, is that I find it dogmatic to give visual primacy over thematic depth. Just in case I didn't explain it previously, I mean much more than "visual primacy" - I mean theoretical play - and then it and thematic depth become, hand-in-hand, equal.


There is nothing inherently valuable about "distinctive" visual style as far as I am concerned. I am a formalist leaning cinephile, but I am interested in form as it relates to the conceptual; not form as it relates to the fashionable, pleasurable, and stimulating. I would go so far as to say conventional formal mechanics can be more formally fascinating than a overblown stye with no substance. Agreed. Empty formal style is everywhere. The thoughtful conceptualization of a distinctive style is definitely what I'm trying to say. I don't think Anderson's style is empty - I find there's some methodicalness in there.


For example, Bergman (Bergman purists read this next sentence twice before reading on and getting your feathers ruffled), although certainly a visual stylist and cinematic innovator in his own right, created a film devoid of visual style with Scenes From A Marriage. He opted for an entirely conventional filming approach (admittedly designed for television), but stripped down to bear-bones essentials. This non-distracting, self-consciously unstylistic mise-en-scene is not without value, however. It mirrors the naked purity of the acting ensemble: filmed theater examined as a near experimental project, but devoid of theatrical stagings. Bergman is no doubt the master manipulator of the camera and his actors are his subjects - subjugated to his tortured will. The transparency of the mise-en-scene allowed the actors, particular their faces, to overwhelm the frame. The de-emphasized surroundings only augmented their performance and their human, flesh presence. While I haven't seen it, I'm sure it screams "Bergman!" Or at least, "The-understanding-of-the-tie-a-director-must-create-between-thematic-content-and-deliberate-and-deliberated-formal-ennunciation of Bergman!"


Now, do not mistake this as me saying that Singer's lack of style is the equivalent of Bergman's brilliant stripped down mechanics. What I am trying to emphasize is that "style" and "formalism" can be ambiguous terms, and often times empty of real meaning without context. Agreed.


What makes a formal medium meaningful is its relationship to the viewer and the content. Uh-oh. :P Well, maybe. Formal construct should defintiely directly reflect the content.


As such, Singer's decidedly conventional, CGI-induced, big-budget Hollywood visuals, then, should not be ignored/marginalized by virtue of its conventionality. Ehhhh. Haha. The divide emerges.


Now, certainly Singer forewent the opportunity to make a truly progressive and great film by exploring new formal spaces, but that does not render his film invaluable or formally worthless because he opted against this. Yeah, I'd like to feel this way, and I believe I do...


The formal mechanics drive the film insofar as it reflects his ambition to capture the grandiose nature of his subject and a mass-appealing message; his aim was not to alienate or auto-pilot, but sweep the masses. His mixed results in this endeavor is just as telling of the theme and form as anything. Okay, cool. I can see this being what he does. I think the worst directorial jobs are the ones that can be characterized as on "auto-pilot." I'd love to re-watch Sueprman Returns and realize there is very intellectual constructs in it and that Singer is a talent to watch.

As of now, though, I will give Singer the benefit of carefully considered formal style, but how interesting and challenging it all is is Part 2 of how this film's merits rank in comparison to an Anderson film. "Is it interesting and challenging and not cheap" is pretty much the criteria with which I evaluate every movie, and thus I can't quite love SR if it doesn't do it for me, even if it's themes out of formal context are incredibly moving. Let the Right One IN I find has incredibly evocative themes and script, but Alfredson's directing left me with little brain stimulation.


Not sure what you mean by "especially from an academic viewpoint." I find nothing terribly rigorous in Anderson's cinema worth deep academic analysis - from a strictly formal or thematic level. I haven't given much thought to Anderson's work, but I've heard convincing arguments. Rushmore, probably my favorite film of his, has a way with close-ups that is extremely painterly, which I find automatically enhances emotional nuance.


Again, though, my contention is against this notion that distinctive, fashionable style is more resonating than conventional style. Fashionable style like a Ron Howard film? I'd say 'Dark Knight' has fashionable style without cerebral style.


Formal conventionality can be quite valuable. The formal conventionality of Eric Rohmer, Whit Stillman, Woody Allen and Gillian Armstrong are a testament to their auterurism - not a detriment. There is something to be said about their conventionality (which is not to say they have no respective visual style, but they certainly rely heavily on many conventional mechanics).

In other words, the conventionally framed image can be every bit as powerful as the distinctively framed image - not in spite of convention, but because of the convention. This formal conventionality is just formal rigor disguised. I see little formal conventionality in Eric Rohmer or Woody Allen films. You can tell their films from a mile away. I don't mean formal groundbreaking-ness or avant garde-ism, just formal rigor.


Again - make no mistake - it is not my argument that Singer's conventionality should be valued the same as the aforementioned auteurs (it is less meaningful, but still relevant), but that Wes Anderson's stylism is not inherently more valuable than Singer's conventionality. Divide. :P


I find that most people try to convince themselves it is the visual style that draws them to Anderson, and to an extent, sure, this is true, but I think it is his accessible emotionalism that really sells him to most. Anderson's cinema is about pleasure: eye-candy and emotion. I do not find that his cinema resonates deeply cinematically - that is, visually or thematically - but I do not see these concerns as necessarily dichotomous; binary ways of thinking about cinema troubles me. What we are left with is a stylist with not a whole lot to say, and two non-stylists who resonate, if only slightly more. Perhaps. But we've been talking of two different levels of resonating - resonant as a complex work of film and resonant as a story with a lot of valuable stuff to say, but not in its role as an work of artistic film.


I'm not too sure about this whole out of hand dismissal of the visual stylings of Nolan and Singer. If you're all just saying that they don't have particularly strikingly unique and constant visual approaches than I guess that's reasonable. However I find both to be a cut above the average visualist, albeit not at the utter pinnacle. Yeah, "cut above." But as you're probably already aware, just saying now to push my point in this thread, great filmmakers are on a whole different level, with their formal/thematic subtext. Every professional can make a good car commercial. How many can create great allegorical or metaphorical works in cinema?

[Qrazy]

Yeah, "cut above." But as you're probably already aware, just saying now to push my point in this thread, great filmmakers are on a whole different level, with their formal/thematic subtext. Every professional can make a good car commercial. How many can create great allegorical or metaphorical works in cinema?

Right but if everything boils down to 'if it's not genius then it's not worth my time' well... then I probably would have seen a lot fewer films than I have. But just because Nolan and Singer aren't Tarkovsky, Fellini, Kurosawa, Antonioni, etc. doesn't mean I can't enjoy them in their own right.

Also it's a bit subjective in that I certainly prefer all of Nolan's films and some of Singer's to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Death Proof (btw thanks for that lengthy response about Death Proof a while back I don't think I ever responded but perhaps when finals are done I shall). Subjective in the sense that what we define as the great allegorical or metaphorical works in cinema don't seem to correspond entirely successfully.

[Bosco B Thug]

Right but if everything boils down to 'if it's not genius then it's not worth my time' well... then I probably would have seen a lot fewer films than I have. But just because Nolan and Singer aren't Tarkovsky, Fellini, Kurosawa, Antonioni, etc. doesn't mean I can't enjoy them in their own right. Right... My response is, though I've probably overstated this to demystified numbness, it all boils down to how much it "pops" formally. Sweeney Todd is a lot less than theoretical brilliance, but there's some formal pop and emotional undercurrents that I find subversive and striking. And some people feel about The Dark Knight that way, I guess.


Death Proof (btw thanks for that lengthy response about Death Proof a while back I don't think I ever responded but perhaps when finals are done I shall). Yesssssss. That post was all truth.

[Qrazy]

Right... My response is, though I've probably overstated this to demystified numbness, it all boils down to how much it "pops" formally. Sweeney Todd is a lot less than theoretical brilliance, but there's some formal pop and emotional undercurrents that I find subversive and striking. And some people feel about The Dark Knight that way, I guess.

Yesssssss. That post was all truth.

Yes, The Dark Knight pops much more for me than Sweeney Todd did. Still I don't think either is a 'great' film.

[Grouchy]

But soori is not really talking about theme here, as I read it. The point is that Bergman's films are a variation on a theme; that is, the theme as it relates to the personal. No one has lived Bergman's life except Bergman. His films are deeply subjective and individualized. This is something that makes his films unique and distinctive. They are not just rehashing of age-old themes of infidelity and religion, but themes explored through several contextual lenses - as in, infidelity as it pertains to modern society, Bergman's relationship with women, and his ethical concept of God.
Correct, but even if he's not consciously rehashing anything, he's most definitively not the first person to use fiction and narratives to deal with those questions. And yes, they are filtered through his own personal experience, but so what? So are Singer's films about margination. My point being that it's ridiculous to dismiss a pro-tolerance message in a movie because "we've heard it all before". soori could argue that the filmmaker is doing a poor job at conveying that message, if he had any arguments.

[MadMan]

How in hell did a Bryan Singer rating thread evolve to include Ingmar Bergman?This thread is off topic in such an epic fashion its almost astounding.

[transmogrifier]

This thread is off topic in such an epic fashion its almost astounding.

I think really the only way a Singer thread could truly work is if we talked about anything but Singer.

[Rowland]

The Usual Suspects - 6
X-Men - 5
X2 - 5

[Izzy Black]

I don't think "formal stylist" quite encompasses what I'm trying to get at in regards to the "auteurist" worth of Wes Anderson (although I should probably stop bringing auteurism in to this). I understand your lack of enthusiasm for Anderson. I too am not particularly compelled by the thematic topics he tackles - to put it superficially, "Dysfunctional families? Yawn." - and I find myself often dismissing them as unrevealing, unedifying, and lacking in scope. Your claim involved Superman Returns having much more social worth and relevance in terms of thematic depth. I totally get your perspective, but the one I'm trying to argue in this thread is a totally different angle. And, in very pacifistic spirit, I don't think yours and my current arguments are opposed - although I foresee any further debate over the overall merits of Singer's best versus Anderson's best will ultimately lead us to an irreconcilable divide.

I am not so sure we are arguing from different angles. I gather your position, but I think the relationship between form/content is more complicated than you would have it.


Anyway, what I'm claiming is that Wes makes films that are formally intricate, and thus rich for formal and thematic analysis. Are we not in agreement that they come hand-in-hand? Formal complexity = thematic complexity? Thematic complexity =/= social relevance? I know we probably disagree on this, but I think Anderson's films reach a degree of emotional nuance that, while personal rather than political/philosophical (certain professors of mine would argue "Definitely philosophical" though), is achieved because of his formal gestures, flourishes, abstractions, compositional detail, etc. Superman Returns - as I currently am going to believe, anyway, a re-watch might be in order - is popcorn entertainment, straightforward, plot-driven, lacking in formal idiosyncracy - formal idiosyncracy that is one and th same with thematic depth, at least thematic depth defined not as social relevance but as the difficulty, nuance, and layerings of any breed of thematic depth, whether the purely emotional and personal (thus conventional and irrelevent?), or the emphatically political.

Clearly I do not think Anderson's cinema amounts to "formal complexity" - otherwise I would be acknowledging his value over Singer, in this case. The issue is that his form is distinctive and stylish, but not meaningful or complex. You gather there is emotional depth - that is a fair claim. We can disagree as to the merit of his visual. As it stands though, what little value there is in his formal machinations, which in my view, is very little, Singer outdoes him with his film. In other words, Singer's conventional formal means are more compelling than Anderson's idiosyncratic means - which is to say nothing of formal theoretical operations. That is, insofar as developing the theoretical potential of form is not demarcated by distinction in style. We could even say Anderson's stylism, for its lack of depth, is a kind of conventionalism in its own right; thus thematically inept, and placing it on par with the conventional expectations of fashion rather than intriguing cinema.

Now, certainly you can disagree with my assessment of the worth of Anderson's cinema, but what I will take specific issue with in your argument is this notion that distinctive style contributes more to the cinematic medium than conventional meaning. I cannot say I agree with this sentiment in any sense of the idea. Eisenstein was progressive to an extent, but his endeavor was to etch out a certain ontology of cinema; Bazin too. These were theorists who did not necessarily plead that cinema be distinctive and stylish. Quite the contrary - Bazin felt that flashy editing was a detriment to the essence of good cinema, which in his eyes, encompassed long-takes, natural settings, traditional moralist stories, and realism. Indeed - his ideal movement, Italian neorealism, cannot exactly be described as purely progressive. In some ways, it was reactionary and conventional. Realism as an aesthetic school was nothing new. Even if we were to acknowledge neorealism's self-distinction as historically progressive, Bazin would hold the position that this style of filmmaking should be a ubiquitous staple of technique; that is, the essential standard of filmmaking.

Thus "formal idiosyncrasy" in in no way inherently more valuable than formal convention. Why do we have conventions to begin with? In most cases, because they have shown themselves to be effective. You also dogmatically insist on "formal rigor" - but what exactly should this entail? Godard was formally rigorous if we are speaking about visual layers and experimentation, but the neorealists followed a strict formula. I am not sure how we could call these films "formally" rigorous. Same with Old Hollywood cinema. Now, that is not to say formally rigorous cinema is not valuable, but the question is: why do we value it? Forms become stale and we often desire new forms, but that does not mean conventional form cannot be used effectively and meaningfully. In the case of Singer, conventional form makes complete sense - it reflects the populism of the thematics and his goals, and the conservativism of his personal voice. As such, the form/content relationship is affirmed, not divided. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Anderson; his idiosyncratic style hardly complements his conventional subject matter, whereas someone like Godard took radical themes and applied a radical aesthetic. Perhaps idiosyncrasy and convention can work together, and I am sure there are some examples, but I do not think Anderson is a success in this regard.

Again, the question is not which is more valuable: conventionality or idiosyncrasy. The question is rather, When are conventionality and idiosyncrasy valuable, and when are they not? In the case of Italian neorealism, the conventionality (like Superman Returns) complements the reactionary nature of the political sensibility of the filmmakers. Their modernism and skepticism toward the exploits of capitalist systems, the trends and mass destruction caused by the technological advances of the modern world, and the subsequent loss of morals, lead to a conservative return to traditional Christian values and social politics that almost necessarily gave rise to the conventional and conservative realist cinematic forms they took on.


Keep in mind, I don't want to force anyone into thinking, "Superman Returns = bad film!" I just was refuting your dismissal of Anderson in relation to Singer, in which I find no comparison. Anderson's films may be cloying and pandering and flawed, but his attempts at dramatic depth through formal idiosyncracy I feel is what defines auteurist worth, instead of someone whose films are loaded with personal thematic motifs, but who contributes no distinct stamp in regards to working with the theory of film. A director can film a stage play loaded with thematic depth, throwing in a beautiful-as-a-car-commercial visual sequence in there whenever inspiration strikes him, but a director who formalizes a film around theory and self-defined sculpturing of the medium (regardless of exactly how substantial are his themes of choice) is doing what I see as the most relevant to social construction, merely due to the fact it is more constructive as a contribution to the art of film itself.

Again, how exactly is a filmmaker who films theater (i.e. Bergman in my above example of Scenes From A Marriage) somehow not engaging formal film theory? There is nothing inherent in the notion of convention that says anti-theoretical and anti-formal. In fact, most film theories endeavor to establish a monolithic standard of style. We live in a pluralistic society now, so we may generally come accustomed to various and competing theories of value and construction, but that does not suggest that these theories espouse diversity; in fact, some of these theories argue against formal diversity/idiosyncrasy by virtue of this modern sociocultural fact. David Mamet and Neil LaBute's filmed plays, such as Oleanna and Your Friends & Neighbors, are just as interesting to me formally as Jean-Luc Godard's Histoire(s) du cinéma. (1) Not all cinema engages theory by means of idiosyncrasy; rather, they engage theory with respect to importance, value, philosophy, concept, and attitude. Whether or not a film successfully engages theory - either of the conventional or idiosyncratic variety - depends upon the context of application, use, meaning, and of course, general execution.

(1) David Mamet and Neil LaBute, for example, theorize cinema as merely another medium by which to film and mass-produce plays for a wide audience. They might believe cinema to be lacking the dynamic live audience/actor relationship, but they also take gratification in the idea of the "master manipulator" where they control every angle by which we witness their actors' performances. In effect, there is simultaneously both more freedom and less freedom working in cinema, resulting in a fascinating artistic compromise. It also gives rise to the many nuances and concerns in the debate over what constitutes cinema and theater, their difference, and their respective value.


Just in case I didn't explain it previously, I mean much more than "visual primacy" - I mean theoretical play - and then it and thematic depth become, hand-in-hand, equal.

I gathered as much. I disagree as to the relationship "theoretical play" has to form that you have put forth. It occurs to me that you are privileging a kind of visual stylism as appropriate to this play, irrespective of the actual mechanics of the theory to which it ostensibly endeavors to contribute.


Agreed. Empty formal style is everywhere. The thoughtful conceptualization of a distinctive style is definitely what I'm trying to say. I don't think Anderson's style is empty - I find there's some methodicalness in there.

Fair enough, at least in terms of Anderson. As to the value of the two films/directors in question, I can accept personal difference.


While I haven't seen it, I'm sure it screams "Bergman!" Or at least, "The-understanding-of-the-tie-a-director-must-create-between-thematic-content-and-deliberate-and-deliberated-formal-ennunciation of Bergman!"

I don't think it exactly screams Bergman at all - at least not visually. It takes a rather nuanced reading to gather as much. My stance on the film is not one I have seen a lot.


Uh-oh. :P Well, maybe. Formal construct should defintiely directly reflect the content.

Sure.


Ehhhh. Haha. The divide emerges.

So it seems.


Yeah, I'd like to feel this way, and I believe I do...

OK... but I would say it is a qualified feeling.


Okay, cool. I can see this being what he does. I think the worst directorial jobs are the ones that can be characterized as on "auto-pilot." I'd love to re-watch Sueprman Returns and realize there is very intellectual constructs in it and that Singer is a talent to watch.

OK. I should add that the visual variations between his films is a testament to this fact. (His films tend to look different by virtue of his theme/content.) He is not oblivious to the visual mechanics going to work in his films. He is a poly-stylist in the fashion of Steven Soderbergh, but perhaps not to the extent of the latter, or as successfully either for that matter.


As of now, though, I will give Singer the benefit of carefully considered formal style, but how interesting and challenging it all is is Part 2 of how this film's merits rank in comparison to an Anderson film. "Is it interesting and challenging and not cheap" is pretty much the criteria with which I evaluate every movie, and thus I can't quite love SR if it doesn't do it for me, even if it's themes out of formal context are incredibly moving. Let the Right One IN I find has incredibly evocative themes and script, but Alfredson's directing left me with little brain stimulation.

Of course.


I haven't given much thought to Anderson's work, but I've heard convincing arguments. Rushmore, probably my favorite film of his, has a way with close-ups that is extremely painterly, which I find automatically enhances emotional nuance.

Maybe. I should give him some more viewings as well.


Fashionable style like a Ron Howard film? I'd say 'Dark Knight' has fashionable style without cerebral style.

Ron Howard - no. I consider neither of the two particularly fashionable. I mean fashionable in the sense of fashion. Like clothing. Anderson is chic and flamboyant like high-fashion clothing. It looks pretty and is dazzling, but its not necessarily meaningful.


This formal conventionality is just formal rigor disguised. I see little formal conventionality in Eric Rohmer or Woody Allen films. You can tell their films from a mile away. I don't mean formal groundbreaking-ness or avant garde-ism, just formal rigor.

You see little convention in Rohmer and Allen? They are definitely conventional in many respects. I never said they were entirely conventional, but they certainly have conventional elements. Mute the dialogue and, no, I cannot tell a Woody Allen film from a mile away. (Unless it is one of his consciously unconventional works.) Same for Rohmer. Do you watch French cinema? (I ask this sincerely.) You believe if you muted a modern French film you could tell whether it was Eric Rohmer, André Téchiné, Claude Chabrol, Louis Malle, Jacque Rivette or Claude Sautet? They all share a lot of the same formal mechanics. Certainly it would not be impossible, but it would be quite difficult from far away or at first glance. It would take a little time, particularly with significant attention to narrative structure. But in many ways, you need the dialogue to gather narrative. Similar deal for Whit Stillman, Woody Allen, and Albert Brooks. Mute the films and you will have tough time telling them apart, especially if Allen is working in traditional mode.


Divide. :P

OK.

[Izzy Black]

Perhaps. But we've been talking of two different levels of resonating - resonant as a complex work of film and resonant as a story with a lot of valuable stuff to say, but not in its role as an work of artistic film.

I think you may be talking about two different things. I feel I have been talking about the same thing.

[Izzy Black]

Correct, but even if he's not consciously rehashing anything, he's most definitively not the first person to use fiction and narratives to deal with those questions. And yes, they are filtered through his own personal experience, but so what? So are Singer's films about margination. My point being that it's ridiculous to dismiss a pro-tolerance message in a movie because "we've heard it all before". soori could argue that the filmmaker is doing a poor job at conveying that message, if he had any arguments.

Like I said, soori is not saying that. He said Bergman was interesting because he had a different take on an old theme.

[B-side]

Wow. Israfel and I seem to have more in common when it comes to approaching film than I thought. Always interesting to read his thoughts as I find myself seeing cohesion or potential cohesion in our thought processes. I find baby doll interesting as well, though I too find his approach rather limiting. Israfel seems to be almost the opposite of this, awarding respect to films most write off rather easily. This is where some of that cohesion occurs.

[soitgoes...]

Results:
X2 - 7.044 (34)
The Usual Suspects - 7.000 (34)
X-Men - 6.359 (32)
Superman Returns - 6.058 (26)
Valkyrie - 5.333 (6)
Apt Pupil - 4.321 (14)
Average - 6.019

Posts to films quantified ratios:
baby doll - 35/1
Israfel the Black - 28/0
Qrazy - 22/5
transmogrifier - 21/0
Sycophant - 21/2

Ingmar Bergman mentions - 15

[Mara]

Results:
X2 - 7.044 (34)
The Usual Suspects - 7.000 (34)
X-Men - 6.359 (32)
Superman Returns - 6.058 (26)
Valkyrie - 5.333 (6)
Apt Pupil - 4.321 (14)
Average - 6.019

Posts to films quantified ratios:
baby doll - 35/1
Israfel the Black - 28/0
Qrazy - 22/5
transmogrifier - 21/0
Sycophant - 21/2

Ingmar Bergman mentions - 15

We shall call this post "Match Cut in a nutshell."

[Bosco B Thug]

I am not so sure we are arguing from different angles. I gather your position, but I think the relationship between form/content is more complicated than you would have it. By splitting the two (thematic depth and formal complexity) - in regards to Superman Returns, or any film I find less than adequate a work of depth - you see it as me creating a simplistic split between form and content. I see it as myself further pursuing this complicatedness between them. We agreed form and content should be one and the same... in complex, truly meaningful films. I am further validating the complexity that can be achieved in truly deep (form)+(thematic content) symbiosis by claiming that so easily and so often the two can become divorced, revealing thematic content empty and not meaningful at all (as you perceive Wes Anderson's films - formal style without substantial thematics behind it).

My claim of our "different angles" still stands. I was not making a divide between Superman Returns' thematically rich story/images, and a "distinctive visual style" that is lacking. I was making a divide between SR's thematically rich story/images, and a discourse of form that makes it more than a piece of escapist, emotionally manipulative storytelling. This requires a film's very acknowledgement of its existence as an art form meant for careful composition, careful construction, and means to intellectual discourse and emotional communication. Superman Returns may have this. I think Anderson's films definitely have this. Despite our disagreement over Wes Anderson, I don't see why (I might just not be making myself clear) you insist on interpreting me as arguing for some dogmatic split between directorial (not just "visual") idiosyncrasy and directorial conventionalism, then assuming I favor Anderson for his meaningless idiosyncrasy. My favoring of Anderson is in my perceived notion of his rigorous constructions and compositions which I feel detail emotion and reflect themes significantly (which, again, I understand you don't feel). Right now (again, it may change if I re-watch SR) this is in contrast to Singer, just going with the flow of the story and not working his themes and allegory as a part of his manipulations of the filmic art form. I'm not conflating visual idiosyncracy with formal worth, I'm equating knowing theoretic practice in one's films with formal worth.

I cannot help but feel you are the one simplifying it all, claiming some "formal conventionalism" in Superman Returns (as opposed to "formal idiosyncrasy" in a Anderson film) exists so externally, so outside of the (form)+(thematic content) symbiosis I thought we agreed upon. I have no idea what you mean by this notion of "conventionalism."

I don't think this encompassing directorial conventionalism exists especially in any rigid form such as "Hollywood editing = conventionalism." It cannot be defined when considering the form+content connection that requires us to watch the "conventionalism" in context of the story/themes being told. The number of accessible mainstream films that may seem conventionally made but are brimming with the deliberate, theoretical enunciation of true form/theme conjunction might as well be my favorite sorts of film. As a preemptive/"post-emptive" reply to Qrazy's previous inquiry of, what, then, makes anything less than Godard worth looking at: I use "theoretical" in a loose, "in principle" sense, in that any film that is constructed with intelligence and perceptiveness of some sort is in some way working with a principle of theoretical film. A "conventional" drama with the virtue of irony found in its motif of sharp cuts, or emotional nuance in its deft triangulation of glances (I am describing my view of Sweeney Todd here) is working with the film medium methodically as a composed medium, thus it works theoretically. I was not struck with any such subtly crafted nuance reflecting meaningfulness in the conventional drama of Singer's works, but if Superman Returns is as resonant as you say it is, then I'm sure I just missed the idiosyncrasy the first time around.

Whether Singer has this I am yet to solidify my stance, but I can't see why you vilify the word "idiosyncrasy" as if it is so completely opposed to Superman Returns's stolid approach, as if it is something so easy to corrupt into empty "fashionability." I may (may) share your distaste for Anderson's fashionable aesthetic schtick and the lack of challenging subtext in his work, but when you consider the thematic/dramatic content that so many people find so sincerely thoughtful and resonant in Anderson's films, one can at least give him the benefit of the doubt that his style is perhaps very personal, thus, in its artifice, full of thoughtfully composed reflectiveness between form and the themes he communicates (the presence of any large social messages not being an issue here), even if you find it ultimately cheap due to a lack of intellectual thought behind it. My gripe with Singer is not that his stylistic touch is populist, it's whether he actively, intelligently, and subtly means to mould his films with these cinematic techniques of populist sentiment.

Believe it or not, I was in a lecture by Jean-Pierre Gorin just yesterday after he screened his 1986 essay film Routine Pleasures in which he rambled on about how "lazy directing" is the biggest sin in filmmaking, how a director must be actively engaged with the "mechanism" of film, how a film is never without a voice behind it (... so he decries invisible filmmaking, yet his lecture lauded the supposed "conventional" Hollywood films of William Wyler...), or how escapism without theoretical compulsions is corollary to his preference of "go-for-broke" directors of artifice and pointed commentary over those who manipulate with the illusory professionalism of non-enunciated servitude to story.

That said, I would not be surprised if he still loves Bresson. Thus I am befuddled by this insistence of pitting some idea of "conventionalism" against the point I was trying to make from the beginning about the importance of formal rigor, which might not have been so doomed had not Wes Anderson served as my figurehead.

[Bosco B Thug]

Re: Anderson
You gather there is emotional depth - that is a fair claim. We can disagree as to the merit of his visual. As it stands though, what little value there is in his formal machinations, which in my view, is very little, Singer outdoes him with his film. In other words, Singer's conventional formal means are more compelling than Anderson's idiosyncratic means - which is to say nothing of formal theoretical operations. That is, insofar as developing the theoretical potential of form is not demarcated by distinction in style. You underestimate "distinctiveness" greatly, and your notion of directorial "conventionality" and directorial "idiosyncrasy" strikes me as incredibly rigid and predetermined. I understand you feel Anderson is all about empty idiosyncracy, and that's fine, empty idiosyncrasy is out there. But if Singer's directing strikes such a fullness with you, why must you undermine him and his film by saying all he does is work within this strange idea of a "merely conventional" type of formal means? You say it yourself when you say "conventional formal means" - his use of conventions is still formal means. He must be doing something formal, something methodical, something distinctive to evoke such a reaction. To say he isn't but to praise the plangency of his film isn't in line with the idea that film at its most meaningful is the symbiosis between form and content... and then we wouldn't be talking about these films as works of film, if form wasn't in the equation. Formalism does not have to be showy.


We could even say Anderson's stylism, for its lack of depth, is a kind of conventionalism in its own right; thus thematically inept, and placing it on par with the conventional expectations of fashion rather than intriguing cinema.

Clearly I do not think Anderson's cinema amounts to "formal complexity" - otherwise I would be acknowledging his value over Singer, in this case. The issue is that his form is distinctive and stylish, but not meaningful or complex. Okay, your unceremonious dismissals of Anderson I'd be willing to roll with, but you continue to argue further our more conceptual argument with the assumed basis that those evaluations of Anderson are given fact, which is not the case and rather frustrating.

You take my valuing of Anderson as simply a buying into his "visual style" and fashionable aesthetic. His visuals and aesthetic would be the least productive of his "style" for me to regard in context of this argument, considering how so many (like you, like me) think his aesthetic and quirkiness are becoming more and more empty.

When I cite Anderson's formal worth, it's more due to some notion that, uh, I don't know, that he so summarily matches the flourish of his aesthetic with the self-determined artifice of his character's much more desultory emotional state and life philosophy. Yeah, rather lame... but the point I'm making is my value of Anderson in this argument is not to be simplified as an appreciation for the "empty visual style" you personally see his work as. Where you see empty schtick, I see a bit of subtle rhetorical discourse knowingly using the mechanics of filmmaking, thus intertwining theme and form. That's what I'm trying to argue.


Now, certainly you can disagree with my assessment of the worth of Anderson's cinema, but what I will take specific issue with in your argument is this notion that distinctive style contributes more to the cinematic medium than conventional meaning. I cannot say I agree with this sentiment in any sense of the idea. First, again, you mischaracterize my argument. Second, you underestimate "distinctive" greatly, for me I see it as characterizing every great filmmaker out there. Third, have we forgotten (form)+(themes) are one and the same? If you don't agree with the sentiment that a film that engages a formal distinctiveness contributes more to film as a cinematic medium than a film "with meaning" but somehow without formal distinctiveness (which personally is not possible for me), then yes, we are on two sides of the fence.


Eisenstein was progressive to an extent, but his endeavor was to etch out a certain ontology of cinema; Bazin too. These were theorists who did not necessarily plead that cinema be distinctive and stylish. Quite the contrary - Bazin felt that flashy editing was a detriment to the essence of good cinema, which in his eyes, encompassed long-takes, natural settings, traditional moralist stories, and realism. Indeed - his ideal movement, Italian neorealism, cannot exactly be described as purely progressive. In some ways, it was reactionary and conventional. Realism as an aesthetic school was nothing new. Even if we were to acknowledge neorealism's self-distinction as historically progressive, Bazin would hold the position that this style of filmmaking should be a ubiquitous staple of technique; that is, the essential standard of filmmaking. Again, looking at form and theme working together is what I'm trying to get at. Your opinion on Anderson's visual flash is assuming my point, which flash had little to do with.


Thus "formal idiosyncrasy" is in no way inherently more valuable than formal convention. Yes, sure, because formal convention I see very well becomes idiosyncrasy when reflecting meaningful thematic content and subtext.


Why do we have conventions to begin with? In most cases, because they have shown themselves to be effective. You also dogmatically insist on "formal rigor" - but what exactly should this entail? And you insist on the virtues of convention, what does that entail? We would be on the same page here if it weren't for Anderson.

Those films where conventions are so effective, they become great when those conventions are utilized for thematic idiosyncrasy.


Godard was formally rigorous if we are speaking about visual layers and experimentation, but the neorealists followed a strict formula. I am not sure how we could call these films "formally" rigorous. You don't? Because that's what it is. I don't see how the great neo-realist films are anything but formally rigorous. Your categorizing neorealism as a strict formula is again rigidly defining technique: "not flashy" = "conventional." You think I want Godard in my formalism. I do not.

This notion of "conventionalism" as some sort of insistence on indistinguishability isn't making any sense to me.


In the case of Singer, conventional form makes complete sense - it reflects the populism of the thematics and his goals, and the conservativism of his personal voice. That's cool, but I'd need to hear more to be convinced, such as what conventional form entails. The danger is in robbing him of a voice at all. He could be reflecting thematic sensibility in formal sensibility, but are the conventional directorial techniques he employs to reflect conservatism deliberate and aware gestures? I mean, I'm having trouble just trying to imagine how a directorial style can be seen characterizing "conservative." Your insinuations that it's a sort of "indistinguishableness" and a sort of arch and grandiose platitudinous is a bit troubling.


As such, the form/content relationship is affirmed, not divided. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Anderson; his idiosyncratic style hardly complements his conventional subject matter, whereas someone like Godard took radical themes and applied a radical aesthetic. You define things so readily I cannot grasp what your critiques are. You dichotomize "conventional" and "radical" just as you dichotomize formalism as "Godard has it" vs. "Singer's film and neorealism doesn't have it."


Again, the question is not which is more valuable: conventionality or idiosyncrasy. The question is rather, When are conventionality and idiosyncrasy valuable, and when are they not? In the case of Italian neorealism, the conventionality (like Superman Returns) complements the reactionary nature of the political sensibility of the filmmakers. Their modernism and skepticism toward the exploits of capitalist systems, the trends and mass destruction caused by the technological advances of the modern world, and the subsequent loss of morals, lead to a conservative return to traditional Christian values and social politics that almost necessarily gave rise to the conventional and conservative realist cinematic forms they took on. Okay, so give Superman Returns its due of a formalist rigor. Your "When" question is just confusing and I feel a bit of a derailment. Where does Wes Anderson fit into all of this? I understand that you are just on a roll defending the Singer film and are specifically talking about that film, but I just have to express my confusion in your reducing formalism in film to dichotomies that I just don't see encompassing film form at all. Are you saying neo-realist films are conventional? How then are you equating them and Superman Returns, if there are so many types of conventionalism? If I'm railing against Superman Returns for not being Godardian enough, please, here, just put me out of my misery right now. If a "conventional" film being artistically worthy is so tied to "When," then let's praise all those topical Iraq films that come out. Something is making Superman Returns so resonant, and if it's the insidious comment on American values, so be it. But the power of any subtext in it is limited by whatever extent it is too safe, too broad, too entrenched in story-driven escapism - things which could be remedied by perceptive, intelligent formal craft. You've simplified my criticisms against Singer as "If it's not flashily quirky, it's boring conventions." When I say theoretical play, I do not mean Godard, I mean even dramatic detail, emotional nuance, textual richness, etc. which are created by formalism, which includes "visual style" not to mention the deft edit, dynamic mise en scene, etc. - and this is inherently theoretical play, no matter if its on the Godard side of the spectrum or the Rohmer end.

[Bosco B Thug]

Again, how exactly is a filmmaker who films theater (i.e. Bergman in my above example of Scenes From A Marriage) somehow not engaging formal film theory? There is nothing inherent in the notion of convention that says anti-theoretical and anti-formal. In fact, most film theories endeavor to establish a monolithic standard of style. We live in a pluralistic society now, so we may generally come accustomed to various and competing theories of value and construction, but that does not suggest that these theories espouse diversity; in fact, some of these theories argue against formal diversity/idiosyncrasy by virtue of this modern sociocultural fact. David Mamet and Neil LaBute's filmed plays, such as Oleanna and Your Friends & Neighbors, are just as interesting to me formally as Jean-Luc Godard's Histoire(s) du cinéma. Again, this conventionalism doesn't exist. I don't get it. None of these filmmakers you mention I see as playing into some alleged monolithic standard of style. It's probably really apparent right now, but I worship at the feet of auteurship. I am totally into it; I am a dirty, awful auteurhead and I love it.

Anyway... my comment about a "filmed play" was not to be taken literally. Filmed plays are fine, they're great, and yes, the good ones probably do play with theory in subtle ways that reflect themes. Dude, Israfel, just because I have dismissed (maybe wrongfully) Superman Returns as escapist fluff does not mean all I appreciate is flashy Wes Anderson films! I mean, we can agree Anderson does not use flashy artifice as meaningfully as Jean-Luc Godard and neither does Singer use "conventionalism" as well as Vittorio de Sica. And there, I've said something utterly meaningless.


(1) Not all cinema engages theory by means of idiosyncrasy; rather, they engage theory with respect to importance, value, philosophy, concept, and attitude. Where is the codependence with form? Is not film theory film form? A film so theoretically characterized with pure discourse without idiosyncrasy, such as a Ken Burns documentary, is not doing nothing with film form. Back to my different angle I insisted exists, I was not saying engaging with theory means idiosyncrasy, I was saying engaging with theory meant deliberate use and awareness of film mechanics.


Whether or not a film successfully engages theory - either of the conventional or idiosyncratic variety - depends upon the context of application, use, meaning, and of course, general execution. Conventional theory? Idiosyncratic theory? Tell me what it means, please, I would like to know. I too, I think, would not disagree that "conventional" use of theory would not inherently be the lesser use of theory.


I gathered as much. I disagree as to the relationship "theoretical play" has to form that you have put forth. It occurs to me that you are privileging a kind of visual stylism as appropriate to this play, irrespective of the actual mechanics of the theory to which it ostensibly endeavors to contribute. Theoretical play, as I understand, is an awareness of the effects cinema can create, ideological, emotional, or otherwise, in relation to the viewer. For theoretical undercurrents to exist in a work of film, the filmmaker must be constructing and composing his film with deliberateness and thought that is not just visual style. I am privileging this awareness, an employment of technique that conveys a filmmaker's philosophy of theory. Your opinion of Wes Anderson falsely speaks for me.


I don't think it exactly screams Bergman at all - at least not visually. It takes a rather nuanced reading to gather as much. Not a bad thing.


OK. I should add that the visual variations between his films is a testament to this fact. (His films tend to look different by virtue of his theme/content.) He is not oblivious to the visual mechanics going to work in his films. He is a poly-stylist in the fashion of Steven Soderbergh, but perhaps not to the extent of the latter, or as successfully either for that matter. Fine. I guess I have not noticed.


You see little convention in Rohmer and Allen? They are definitely conventional in many respects. I see conventions, perhaps. I do not see conventionalism.


I never said they were entirely conventional, but they certainly have conventional elements. Mute the dialogue and, no, I cannot tell a Woody Allen film from a mile away. (Unless it is one of his consciously unconventional works.) Same for Rohmer. I think I would be able to. And again, mute the dialogue? What's the point? We forget the (Form & formal subtext)/(content and theme) relationship, and the least of what I want to do is privilege pretty visual distinctiveness.


Do you watch French cinema? (I ask this sincerely.) You believe if you muted a modern French film you could tell whether it was Eric Rohmer, André Téchiné, Claude Chabrol, Louis Malle, Jacque Rivette or Claude Sautet? They all share a lot of the same formal mechanics. Certainly it would not be impossible, but it would be quite difficult from far away or at first glance. It would take a little time, particularly with significant attention to narrative structure. But in many ways, you need the dialogue to gather narrative. Similar deal for Whit Stillman, Woody Allen, and Albert Brooks. Mute the films and you will have tough time telling them apart, especially if Allen is working in traditional mode. Ditto above. The fact that it's difficult, subdued, or light-handed does not remove the existence or importance of a formalist stamp for me.

[Izzy Black]

By splitting the two (thematic depth and formal complexity) - in regards to Superman Returns, or any film I find less than adequate a work of depth - you see it as me creating a simplistic split between form and content. I see it as myself further pursuing this complicatedness between them. We agreed form and content should be one and the same... in complex, truly meaningful films. I am further validating the complexity that can be achieved in truly deep (form)+(thematic content) symbiosis by claiming that so easily and so often the two can become divorced, revealing thematic content empty and not meaningful at all (as you perceive Wes Anderson's films - formal style without substantial thematics behind it).

But how is this a split? a divorce? You say you are emphasizing the complexity by illustrating how easy it can be split. Which means you are saying that they can be split, but they should become united. This reduces it to a pretty uncomplicated, albeit awkward, picture of the form/content relationship. It is made more problematic by the seemingly circular claim that when the two are split, thematic content is revealed to be empty and lacking in meaning. Which begs the question, is the empty content and lack of meaning due to the split in the form and content, or is it rather that the form is thematically empty and lacking in meaningful content? I would argue it should be more of the latter case. The form gives rise to content. A good form amounts to good content. The issue that we have here is you want to maintain that a film can have good content/theme, but not necessarily good form. This is the split, and this is what I mean when I say I find the relationship more complicated than you would have it. I do not find they are so easily split and can be tactilely analyzed in a lab under a conceptual microscope. It seems you want to say good films are symbiotic, but bad films can lend themselves to a division in the meaningful marriage between two necessary components of a good film. But this would suggest that you can have good theme/content independent of bad form, but as you argue above, bad form reveals theme/content to be empty, which brings us back to square one.


My claim of our "different angles" still stands. I was not making a divide between Superman Returns' thematically rich story/images, and a "distinctive visual style" that is lacking. I was making a divide between SR's thematically rich story/images, and a discourse of form that makes it more than a piece of escapist, emotionally manipulative storytelling. This requires a film's very acknowledgement of its existence as an art form meant for careful composition, careful construction, and means to intellectual discourse and emotional communication. Superman Returns may have this. I think Anderson's films definitely have this. Despite our disagreement over Wes Anderson, I don't see why (I might just not be making myself clear) you insist on interpreting me as arguing for some dogmatic split between directorial (not just "visual") idiosyncrasy and directorial conventionalism, then assuming I favor Anderson for his meaningless idiosyncrasy. My favoring of Anderson is in my perceived notion of his rigorous constructions and compositions which I feel detail emotion and reflect themes significantly (which, again, I understand you don't feel). Right now (again, it may change if I re-watch SR) this is in contrast to Singer, just going with the flow of the story and not working his themes and allegory as a part of his manipulations of the filmic art form. I'm not conflating visual idiosyncracy with formal worth, I'm equating knowing theoretic practice in one's films with formal worth.

The reason I keep Anderson and Singer alive in the discussion is because I think they are relevant to our stances. I realize you think we merely disagree as to the worth and value of their films, and our disagreement here seems to be causing some conceptual confusion on my behalf, but I have stated several times that our general appreciation of the respective works is not the issue. I can grant that Anderson's film might be better than it is, but my argument is not that Anderson's film is hollow - which you like - and thus, you like superficial form. No - my argument is that a film that uses idiosyncratic style to evoke content is not inherently more meaningful than a formally conventional film that evokes content. You suggest that conventional form can be evocative of good content, but not Singer's (an example of a conventional form with possibly good content, but that is not evoked formally.) The emphasis here on Singer's film then is not against your overall opinion of the film, but that it represents an example of a film that you consider thematically sound but formally weak. We can just as well call Superman Returns 'Film X.' It is only functional here as a variable, not necessarily as the film in question. It is useful, however, because our understanding of theory and our opinion of value are not mutually exclusive, so talk of Superman Returns is relevant insofar as it reflects a general representation of your outlook. As such, I am still not quite convinced we are arguing from different angles and agreeing in the main. I will grant, however, that I have misread your arguments and this is not your stance, but it should be clear that it is the above notion that I am arguing against.


I cannot help but feel you are the one simplifying it all, claiming some "formal conventionalism" in Superman Returns (as opposed to "formal idiosyncrasy" in a Anderson film) exists so externally, so outside of the (form)+(thematic content) symbiosis I thought we agreed upon. I have no idea what you mean by this notion of "conventionalism."

These were words and concepts shared and brought into the discussion by other posters. I will explain this point better below. I am not stressing form/content externality, however. Quite the contrary.


I don't think this encompassing directorial conventionalism exists especially in any rigid form such as "Hollywood editing = conventionalism." It cannot be defined when considering the form+content connection that requires us to watch the "conventionalism" in context of the story/themes being told. The number of accessible mainstream films that may seem conventionally made but are brimming with the deliberate, theoretical enunciation of true form/theme conjunction might as well be my favorite sorts of film. As a preemptive/"post-emptive" reply to Qrazy's previous inquiry of, what, then, makes anything less than Godard worth looking at: I use "theoretical" in a loose, "in principle" sense, in that any film that is constructed with intelligence and perceptiveness of some sort is in some way working with a principle of theoretical film. A "conventional" drama with the virtue of irony found in its motif of sharp cuts, or emotional nuance in its deft triangulation of glances (I am describing my view of Sweeney Todd here) is working with the film medium methodically as a composed medium, thus it works theoretically. I was not struck with any such subtly crafted nuance reflecting meaningfulness in the conventional drama of Singer's works, but if Superman Returns is as resonant as you say it is, then I'm sure I just missed the idiosyncrasy the first time around.

You claim that my use of the terms "idiosyncrasy" and "conventionalism" are rigid, but it occurs to me that your use of these terms are stretched so thin and broad that they should become nearly meaningless. It seems you want to say, more than anything, idiosyncrasy is another way of saying "good film" and that conventionalism that gives rise to quality is no longer conventional. Aside from the obvious circularity, it puts a limit on our language and ability to describe cinema. Is no good film conventional? Perhaps you find that the terms as used in the discussion are not descriptive enough, but I find them to be fairly self-evident. Idiosyncrasy lends itself to clear, noticeable distinction, uniqueness, and individuality. Conventionality exhibits characteristics of the popular, shared, common, general, or indistinct. Your regard for autuerism insists against pure conventionalism. I am willing to grant this. It is not my stance that there exists no originality whatsoever in a given work of art. But it is my argument that a work of art can be distinctive and unique without being great, and that a work of art can be largely conventional or only mildly original and still be great. I think your problem with accepting these terms as used has more to do with our fundamental disagreement here. It is most indicative by your statement in bold. Resonance must give rise to idiosyncrasy; that is - a conventional film is only resonant insofar as it is original. I would contend that a conventional film can be good precisely because of its convention, not in spite of it. (Which is not say that it contains or should contain no originality.)

On the other hand, in a very broad sense, I grant that all great films should be relevant, deep, and interesting, and that these things tend to be elements of originality. This is why I tend to prefer original, mostly "idiosyncratic" films, as it were. It is also why I am not saying Singer is a genius and Superman Returns is a masterpiece. It is limited in its success precisely due to these things lacking. I should also impress that relevancy and context often decide the meaning and value of something, and in some measures, this always could be looked at as an aspect of the "original" inasmuch as our contexts and times are always changing, but this is splitting hairs.


Whether Singer has this I am yet to solidify my stance, but I can't see why you vilify the word "idiosyncrasy" as if it is so completely opposed to Superman Returns's stolid approach, as if it is something so easy to corrupt into empty "fashionability."

I am not vilifying it, unless I am vilifying conventionality too, which I do not think I am. I have no problem with "idiosyncrasy" in particular. This is my entire point, in many ways. I do have a problem with using idiosyncrasy as a blanketed overarching term for describing quality, however; as if quality and idiosyncrasy are married.


I may (may) share your distaste for Anderson's fashionable aesthetic schtick and the lack of challenging subtext in his work, but when you consider the thematic/dramatic content that so many people find so sincerely thoughtful and resonant in Anderson's films, one can at least give him the benefit of the doubt that his style is perhaps very personal, thus, in its artifice, full of thoughtfully composed reflectiveness between form and the themes he communicates (the presence of any large social messages not being an issue here), even if you find it ultimately cheap due to a lack of intellectual thought behind it. My gripe with Singer is not that his stylistic touch is populist, it's whether he actively, intelligently, and subtly means to mould his films with these cinematic techniques of populist sentiment.

This basically boils down to intentionality - the rather slippery-slope of determining meaning. I am not sure if Quentin Tarantino consciously intended the less, overtly self-reflexive ethical, redemptive, and postmodern dimensions of Pulp Fiction in any conceptual academic sense. He might have just wrote a scene and said to himself, "Wow that sounds cool. This feels perfect." This does not diminish the value of these elements. Singer might not have said, "This is a post-Nietzschean secular society" when he worked on the film, but these elements are certainly at play. Alfonso Cuarón might not have said, "this tracking-shot recalls the Bazinian ideas of natural realism, notwithstanding cinematic specificity, intertwined with the underlying assumptions of Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time and the dystopian temporal-space in Stalker" when he directed Children of Men. He might have just said, "No. Let's do it like this. It feels right." Béla Tarr is a master of the tracking shot and his cinema draws comparison to Tarkovsky, and claims he never watched a Tarkovsky film prior to Damnation, but that does not mean we cannot observe Tarkovskian theory in his films.

An artist can engage theory without being consciously academic and theoretical themselves.


Believe it or not, I was in a lecture by Jean-Pierre Gorin just yesterday after he screened his 1986 essay film Routine Pleasures in which he rambled on about how "lazy directing" is the biggest sin in filmmaking, how a director must be actively engaged with the "mechanism" of film, how a film is never without a voice behind it (... so he decries invisible filmmaking, yet his lecture lauded the supposed "conventional" Hollywood films of William Wyler...), or how escapism without theoretical compulsions is corollary to his preference of "go-for-broke" directors of artifice and pointed commentary over those who manipulate with the illusory professionalism of non-enunciated servitude to story.

That said, I would not be surprised if he still loves Bresson. Thus I am befuddled by this insistence of pitting some idea of "conventionalism" against the point I was trying to make from the beginning about the importance of formal rigor, which might not have been so doomed had not Wes Anderson served as my figurehead.

I do not think conventionalism and formal rigor are at odds. I was trying to inquire upon what you meant by formal rigor. (I actually believe I was the one that brought up the use of the term "rigor" in this case, so the obscured use I do not think can be attributed to me.) The contention, however, I would have against your point about "rigor" if you were implying it from the beginning - which is to assume it confines to your central argument - is that I do not find that an idiosyncratic, self-reflexive technique is necessarily more meaningful than conventional technique.

[Izzy Black]

You underestimate "distinctiveness" greatly, and your notion of directorial "conventionality" and directorial "idiosyncrasy" strikes me as incredibly rigid and predetermined. I understand you feel Anderson is all about empty idiosyncracy, and that's fine, empty idiosyncrasy is out there. But if Singer's directing strikes such a fullness with you, why must you undermine him and his film by saying all he does is work within this strange idea of a "merely conventional" type of formal means? You say it yourself when you say "conventional formal means" - his use of conventions is still formal means. He must be doing something formal, something methodical, something distinctive to evoke such a reaction. To say he isn't but to praise the plangency of his film isn't in line with the idea that film at its most meaningful is the symbiosis between form and content... and then we wouldn't be talking about these films as works of film, if form wasn't in the equation. Formalism does not have to be showy.

I do not see how my concern with theoretical execution reflects an underestimation in my valuation of distinctiveness. The point is that distinction does not necessarily have theoretical primacy over non-distinction, but as indicated above, we disagree on this point.

As for your semantic concerns with my use of "conventional" and "idiosyncrasy," I do not believe my use of these terms is at odds with how they have been generally applied in the thread. I am using these terms in a very lay sense, even as I realize that they do not say - in and of themselves - a whole lot about good cinema. What I mean specifically by conventional is something that calls upon established standards or traditions of cinema - be it populist or local. I never gainsaid the fact that your appeal to idiosyncrasy is not something necessarily at odds with thematic depth, as indeed, the term was not introduced into the discussion by me, and my entire argument is essentially expounding on the point Amnesiac made some pages back:

Yeah, a distinctively unique and idiosyncratic visual style isn't necessarily synonymous with value or interest.

This is precisely where our disagreement lies. Not only have I been arguing this, and not dismissing the worth of distinction and idiosyncrasy as you say I have been, but I have been arguing against the primacy of distinction which you confirm here:


He must be doing something formal, something methodical, something distinctive to evoke such a reaction. To say he isn't but to praise the plangency of his film isn't in line with the idea that film at its most meaningful is the symbiosis between form and content... and then we wouldn't be talking about these films as works of film, if form wasn't in the equation.

You assume his formal methods much necessarily lend themselves to something distinctive and idiosyncratic. I take issue with this notion. I find that I am neither confused nor dismissive here. I am taking the stance that conventional cinema can engage formal theory to evoke theme due to its conventions. You emphatically insist on the truism that if it is formally good, then it is distinctive and idiosyncratic. My argument allows for both convention and idiosyncrasy to be meaningful in some cases, and not in others.

I should also stress that I do not think Superman Returns is a great film. It's a worthwhile film for the said reasons I have explained elsewhere, but in general, I do not consider Singer a particularly great director.


Okay, your unceremonious dismissals of Anderson I'd be willing to roll with, but you continue to argue further our more conceptual argument with the assumed basis that those evaluations of Anderson are given fact, which is not the case and rather frustrating.

Not at all. Read above. Anderson's film is not the subject of contention. (I am also not saying that your argument is that idiosyncrasy always amount to quality, but that quality must amount to idiosyncrasy or distinction.)


You take my valuing of Anderson as simply a buying into his "visual style" and fashionable aesthetic. His visuals and aesthetic would be the least productive of his "style" for me to regard in context of this argument, considering how so many (like you, like me) think his aesthetic and quirkiness are becoming more and more empty.

Well, no. I think you believe his cinema is evocative of emotion and depth. Fair enough claim as far as I am concerned. I left this by the wayside.


When I cite Anderson's formal worth, it's more due to some notion that, uh, I don't know, that he so summarily matches the flourish of his aesthetic with the self-determined artifice of his character's much more desultory emotional state and life philosophy. Yeah, rather lame... but the point I'm making is my value of Anderson in this argument is not to be simplified as an appreciation for the "empty visual style" you personally see his work as. Where you see empty schtick, I see a bit of subtle rhetorical discourse knowingly using the mechanics of filmmaking, thus intertwining theme and form. That's what I'm trying to argue.

Right. I have not contested any of this.


First, again, you mischaracterize my argument. Second, you underestimate "distinctive" greatly, for me I see it as characterizing every great filmmaker out there. Third, have we forgotten (form)+(themes) are one and the same? If you don't agree with the sentiment that a film that engages a formal distinctiveness contributes more to film as a cinematic medium than a film "with meaning" but somehow without formal distinctiveness (which personally is not possible for me), then yes, we are on two sides of the fence.

This is interesting to me. You say I mischaracterize your argument in the first sentence, and then in the second sentence you characterize your own argument as such. You even insist that I should consider your argument because it is a good (which is understandable), but how does that assume that I am not arguing against this or that I am somehow mischaracterizing it? You do not grant the possibility that a cinema can be formally strong and also indistinct. I disagree with this, and I have (accurately) characterized your argument as such.


Again, looking at form and theme working together is what I'm trying to get at. Your opinion on Anderson's visual flash is assuming my point, which flash had little to do with.

Except I am not assuming that is your point.


Yes, sure, because formal convention I see very well becomes idiosyncrasy when reflecting meaningful thematic content and subtext.

Stretches convention pretty thin. This is another way of saying that meaning = idiosyncrasy, which I have been saying you have been arguing all along. Anywho, how exactly does this process of "becoming" take place; and how are you not illustrating a dichotomous cinema of form and theme? Is not my stance formally good cinema is either thematically rich or it is not? Which is to say, a cinema is both formally strong and thematically strong, or formally weak and thematically weak; thus, cinema/theme are more or less one in the same irrespective of its judged worth. I would say I am emphasizing a great complexity in the relationship, that they are not so easily divided, and that the cause/effect relationship between form/theme is not so easily demarcated.


And you insist on the virtues of convention, what does that entail? We would be on the same page here if it weren't for Anderson.

Those films where conventions are so effective, they become great when those conventions are utilized for thematic idiosyncrasy.

Yes, well, it begs the question. Read above.


You don't? Because that's what it is. I don't see how the great neo-realist films are anything but formally rigorous. Your categorizing neorealism as a strict formula is again rigidly defining technique: "not flashy" = "conventional." You think I want Godard in my formalism. I do not.

This notion of "conventionalism" as some sort of insistence on indistinguishability isn't making any sense to me.

How does this not make sense? This to me suggests a tendency toward dogma. Lack of distinction is precisely what conventionalism means. It means the general, popular, accustomed, traditional, normal, orthodox, expected, customary or standard. There is nothing particularly ambiguous about it, or radical in my claim of it. The issue is that you refuse the notion that good cinema can be conventional. You want to push it out of the discussion, and I want to bring it into the discussion. It is not dichotomous (idiosyncrasy versus conventionalism) since I am arguing that cinema can be both idiosyncratic and conventional, or strictly conventional, and still be good. The issue is there is nothing inherent about any of these claims that necessitates quality. In other words, I am divesting them of singularity and power, not distinguishing them oppositionally. I am calling for plurality of forms and expression.


That's cool, but I'd need to hear more to be convinced, such as what conventional form entails. The danger is in robbing him of a voice at all. He could be reflecting thematic sensibility in formal sensibility, but are the conventional directorial techniques he employs to reflect conservatism deliberate and aware gestures? I mean, I'm having trouble just trying to imagine how a directorial style can be seen characterizing "conservative." Your insinuations that it's a sort of "indistinguishableness" and a sort of arch and grandiose platitudinous is a bit troubling.

Troubling in what way? I also never said the film was without originality. You buy into auteurism, so you are looking for that singular voice, but a director can be the voice of a movement or standard, in my view. If I am a Christian and tell you this constitutes my identity, then I am assenting to the conventional. I do not require that you acknowledge me independent of my Christianity, or as an individual apart from my devotion to Christ. Filmmakers can directly engage the conventions of the day to express themselves. This does not mean they are completely unoriginal, but that they adopt conventional means rather than unconventional means to express themselves. You say Italian neorealism fits the bill - fair enough. Singer's film probably has enough originality to dislodge it as a perfect example, but I do not think it requires originality to be meaningful.


You define things so readily I cannot grasp what your critiques are. You dichotomize "conventional" and "radical" just as you dichotomize formalism as "Godard has it" vs. "Singer's film and neorealism doesn't have it."

Read above. It seems we are insisting upon two extremes, that either I am arguing for a dichotomous split of terms or that you are stretching the terms so thin to render descriptions meaningless. (Which means there is not much use talking about anything.) Of course, I am not looking for dichotomies. Singer's film has originality and Godard's film adopts conventions, quite often, actually. What makes a film great is not necessarily these things as an essential truth. (i.e. conventions = quality / distinction = quality).


Okay, so give Superman Returns its due of a formalist rigor. Your "When" question is just confusing and I feel a bit of a derailment. Where does Wes Anderson fit into all of this? I understand that you are just on a roll defending the Singer film and are specifically talking about that film, but I just have to express my confusion in your reducing formalism in film to dichotomies that I just don't see encompassing film form at all.

You say I am dichtomizing, and I say you are. I am using "convention" and "idiosyncrasy" only descriptively; that a cinema can be these things, both these things, neither of these things, or one of these things, and many other things as well. It's a pretty pluralistic stance. They generally are opposite meaning terms (dichotomous in that sense) but my stance is not dichotomous in the manner that I am saying cinema is either one or the other. I find your stance is dichotomous for the very reason that you are ascribing quality to one of them (idiosyncrasy) but not allowing convention the same right of place. Yet, somehow I am using these terms rigidly, dichotomously, and with underestimation and without due. I don't see that.


Are you saying neo-realist films are conventional? How then are you equating them and Superman Returns, if there are so many types of conventionalism?

Where did I equate them? They are hardly equal. Supermans Returns is not a particularly great film. It's an interesting film - that's about it. I cite neorealism as an example of conventionalism that is quality, not as the standard-bearer of convention in cinema.


If I'm railing against Superman Returns for not being Godardian enough, please, here, just put me out of my misery right now. If a "conventional" film being artistically worthy is so tied to "When," then let's praise all those topical Iraq films that come out.

By "when" I do not mean the point in time they come out. I mean things like in what case, what scenario, with respect to what, and how long. That is, when is it appropriate? It is appropriate in this circumstance (i.e. the circumstance that both A and B are present). As for timing, which is also a factor, we might even say "Iraq" films now are precisely what we do not want. Perhaps, instead, we want superhero movies. There is something to do that, actually. And I also never limited it to the "when."

[Izzy Black]

Something is making Superman Returns so resonant, and if it's the insidious comment on American values, so be it. But the power of any subtext in it is limited by whatever extent it is too safe, too broad, too entrenched in story-driven escapism - things which could be remedied by perceptive, intelligent formal craft.

I actually agree Supermans Returns is limited, partially due to these things, but I do not think broadness and safeness are factors that are always or inherently limited or without resonance. It depends on the context.


You've simplified my criticisms against Singer as "If it's not flashily quirky, it's boring conventions." When I say theoretical play, I do not mean Godard, I mean even dramatic detail, emotional nuance, textual richness, etc. which are created by formalism, which includes "visual style" not to mention the deft edit, dynamic mise en scene, etc. - and this is inherently theoretical play, no matter if its on the Godard side of the spectrum or the Rohmer end.

That's not been my argument at all. My argument is that your idea of theoretical play seems to amount only to distinction.


Again, this conventionalism doesn't exist. I don't get it. None of these filmmakers you mention I see as playing into some alleged monolithic standard of style. It's probably really apparent right now, but I worship at the feet of auteurship. I am totally into it; I am a dirty, awful auteurhead and I love it.

Conventionalism does not exist - this strikes me as a pretty radical argument that even your beloved auteurs I do not think would agree with. It seems you are setting up auteurs as sacred cows incapable of doing anything normal. I never said these filmmakers lacked originality. I have insisted several times that they are not without originality. I would say they certainly engange monolithic standards of style. Film as an artform itself is a convention. The use of a camera, the choice between lenses, the usual 3-act structure, the typical durations, and so on - these are conventions. Then you have thematic, stylistic, and genre conventions. It goes on and on. Godard was in a constant battle against convention, but someone like Rivette did not hate convention. He found conventions interesting, subverted them occasionally, and other times embraced them. (It should also be pointed out that the French New Wave filmmakers despised certain conventions for a reason - not necessarily because they were conventional, but because of what those conventions had come to represent.) Again, I am not stressing pure conventionalism. I am trying to distinguish between different approaches and styles of filmmaking, but you want to lunge all auteurs and artists into one overarching category of methodology.


Anyway... my comment about a "filmed play" was not to be taken literally. Filmed plays are fine, they're great, and yes, the good ones probably do play with theory in subtle ways that reflect themes. Dude, Israfel, just because I have dismissed (maybe wrongfully) Superman Returns as escapist fluff does not mean all I appreciate is flashy Wes Anderson films! I mean, we can agree Anderson does not use flashy artifice as meaningfully as Jean-Luc Godard and neither does Singer use "conventionalism" as well as Vittorio de Sica. And there, I've said something utterly meaningless.

Like I have been saying, that is not my point. I am not sure how your last statement is meaningless, however. The ability to talk about filmmakers and styles in different ways is very important and meaningful. Otherwise, we don't have much to talk about it. And this point is exactly what I have been stressing - plurality of expression and value. Jean-Luc Godard and Vittorio de Sica are both great, but for almost opposite reasons. Godard loathed conventions and Sico embraced them. It creates for a very fascinating picture of film history and the importance of our artists.


Where is the codependence with form? Is not film theory film form? A film so theoretically characterized with pure discourse without idiosyncrasy, such as a Ken Burns documentary, is not doing nothing with film form. Back to my different angle I insisted exists, I was not saying engaging with theory means idiosyncrasy, I was saying engaging with theory meant deliberate use and awareness of film mechanics.

What is pure discourse? How is a Ken Burns documentary not doing anything with film form? How is a Ken Burns documentary not dependent upon form? This goes back to the error made above. That a bad film can result in a split between form and content, whereas I have been arguing that they are codependent, you cannot split them, and bad form is indicative of bad content, not independent of it.


Conventional theory? Idiosyncratic theory? Tell me what it means, please, I would like to know. I too, I think, would not disagree that "conventional" use of theory would not inherently be the lesser use of theory.

I never said "conventional theory" or "idiosyncratic theory." I am talking about the varieties of ways a film can engage theory. Some theories embrace the conventions, others do not.


Theoretical play, as I understand, is an awareness of the effects cinema can create, ideological, emotional, or otherwise, in relation to the viewer. For theoretical undercurrents to exist in a work of film, the filmmaker must be constructing and composing his film with deliberateness and thought that is not just visual style. I am privileging this awareness, an employment of technique that conveys a filmmaker's philosophy of theory. Your opinion of Wes Anderson falsely speaks for me.

I am fine with this awareness, but I think your conception of this awareness is unrealistic and limiting. I am also skeptical as to when you think this is occurring and when you think it is not. (As in the case of Anderson and Singer - how is Singer any less aware of his desired plastic effect on the audience?)


I see conventions, perhaps. I do not see conventionalism.

By conventionalism I only mean that which is characterized largely by conventions. Think of it comparatively. Rohmer is more conventional than Godard, and self-consciously so. His conventionalism is precisely what contributes to the value of his cinema.


I think I would be able to. And again, mute the dialogue? What's the point? We forget the (Form & formal subtext)/(content and theme) relationship, and the least of what I want to do is privilege pretty visual distinctiveness.

Well this is much to do with your awkward split of theme/form. If you do not mute the dialogue, you are divulging dynamics of character and story. These are the traditional dynamics of illustrating theme. So, if you are saying a film can be visually conventional, but formally interesting through good story and dialogue, you are privileging theme and form. This is what you would like to be doing, since you believe they are symbiotic. But this begs the question: Is not a film with good content always an indicator of good form? If not, what would a film with good content but bad form be like?


Ditto above. The fact that it's difficult, subdued, or light-handed does not remove the existence or importance of a formalist stamp for me.

That's fine - I was just contesting the point that there is "little" conventionality in their films. I never said they were completely unoriginal.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hrmmm... you are faster than me. :)

I will reply in-depth soon, so I'm just going to make some quick clarifications here:


What is pure discourse? How is a Ken Burns documentary not doing anything with film form? How is a Ken Burns documentary not dependent upon form? This goes back to the error made above. That a bad film can result in a split between form and content, whereas I have been arguing that they are codependent, you cannot split them, and bad form is indicative of bad content, not independent of it. My Ken Burns comment was syntactically confusing, but I did in fact mean to enforce that idea that Ken Burns is most emphatically working with film form. "A film so theoretically characterized with pure discourse without idiosyncrasy, such as a Ken Burns documentary, is not doing nothing with film form." A double negative stuck in there.


Well this is much to do with your awkward split of theme/form. If you do not mute the dialogue, you are divulging dynamics of character and story. Okay, I see what you're saying. By "theme/form," you mean "the all-important form creates theme." That's great. But my symbiosis was between "theme/form" and "theme/content." If we mute a film, we'd be looking at "Oh, is the cinematic panache there?" It would be harder, unless we're watching Dreyer's 'Passion,' to see how the form supports dramatic and subtextual emphasis and enunciation. The symbiosis doesn't exist.


These are the traditional dynamics of illustrating theme. So, if you are saying a film can be visually conventional, but formally interesting through good story and dialogue, you are privileging theme and form. This is what you would like to be doing, since you believe they are symbiotic. But this begs the question: Is not a film with good content always an indicator of good form? If not, what would a film with good content but bad form be like? I guess I'll get into this with more appropriate lengthiness when addressing your whole reply, and I'm probably just going to annoy you by saying it again (and I'm fearing I'm reading this snippet outside of some context that will clarify it), but... if a film is formally interesting for me, then its probably using visual conventionality with striking non-conventionality... or whatever makes visually conventional films like, say, I dunno, Bicycle Thieves so good yet "conventional." I guess it's the fact that Bicycle Theives is on the contrary loaded with visual panache. Thus my confusion... Is visual conventionality some idea of cinema at its most stoic and subdued? Or is it this populist, invisible, escapist glossiness of Superman Returns?

As you defend visual conventionality, you speak of it here as if it is something that a film is still formally interesting, not because, but in spite of. If you're just projecting my way of thinking, then you've got me all wrong because conventionality can be the best. Some Godard films piss me the hell off.

Is a film with good content always good form? No, I don't think so... I enjoy films without admiring them as works of art. But never do I put my critical cap on and have the capability of saying: "This story is sad and moving. It didn't strike me in any way cinematically, but it's a 9 on the basis of the story." Now you're going to say I'm splitting thematics-via-form and thematics-via-content, but if a story so well told is utilizing theoretics of form well enough, there are other levels of evaluation, such as is it utilizing form in complex ways? Subtle ways? Intellectually dense ways? Ways that are more than just the easiest way to manipulate an audience to the emotion you want? Superman Returns can have the meticulous formal craft of a Kubrick film, but does it have the ideas behind it of a Kubrick film?

Okay, if you don't think this reply sufficiently grasps the points you made, don't be too harsh, I'm not even re-reading through what I've just written. I'll get to your entire post soon when I'm less under time constraints. And yes, I think we just have some fundamental differences in opinion here, cuz yeah... (emhasis on "fun!").

[BuffaloWilder]

The Usual Suspects - 8.5
Apt Pupil - 8.4
Superman Returns - 8.3
X-Men United - 8.0
X-Men - 7.2