New York, I Love You

[number8]

From the producers of Paris, Je T'aime. Same concept, different city.

List of directors:

- Park Chan Wook
- Hughes Brothers
- Mira Nair
- Fatih Akin
- Jason Reitman
- Andrei Zvyagintsev
- Anthony Minghella
- Joshua Marsten
- Jiang Wen
- Yvan Attal

And......










- Brett Ratner

[Boner M]

$50 says Ratner's short will be an ethnic mismatch comedy between a cab driver and passenger.

[Spinal]

Do we really need more films about/set in New York? Isn't that a large percentage of what we get already?

How about Amsterdam, Ik hou van je.

[Watashi]

Do we really need more films about/set in New York? Isn't that a large percentage of what we get already?

How about Amsterdam, Ik hou van je.
I will just fast-forward to the Verhoeven/Van Houten segment in that one.

[chrisnu]

We need "New York, I Love You" about as much as "Hollywood, We Hate Ourselves".

[Spinal]

I will just fast-forward to the Verhoeven/Van Houten segment in that one.

In. Deed.

[D_Davis]

Bakersfield, WTF??!?

[Sycophant]

I love anthologies. I'm in.

[baby doll]

Even if I were a fan of sketch films to begin with (do they ever ammount to anything more than hit-or-miss smorgasboards?), this is hardly an enticing line-up.

[Mr. Valentine]

The Hughes Brothers is enough reason for me to give it a shot, they've been laying low lately.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, I'll take anything with Park involved.

[Ezee E]

I liked it better when it was New York Stories.

[Sven]

The only ones involved I'm remotely interested in are the Hughes Brothers, who rock and should do more. Otherwise, yawnsville. I echo Spinal's thoughts. They are good thoughts.

[EvilShoe]

Has anyone here seen To Each His Cinema?

Is that one related to Paris, Je T'Aime in any way?

[Spinal]

None of those directors fill me with excitement.

[Ezee E]

The Hughes Brothers is enough reason for me to give it a shot, they've been laying low lately.
It's unfortunate that they haven't done anything since From Hell.

[Grouchy]

None of those directors fill me with excitement.
Not even Park Chan Wok, man?

I imagine they're gonna get more, though. There were more in the Paris version. I'm totally in, I love this type of movie.

[Wryan]

Eh I dunno bout this.

[DSNT]

This project screams for Woody Allen & Martin Scorsese.

[baby doll]

This project screams for Woody Allen & Martin Scorsese.As Ezee E earlier alluded to, they already made this film in 1989. Their segments worked pretty well, but Sofia Coppola's sucked.

[Boner M]

Their segments worked pretty well, but Sofia Coppola's sucked.
Well, that's a weirdly calculated mistake.

[DSNT]

Well, that's a weirdly calculated mistake.
You mean a boner by design?

[baby doll]

Well, that's a weirdly calculated mistake.Given almost twenty years hindsight, she's clearly the auteur of the piece: the designer handbags, masquerade balls and lonely girls in expensive hotels all crop up again in her work as a director.

[Boner M]

Given almost twenty years hindsight, she's clearly the auteur of the piece: the designer handbags, masquerade balls and lonely girls in expensive hotels all crop up again in her work as a director.
Ahh, OK, I've never seen the film and thought you were inferring that Sofia was the only Coppola that matters, or something.

[Grouchy]

Given almost twenty years hindsight, she's clearly the auteur of the piece: the designer handbags, masquerade balls and lonely girls in expensive hotels all crop up again in her work as a director.
And the fact that it sucks, too.

[baby doll]

And the fact that it sucks, too.Well, Marie Antoinette has designer sneakers, masquerade balls and lonely girls in expensive castles, and it's the best thing any Coppola has done on film.

[Boner M]

Well, Marie Antoinette has designer sneakers, masquerade balls and lonely girls in expensive castles, and it's the best thing any Coppola has done on film.
'Boner by design', right?

[Grouchy]

Well, Marie Antoinette has designer sneakers, masquerade balls and lonely girls in expensive castles, and it's the best thing any Coppola has done on film.
Dear heavens, no.

That would be The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, one of the Godfather movies, or even good ol' Nic in Wild at Heart, not some post-modern chick flick with sneakers.

[Boner M]

Lost in Translation is actually my second favorite Coppola film after The Conversation, so I guess I shouldn't find soori's statement too outlandish.

Just wanted to use the term 'boner by design', I 'spose.

[Sycophant]

Dear heavens, no.

That would be The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, one of the Godfather movies, or even good ol' Nic in Wild at Heart, not some post-modern chick flick with sneakers.
This put in my mind a vision of the film where Sofia cast Nic instead of Jason opposite Dunst. How glorious that would have been.

[Grouchy]

This put in my mind a vision of the film where Sofia cast Nic instead of Jason opposite Dunst. How glorious that would have been.
Agreed.

Fuck the bashing. Nicolas Cage is an excellent actor with a lousy agent or bad script-reading abilities.

[number8]

Nobody cares about ol' Chris C.

[baby doll]

Dear heavens, no.

That would be The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, one of the Godfather movies, or even good ol' Nic in Wild at Heart, not some post-modern chick flick with sneakers.I loved The Conversation when I saw it a few years ago, but I had a rather rude awakening re-watching Apocalypse Now a few months ago: even if I were willing to look past how limited the film is in terms of what it's saying, and I'm definitely not prepared to do any thing of the sort (the film basically argues that America lost the war, regardless of whether it should've been there in the first place, because they weren't hard enough to hack the arms off small children), I just can't get as excited about seeing Robert Duvall blow away faceless Asian extras as I did when I was a teenager. As a piece of storytelling, the structure is so loose that one can easily imagine Coppola delaying Kurtz's arrival indefinitely with an endless succession of tacked on set pieces (the Playboy Bunny sequence doesn't really add anything, and the creepy, desperately unfunny addition Coppola made to this particular subplot in 2001 doesn't help matters one bit).

When I saw The Godfather Part 2 in high school, it seemed over-ambitious and all over the place, lacking the first film's narrative fluidity.

I'm not sure how Marie Antoinette is post-modern (the story takes place before the industrial revolution, although its treatment of the period is every bit as anachronistic as Derek Jarman's period films). And I'm absolutely certain it's not a chick flick (when I think of a chick flick, I tend to think of pretty much anything with Sandra Bullock--maybe not Speed, but you know what I mean), which almost makes it seem like you're dismissing the film for being about a woman, in contrast with the films by Francis Ford Coppola and Lynch, which are all super masculine, the sort of films likely to appeal to teenage boys. Then again, I despised Wild at Heart when I saw it as a teenager.

[Grouchy]

even if I were willing to look past how limited the film is in terms of what it's saying, and I'm definitely not prepared to do any thing of the sort (the film basically argues that America lost the war, regardless of whether it should've been there in the first place, because they weren't hard enough to hack the arms off small children)
Huh? Where do you get that from?

And my problem with Sofia's movies is that they're dumb, not feminine. I mean post-modern because of the anachronistic elements and genre blending. She has basically been telling the same story about lonely, melancholy females and she only got it right once with Virgin Suicides. That movie pretty much renders the following two useless.

I'd call Lynch a woman's director. All of his films have important female roles. Mulholland Dr. is an entire movie that happens inside a woman's head. Not for "teenage boys", I guess.

[Ezee E]

As Ezee E earlier alluded to, they already made this film in 1989. Their segments worked pretty well, but Sofia Coppola's sucked.
It was Francis, not Sofia, but yeah.

Spike Lee should be added to that list too.

[baby doll]

Huh? Where do you get that from?

And my problem with Sofia's movies is that they're dumb, not feminine. I mean post-modern because of the anachronistic elements and genre blending. She has basically been telling the same story about lonely, melancholy females and she only got it right once with Virgin Suicides. That movie pretty much renders the following two useless.

I'd call Lynch a woman's director. All of his films have important female roles. Mulholland Dr. is an entire movie that happens inside a woman's head. Not for "teenage boys", I guess.I got that from your use of the word "chick flick" when applied to a film that's only a chick flick in the sense that it's about a chick, as opposed to the hyper-masculine films of her father (particularly, The Godfather films, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now) which you prefer. After all, no one would claim that Martin Scorsese's been making the same movie about violent males with issues involving women again and again, and he only got it right with Mean Streets. As for Lynch being a woman's director, I'm less convinced that he's probing the depths of the female psyche Ã* la Bergman, so much as he's interested in playing with archetypes (in Inland Empire, Laura Dern plays a movie star, a housewife and a whore, respectively). And anyone who remembers 2001 knows that the internet was flooded with wild interpretations of Mulholland Dr. almost exclusively by young men in their teens and twenties. Yes, it's a film about women, but it's the kind of film about women likely to appeal to young men.

Moving on, I'm not sure what genres Sofia Coppola is blending; it's not a run-of-the-mill historical biopic by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know what other genre one could attribute to it. And I don't think anachronistic details in art are the recent, post-modern phenomenon you seem to believe they are; to take only the first example that comes to mind, Velasquez, in The Feast of Bacchus (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Diego_Velasquez,_Los_Borrachos _(The_Feast_of_Bacchus).jpg/800px-Diego_Velasquez,_Los_Borrachos _(The_Feast_of_Bacchus).jpg), paints the Greek god chillin' with Spanish peasants.

As for dumb, I would counter that there's a difference between a shallow movie and a movie about a shallow person. I think what makes Marie Antoinette such a giant leap forward in relation to Lost in Translation, where we're expected to identify uncritically with the characters, is that Coppola knows more than her protagonist does (but at the same time, obviously, still empathizes with her situation); you see that in the scenes where Steve Coogan is trying to talk to her about all these big, serious things and she's completely oblivious.

[Grouchy]

I got that from your use of the word "chick flick" when applied to a film that's only a chick flick in the sense that it's about a chick, as opposed to the hyper-masculine films of her father (particularly, The Godfather films, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now) which you prefer.
Actually, in this part I was talking about the gonzo interpretation of Apocalypse Now where the movie is about how the US didn't kill enough Charlie in the bush.


After all, no one would claim that Martin Scorsese's been making the same movie about violent males with issues involving women again and again, and he only got it right with Mean Streets.
Well, because he not only got it right many times after that, he built and expanded on his themes with Raging Bull and Goodfellas. With Sofia, I get the feeling that she has a lot of languid visual poetry he wants to put on film, but she already left everything of substance in her first movie.


[As for Lynch being a woman's director, I'm less convinced that he's probing the depths of the female psyche Ã* la Bergman, so much as he's interested in playing with archetypes (in Inland Empire, Laura Dern plays a movie star, a housewife and a whore, respectively). And anyone who remembers 2001 knows that the internet was flooded with wild interpretations of Mulholland Dr. almost exclusively by young men in their teens and twenties. Yes, it's a film about women, but it's the kind of film about women likely to appeal to young men.
Eh, you might have a point here. Lynch represents a man's interest in women, but not a woman's point of view.


Moving on, I'm not sure what genres Sofia Coppola is blending; it's not a run-of-the-mill historical biopic by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know what other genre one could attribute to it.
Romantic comedy. It's shot like one, although a very bittersweet one.


As for dumb, I would counter that there's a difference between a shallow movie and a movie about a shallow person. I think what makes Marie Antoinette such a giant leap forward in relation to Lost in Translation, where we're expected to identify uncritically with the characters, is that Coppola knows more than her protagonist does (but at the same time, obviously, still empathizes with her situation); you see that in the scenes where Steve Coogan is trying to talk to her about all these big, serious things and she's completely oblivious.
Well, and this is the point where it's more or less agree to disagree or keep it going. Where you see something clever and even involving, I see a pretentious smirk and a very self-indulgent attitude. I just don't see any substance or depth in either Lost in Translation or Marie Antoinette.

[baby doll]

Actually, in this part I was talking about the gonzo interpretation of Apocalypse Now where the movie is about how the US didn't kill enough Charlie in the bush.What's gonzo about that interpretation? After all, the film's screenwriter, John Milius, is a hardcore conservative.


Well, because he not only got it right many times after that, he built and expanded on his themes with Raging Bull and Goodfellas. With Sofia, I get the feeling that she has a lot of languid visual poetry he wants to put on film, but she already left everything of substance in her first movie.I'm not crazy about Raging Bull or Goodfellas (two guy movies I loved in my teenage years that I found less impressive on later inspection, although Goodfellas is clearly the more interesting of the two), but that's another discussion. Coming back to Sofia Coppola, I think part of the reason Marie Antoinette represents such a giant leap forward in relation to her first two films is that she's tackling a complete different century while remaining completely herself (which makes me wonder if it isn't just a fluke). I wasn't crazy about The Virgin Suicides because it was too ingratiating, while Marie Antoinette begins with some one we've been told in history class was completely clueless and should've had her head cut off, and then takes a much more nuanced approach to her life. Yes, she's clueless, but the movie still feels sorry for her. It would make a great double bill with Eric Rohmer's L'Anglaise et le duc (speaking of conservatives...).


Romantic comedy. It's shot like one, although a very bittersweet one.Shot like a romantic comedy how? Most romantic comedies--indeed, most films in general--have very standard coverage (long shot, alternating close-ups), so they tend to play like TV shows (About a Boy comes to mind). Marie Antoinette is much more cinematic (it's worth seeing just to look at the costumes and pastries and locations), and it's full of quiet moments you wouldn't find in a more streamlined narrative, and I loved the soundtrack, because you don't hear every word, as you would in a romantic comedy where every line helps to move the story along, which really forces you to lean in and listen very closely (I found this is less pronounced seeing the film on video than it is in theaters, but what can you do? C'est la vie).

And in terms of plot, there's nothing at all romantic about her marriage, and her attraction to the young soldier is played for laughs (this is especially apparent in her fantasy of him on horseback in a pose suggesting the famous painting (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/David_napoleon.jpg) by J.L. David of Napoleon riding into battle).


Well, and this is the point where it's more or less agree to disagree or keep it going. Where you see something clever and even involving, I see a pretentious smirk and a very self-indulgent attitude. I just don't see any substance or depth in either Lost in Translation or Marie Antoinette.I never said "clever," which always seems to have this negative conotation ("it was a little too clever"), and I didn't like Lost in Translation either, which seemed mired in millionaire self pity--and I think this comes back to why Marie Antoinette is the better film, because Coppola knows that Marie Antoinette is clueless about the peasants; at one point, in order to help the common man and be charitable, she decides to have slightly less jewelry that month, which of course isn't going to do anything. I don't know who's being smirked at or what's being indulged.

[Sven]

Marie Antoinette is much more cinematic (it's worth seeing just to look at the costumes and pastries and locations)

Cinema = pastries. That's a new one! :lol:

[Melville]

I never said "clever," which always seems to have this negative conotation ("it was a little too clever"), and I didn't like Lost in Translation either, which seemed mired in millionaire self pity--and I think this comes back to why Marie Antoinette is the better film, because Coppola knows that Marie Antoinette is clueless about the peasants; at one point, in order to help the common man and be charitable, she decides to have slightly less jewelry that month, which of course isn't going to do anything. I don't know who's being smirked at or what's being indulged.
Your summary of Apocalypse Now is maddeningly simplistic (although I'll forgo a 2000 word rebuttal this time). However, I agree completely with everything you've said about Marie Antoinette... except, perhaps, the pastries bit.

[Duncan]

I also agree with the praise for Marie Antoinette. But dismissing so much of Francis Coppola's, Scorsese's and Lynch's work as "guy movies" is as myopic as dismissing Marie Antoinette as a "chick flick".

[origami_mustache]

I'm actually a big fan of these anthology films and find the hit and miss nature of them enjoyable, but this list of directors is pretty disappointing.

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://bigscreenlittlescreen.net/2008/08/23/trailer-new-york-i-love-you/)

[Ezee E]

No Hughes... Shame.

[eternity]

Trailer (http://bigscreenlittlescreen.net/2008/08/23/trailer-new-york-i-love-you/)

Mother of God.

[Spinal]

"This is the capital of everything possible."

Still want to see it ... but :rolleyes:

[Boner M]

I'm hoping all that dialogue was from the Ratner part.

[number8]

I'm hoping all that dialogue was from the Ratner part.

:) Remember this?


$50 says Ratner's short will be an ethnic mismatch comedy between a cab driver and passenger.

[Boner M]

Wait, that was in the trailer?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Eli Wallach is in this, awesome.

[number8]

Wait, that was in the trailer?

The one saying the silly line Spinal quoted was an ethnic cab driver.

Dunno if it's Ratner's though.

[origami_mustache]

wow, that trailer was disgusting...I will still see it though.

[DavidSeven]

That was annoying.

[Winston*]

I wish my city had sidewalks and buildings and people.:sad:

[Boner M]

I wish my city had sidewalks and buildings and people.:sad:
Wellington, I Guess You're Alright?

[number8]

New York is boring anyway.

San Francisco thnx plz.

[Winston*]

Wellington, I Guess You're Alright?

Wellington, I saw Lord of the Rings.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Wow. Regina Spektor and Feist in the same trailer. So uh... yeah, that looked terrible.

[Ezee E]

New York is boring anyway.

San Francisco thnx plz.
In Love with San Fran

Directors:
John Waters
John Cameron Mitchell
Bryan Singer
Gus Van Sant
Sally Potter
Pedro Almodovar
and
Joel Schumacher

Hmm... Sounds good.

[NickGlass]

That was absolutely horrendous. I wonder if Parisians were as turned off of Paris, Je T'aime asI just was with this trailer. Or maybe this looks ten times worse than anything in Paris, Je T'aime (it's nice to see they're sticking with the the handicapped love stories and slow-motion, though!).

[Grouchy]

I'm predicting the only good part is the Park Chan-Wook.

And come on, what's New York without those ethnic cab drivers?

[Spinal]

Fat mimes > ethnic cab drivers

[eternity]

That was absolutely horrendous. I wonder if Parisians were as turned off of Paris, Je T'aime asI just was with this trailer. Or maybe this looks ten times worse than anything in Paris, Je T'aime (it's nice to see they're sticking with the the handicapped love stories and slow-motion, though!).

Well, the list of directors are a lot less impressive this time.

[number8]

In Love with San Fran

Directors:
John Waters
John Cameron Mitchell
Bryan Singer
Gus Van Sant
Sally Potter
Pedro Almodovar
and
Joel Schumacher

Hmm... Sounds good.

I see what you did there.

[Ezee E]

I see what you did there.
It got me my first neg rep. From NickGlass of all people. Haha.

[Sycophant]

Since when is it okay for Woody Allen not to take part in this project?

[Grouchy]

Since when is it okay for Woody Allen not to take part in this project?
I guess he already did back in the New York Stories day.

Where's Spike Lee?

[Amnesiac]

I guess Paris, je t'aime sort of started a recent trend.

In addition to New York, I Love You, I found out that another omnibus film dealing with a major city is hitting the Toronto Film Festival... Toronto Stories (http://www.newrealfilms.com/torontostories.htm).

[NickGlass]

I guess Paris, je t'aime sort of started a recent trend.

In addition to New York, I Love You, I found out that another omnibus film dealing with a major city is hitting the Toronto Film Festival... Toronto Stories (http://www.newrealfilms.com/torontostories.htm).

At the Boston Independent Film Festival this year there was a highly-hyped feature called Twelve that comprised of twelve vignettes that took place in different areas around Boston. The theater was packed opening night (I swear it's because most all of the filmmakers and their family and friends were in attendance) and they even added an addition screening to the festival schedule. I'm not really at liberty to say how successful the whole project was, since I left the theater after the sixth insufferable short film that played itself off as a tiresome pastiche, all the while praising Boston's "sites."

This isn't a new trend, but the recent city-as-omnibus projects are certainly more high-profile than they were before.

[Amnesiac]

This isn't a new trend, but the recent city-as-omnibus projects are certainly more high-profile than they were before.

Yes, definitely.

Which reminds me that I need to seek out and watch New York Stories as soon as possible.

[number8]

Looking better and unique from the trend is Tokyo! I'd rather see that than this.

[Ezee E]

From Awardsdaily while at the screening of this movie:


They also said that other projects are in the works with a similar theme about Shanghai and Jerusalem.

What's to love about Jerusalem?