Buff's 2007 Review

[Buffaluffasaurus]

So, 2007's turned out pretty good then? I know pretty much everyone has been opining the virtues of this last year, so I'll keep the hyperbole to a minimum. Keep in mind that two Australian releases in the last week of 2007 (Atonement and The Darjeeling Limited are ones I haven't had a chance to see yet, and that films such as There Will Be Blood, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly, 3:10 To Yuma, Margot at the Wedding, Sweeny Todd, American Gangster and Water Horse: Legend of the Deep have not opened here yet.

I'll start with my Top 10 of 2007.


Top 10 of the Year
10. Ratatouille (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=21827&posted=1#post21827)
9. Half Nelson (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=22000&posted=1#post22000)
8. The Lives of Others (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=22652&posted=1#post22652)
7. After the Wedding (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=23079&posted=1#post23079)
6. Into the Wild (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=23761&posted=1#post23761)
5. The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=24718&posted=1#post24718)
4. Zodiac (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=26186&posted=1#post26186)
3. Once (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=28450&posted=1#post28450)

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#10

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/ratatouille.jpg
Ratatouille

Director: Brad Bird

This is the first time Brad Bird has managed to congeal his undeniable visual talents into a solid dish to my liking. Though an unconventional concoction for Pixar, Bird keeps things snappy, fresh and funny to the end, with once again a flawless voice cast and eye-popping animation helping Pixar rediscover their deft touch after the dud of Cars. How appropriate that in a year where Pixar effectively took over Disney's animation unit, they would fashion their own indelible cinematic rodent.

The Best Thing About It: Ego's reaction to that first taste of the titular dish.

The Worst Thing About It: Hubristic dismissal of film critics leaves a unnecessarily sour aftertaste. Still smarting over the Cars reaction?

Rating: 8/10

[Watashi]

Ratatouille was dismissing critics?

Cars still got very good reviews despite being a "bump back" in their filmmography (it has a 73 on Metacritic).

[Rowland]

Excellent. I'll probably be making a thread like this near the end of January, which should hopefully be about how long it takes for me to see most of the movies I'm still interested in.

So many...

[monolith94]

Excellent - looking forward to this!

[megladon8]

I didn't think Ratatouille was so much dismissing critics, as it was dismissing elitists who dismiss things that are new or different.

It just so happens that these people are often critics, so in the film they are embodied that way.

[Watashi]

All I have left to see is There Will Be Blood and Assassination of Jesse James and then my list will be complete.

[Rowland]

Ego is the only critic in the movie, and he is shown to be, as an elitist, someone who especially appreciates Remy's gift. It's a movie about recognizing and encouraging the sublime, wherever it derives from. If anything, Bird wishes that we were all as selective as Ego about what we love, instead of just accepting mediocrity while reducing those who are more critical to mere bogeys.

[megladon8]

Ego is the only critic in the movie, and he is shown to be, as an elitist, someone who especially appreciates Remy's gift. It's a movie about recognizing and encouraging the sublime, wherever it derives from. If anything, Bird wishes that we were all as selective as Ego about what we love, instead of just accepting mediocrity while reducing those who are more critical to mere bogeys.


Sorry but no, I really don't think that's right at all.

I cannot see how Brad Bird could be saying he wants more people like Anton Ego. Perhaps more people like the reformed Anton Ego who is less condescending and critical of everything. But he is not saying people should be bitter and uncompromising.

[Silencio]

It's a movie about recognizing and encouraging the sublime, wherever it derives from.But isn't this rationalization assuming that everyone will view the "sublime" in the same way?

[megladon8]

But isn't this rationalization assuming that everyone will view the "sublime" in the same way?


Yes, and this theory also fails to recognize that without the presence of things less than "sublime", the "sublime" is not special at all.

It becomes ordinary and boring.

[Rowland]

Sorry but no, I really don't think that's right at all.

I cannot see how Brad Bird could be saying he wants more people like Anton Ego. Perhaps more people like the reformed Anton Ego who is less condescending and critical of everything. But he is not saying people should be bitter and uncompromising.Ego is critical because he genuinely loves food, and he is searching for transcendence, as we all do in the art that we love. He simply finds it in the food made by a rat, and in that discovery he learns to be more open-minded. He is certainly less condescending at end, but he isn't necessarily less critical. I doubt he'd suddenly love those burritos after being reformed. I didn't say that Bird would want us to adopt Ego's cold personality.

[Rowland]

But isn't this rationalization assuming that everyone will view the "sublime" in the same way?No. Note Ego's moment of transcendence, in which he flashbacks to a moment from his childhood that is intensely personal.

[megladon8]

Ego is critical because he genuinely loves food, and he is searching for transcendence, as we all do in the art that we love. He simply finds it in the food made by a rat, and in that discovery he learns to be more open-minded. He is certainly less condescending at end, but he isn't necessarily less critical. I doubt he'd suddenly love those burritos after being reformed. I didn't say that Bird would want us to adopt Ego's cold personality.


But you seem to imply that being critical means someone is only allowed to like something that's, in your words, "sublime".

Does that mean there is absolutely no leeway for this?

In terms of film, that would mean I probably shouldn't be allowed to enjoy Shoot 'Em Up - it's big, dumb entertainment and it knows it. It's an entirely different beast from something like La chien andalou. Yet I find Shoot 'Em Up is a great movie.

So am I not being critical enough because I can still enjoy purely entertaining films - the equivalent of, say, a nice, juicy, home-barbecued burger?

Or should I only accept films that are the equivalent of filet mignon?

[Silencio]

No. Note Ego's moment of transcendence, in which he flashbacks to a moment from his childhood that is intensely personal.Right, so he recognizes and encourages the "sublime" through subjectivity. Someone might taste that ratatouille and be repulsed, thus not encouraging it because they didn't find anything sublime to recognize. Your post seemed to suggest that works of art are inherently "sublime" (or not) and that only a critic or someone who is more "selective" is justified in praising it.

[Rowland]

But you seem to imply that being critical means someone is only allowed to like something that's, in your words, "sublime".

Does that mean there is absolutely no leeway for this?

In terms of film, that would mean I probably shouldn't be allowed to enjoy Shoot 'Em Up - it's big, dumb entertainment and it knows it. It's an entirely different beast from something like La chien andalou. Yet I find Shoot 'Em Up is a great movie.

So am I not being critical enough because I can still enjoy purely entertaining films - the equivalent of, say, a nice, juicy, home-barbecued burger?

Or should I only accept films that are the equivalent of filet mignon?Ego himself states that he is offended when food is poorly prepared. Bird embraces this particular mindset. Between Ratatouille and The Incredibles, I'd say he's something of an exceptionalist. Sure, you can go see any generic CGI-animated anthropomorphized-animal movie, but why put up with the mediocre ones when movies as skillfully crafted (or lovingly prepared, if you will) as Ratatouille are possible?

[Rowland]

Right, so he recognizes and encourages the "sublime" through subjectivity. Someone might taste that ratatouille and be repulsed, thus not encouraging it because they didn't find anything sublime to recognize. Your post seemed to suggest that works of art are inherently "sublime" (or not) and that only a critic or someone who is more "selective" is justified in praising it.No, but someone as presumably cultured in food tasting and jaded as Ego being impressed is presented as the final test, one that Remy passes, while in the process teaching Ego to... well, drop his ego. Genius can come from anywhere. His review at the end sums it all up. The critic's most meaningful pursuit is to apply their love for and knowledge of that which they critique towards defending the exceptional, in whatever form it takes. I'm not arguing that the message is we should all be arrogant snobs who always assume the worst, but likewise we shouldn't be like Remy's extended family, accepting whatever comes at us.

[Silencio]

No, but someone as presumably cultured in food tasting and jaded as Ego being impressed is presented as the final test, one that Remy passes, while in the process teaching Ego to... well, drop his ego. Genius can come from anywhere. His review at the end sums it all up. The critic's most meaningful pursuit is to apply their love for and knowledge of that which they critique towards defending the exceptional, in whatever form it takes. I'm not arguing that the message is we should all be arrogant snobs who always assume the worst, but likewise we shouldn't be like Remy's extended family, accepting whatever comes at us.That's not what I thought you were arguing. I just thought you were saying that only a critic has the merit by which to judge something new, and how exceptional that is. Which isn't true, unless we look at it from a critic's, and specifically Anton Ego's, point of view, and how this is ultimately the most important thing they can achieve through their criticism - pointing people in the right direction through their own enlightened views. Which, yes, is covered in his final monologue:

"But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new."

[Derek]

I didn't think Ratatouille was so much dismissing critics, as it was dismissing elitists who dismiss things that are new or different.

It just so happens that these people are often critics, so in the film they are embodied that way.

Elitists who dismiss things that are new and different are often critics!? I've gone off on this enough the past few days, but I'll keep throwing the :rolleyes: every time it's stated. As for Shoot 'Em Up, why would there be anything wrong with you enjoying it? And if you consider it, as you say, a great film, then why couldn't you defend it critically? I've read intelligent defenses of a film like Crank, so it's not like that style of film can't be engaged critically?

I'm glad at least Rowland understands the role of Ego in the film, which is as much anti-anti-elistist (ie, for people having standards and being selective) as is against Ego's cold-hearted, condescending exterior.


So am I not being critical enough because I can still enjoy purely entertaining films - the equivalent of, say, a nice, juicy, home-barbecued burger?

Or should I only accept films that are the equivalent of filet mignon?

No, you're not being critical enough if your defense of a film is that it's fun and you can offer no explanation why. Obviously I'm not saying you need to dissect or write about why you like every film, but part of a critic's responsibility is being able to explain why a film is great and why they find it enjoyable or why they hate it. I don't get why some people here don't understand that that enjoying films and being critical are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd wager that a LARGE majority of critics become critics not because they're elitists, but because they enjoy both watching film and being critical. Novel idea, I know.

[Derek]

Oh, and great pick Buff. :)

[megladon8]

I understand what you guys are saying, but I still think there is a huge flaw in your argument if you think Anton Ego is how Brad Bird thinks people should be.

Your argument infers that one can only really consider themself a lover of cinema if they are capable of dissecting the films they love to explain why they love them in minute detail.

I enjoy writing reviews, but this approach takes all the fun out of watching a film for me.

This is the reason why I stopped liesurely reading for nearly 10 years. I got sick and tired of everything I read in school being dissected and analyzed to the point of banality.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with this viewpoint on the film. I think this viewpoint in itself is terribly condescending to many filmgoers.


EDIT: And it's made quite clear that Anton Ego is an elitist grump. The food itself never declined in quality at Gousteau's - he simply gave them a rotten rating out of pure stubborn-ness. The food was still wonderful, but he was being stubborn.

Brad Bird does not want filmgoers to be stubborn and mindlessly exlusive.

I agree that there is a message in the film about being more critical in your tastes, but I think you guys are looking in the wrong place. This message is found in REMY, and his desire to open peoples'/rats' worlds up to new, better taste sensations rather than eating garbage. It is not found in the character of Anton Ego, who represents the other extreme of being too exclusive.

[transmogrifier]

Next film, pretty please.

[EvilShoe]

There's also the fact that Remy made Ego some ratatouille, which is referred to as a "peasant's dish" and is seen (by Ego) as almost the equivalent of a "home-barbecued burger".
So yes, the movie says simple things are worth a damn as well, when they're well-prepared.

[Derek]

I understand what you guys are saying, but I still think there is a huge flaw in your argument if you think Anton Ego is how Brad Bird thinks people should be.

Your argument infers that one can only really consider themself a lover of cinema if they are capable of dissecting the films they love to explain why they love them in minute detail.

Neither Rowland nor I ever inferred anything like this, but I don't want to hijack the thread from Buff anymore.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I disagree with the interpretations of Ego expressed in this thread because he is entirely portrayed (until his third act epiphanic reversal) as a surly old crank who delights in nothing more than crapping on other people's hard work. The film does not show him being selective or elitist at all - it merely presents him as a man determined to find the worst in everything, taking no joy from the food itself, but rather taking joy from the scorning of it. These are not good traits at all, and represent a pretty clear analogue for film critics.

The very fact he changes his tune at the end is not due to any open-mindedness on his part, but rather Remy's extraordinary skills. Remy has to WIN him over, not merely impress him. To suggest that Ego (hell, look at that name for god's sake!) is in any way impartial in his criticism to to totally undermine the dramatic crux of the film and Remy's achievements. Ego is, without a doubt in my mind, a denunciation of criticism in general and film criticism in specific, and his monologue at the end where he announces his retirement only highlights exactly how useful Pixar sees them to be.

And when I linked all of this to Cars, I was only half-joking because, although Watashi might point out that film has a reasonable statistic amongst critical appraisals, it still is clearly Pixar's worst reviewed film, with the positive notices often only just falling on this side of positive. Surely the man who created and runs the company with the golden touch would've expected more.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#9

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/halfnelson2.jpg
Half Nelson

Director: Ryan Fleck

As fine as it may be, it would be foolish to suggest Ryan Gosling's superb performance makes this film. It is an easy target for praise, being charismatic and compelling in a half-desperate, half-deferential way, but it is built upon the grounding of good, intelligent drama. The film's greatest achievement is the way it tells us next to nothing about Dan Dunne in a conventional "here's your exposition!" way, but rather lets us see a man unfold and unravel through his choices and actions. It would be too easy to slip in a scene of self-sanctifying remorse where Dunne pours out his heart and justifies his using. But instead we see a man of passion, of justice and outrage, but unlike inspirational teachers from those other teacher-empowers-downtrodden-student movies, he is crushed by the weight of the world rather than being galvanised by it. Half Nelson's great ray of hope is provided by a girl that Dunne knows he can help if only he can help himself, and herein lies the beautiful, understated heart of a film that does not walk roads we've seen many times before, but rather floats delicately and skilfully above them.

The Best Thing About It: Shareeka Epps' eyes - both knowing and innocent at the same time, they're eyes of a child who has learnt to stifle her reactions to the world - which is what Dunne needs his drugs to do.

The Worst Thing About It: Gosling can look like a freebase crack user and my girlfriend still thinks he's hot.

Rating: 8.5/10

[Melville]

#9

Half Nelson

Director: Ryan Fleck

As fine as it may be, it would be foolish to suggest Ryan Gosling's superb performance makes this film. It is an easy target for praise, being charismatic and compelling in a half-desperate, half-deferential way, but it is built upon the grounding of good, intelligent drama. The film's greatest achievement is the way it tells us next to nothing about Dan Dunne in a conventional "here's your exposition!" way, but rather lets us see a man unfold and unravel through his choices and actions. It would be too easy to slip in a scene of self-sanctifying remorse where Dunne pours out his heart and justifies his using. But instead we see a man of passion, of justice and outrage, but unlike inspirational teachers from those other teacher-empowers-downtrodden-student movies, he is crushed by the weight of the world rather than being galvanised by it. Half Nelson's great ray of hope is provided by a girl that Dunne knows he can help if only he can help himself, and herein lies the beautiful, understated heart of a film that does not walk roads we've seen many times before, but rather floats delicately and skilfully above them.
That's a terrific little review. You've made me want to see the film again.

[megladon8]

I haven't seen this one, yet, but great choices so far Buff :)

[Rowland]

I still think Ratatouille defends criticism as an act of love and resistence. In a sense, Ego is the human equivalent of Remy. Bird is sly in how he casts him as the villain, when the REAL villains of the piece are these "all you can eat"/"everyone can cook" mentalities. Bird is proudly elitist, though he is very smart about covering his tracks. I don't want to hijack the thread anymore though, so agree to disagree.

I still need to see Half Nelson.

[Scar]

So am I not being critical enough because I can still enjoy purely entertaining films - the equivalent of, say, a nice, juicy, home-barbecued burger?

Or should I only accept films that are the equivalent of filet mignon?

It still takes skill to make a nice home cooked burger. Its just as easy to fuck up a burger as it is to fuck up filet mignon.

[DavidSeven]

Excellent choice. Half Nelson is one of the finest American dramas of the past several years.

[Henry Gale]

Half Nelson is a fantastic film, especially with its performances and the way the music (a lot of it being Broken Social Scene stuff) sets the tone for much of it. I guess it came out a lot later for you though because it came out in North America in something like August of '06.

Oh, international release dates... will you ever get along with one another?

[Buffaluffasaurus]

That's a terrific little review. You've made me want to see the film again.
Cheers.


Bird is proudly elitist, though he is very smart about covering his tracks.
This is one of the things I find most troubling about his work - The Incredibles in particular has a sneering "I'm better than you and that's that" attitude about it that really puts me off.


Half Nelson is a fantastic film, especially with its performances and the way the music (a lot of it being Broken Social Scene stuff) sets the tone for much of it. I guess it came out a lot later for you though because it came out in North America in something like August of '06.

Oh, international release dates... will you ever get along with one another?
Aye... there'll be a couple of films on this list that were released in '06 in the US. All your Oscar contenders, which get released from October-December, get December-February releases here. It's annoying.

[Watashi]

Well, yeah. Brad Bird IS better than all of us.

[transmogrifier]

Well, yeah. Brad Bird IS better than all of us.

Speak for yourself.

[Ezee E]

Speak for yourself.
Is that a compliment to wats? I don't understand.

[chrisnu]

Well, yeah. Brad Bird IS better than all of us.
Is he better than all of us by creating movies which say that he is better than all of us, or he is actually better than all of us? :)

[Melville]

This is one of the things I find most troubling about his work - The Incredibles in particular has a sneering "I'm better than you and that's that" attitude about it that really puts me off.
I've never seen another Bird film, but it definitely irked me in Ratatouille. It's like a kindler, gentler version of Ayn Rand, masked by glossy colors and a kid-movie narrative.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I've never seen another Bird film, but it definitely irked me in Ratatouille. It's like a kindler, gentler version of Ayn Rand, masked by glossy colors and a kid-movie narrative.
To be honest I really weighed up whether to include Ratatouille because of that alone. I really enjoyed the film for the most part and think it's a dazzling showcase of technical and storytelling talent, but the subtext bothered me incredibly. It's the sole reason I didn't rate it much higher.

The Incredibles elitism is MUCH more pronounced and much less tasteful, and the film isn't nearly good enough to back up its attitude either.

[Sven]

Bird is proudly elitist, though he is very smart about covering his tracks.

I contest this. His elitist/ego tracks are so bluntly obvious that they may as well be the text, but hey... let's not do this now. Let's bask in Buff's brilliant return!

[Bosco B Thug]

I dunno, I never saw his meritocratic inclinations too deplorable. He's matter of fact about the embracing of the talents of his heroes but it doesn't inflect his storytelling or box in his characters. The murky principles that back Ego's monologue,

the chef walk-out, and Remy's family saving the day as crew are sort of facinating - also how good we're supposed to feel about how the only thing Linguini seems to be good at is being a love interest and roller skating.

[Rowland]

I contest this. His elitist/ego tracks are so bluntly obvious that they may as well be the text, but heyWell, it's more complicated than my "proudly elitist" assertion would suggest. He is egalitarian in the sense that greatness can come from anywhere, but he also acknowledges that... well, most people aren't special. Everyone is not necessarily created equal.

[megladon8]

Where does one find these overtones of elitism/arrogance in Bird's films?

I don't see it at all...but I haven't watched The Incredibles in years.

[Rowland]

Where does one find these overtones of elitism/arrogance in Bird's films?I probably shouldn't have used elitist. Elitism and arrogance suggest negative connotations, which isn't how I see his movies, unless you interpret the ideas he's setting forth as being inherently negative, which I can understand to an extent, particularly if you view them through a stringently sociological prism. I prefer to see them as challenging dominant modes of thought. His movies are thornier than they appear on the surface, and I like that.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I think The Incredibles is inherently negative in the way it views people, and elitism is a apt word for it.

Consider this meg - the heroes are naturally gifted people who are clearly superior to everyone else due to their god-given abilities, no matter how badly they squander these talents. And the villain? He's the guy who does not have natural abilities, but through hard work, sacrifice and industry, has dared to challenge the übermenschen at their own game. Of course he gets a savage beatdown, and we get told that "if everyone is special, then no one is very special at all".

Why not just call the film "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors"?

[megladon8]

Hmmm...I never thought of it that way...

Can't say I see it that way, either, but it's interesting to think about.

[origami_mustache]

I agree Half Nelson is great and it was even better for me the second time around. It really sickens me Shareeka Epps didn't get an Oscar nomination over the Little Miss Sunshine girl.

[Rowland]

That's only if you read The Incredibles literally. I see it as a bold refutation against "No Child Left Behind"-esque principles. If anything, it's a criticism of reverse elitism.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

That's only if you read The Incredibles literally. I see it as a bold refutation against "No Child Left Behind"-esque principles. If anything, it's a criticism of reverse elitism.
How so?

[Mysterious Dude]

What's reverse elitism?

[Watashi]

I think The Incredibles is inherently negative in the way it views people, and elitism is a apt word for it.

Consider this meg - the heroes are naturally gifted people who are clearly superior to everyone else due to their god-given abilities, no matter how badly they squander these talents. And the villain? He's the guy who does not have natural abilities, but through hard work, sacrifice and industry, has dared to challenge the übermenschen at their own game. Of course he gets a savage beatdown, and we get told that "if everyone is special, then no one is very special at all".

This is clearly incorrect. You substitute their powers as superiority like Gods walking amongst men. How are the Parrs and their toils with Syndrome no different from Superman and his genius-human counterpoint, Lex Luthor? The Parrs aren't perfect and their powers don't make them a better family. Despite their powers, Helen still folds under pressure in keeping her family intact, Dash is still a mischievous Calvin-esque kid who has trouble in school, Violet is shy and unsure of her self-appearance, and Bob can't hold down a steady-job. We all have "gifts" that use for the better good (whether it's being able to freeze air or be a math whiz). Bird is simply stating one who tries to falsely apply himself as being superior will ultimately fail in the competition.

[D_Davis]

I think The Incredibles is inherently negative in the way it views people, and elitism is a apt word for it.

Consider this meg - the heroes are naturally gifted people who are clearly superior to everyone else due to their god-given abilities, no matter how badly they squander these talents. And the villain? He's the guy who does not have natural abilities, but through hard work, sacrifice and industry, has dared to challenge the übermenschen at their own game. Of course he gets a savage beatdown, and we get told that "if everyone is special, then no one is very special at all".

Why not just call the film "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors"?

It's a tale of genetic discrimination, for kids!

[Watashi]

It's a tale of genetic discrimination, for kids!
No, it's not. It's no different than someone who was born to grow 6'11 and have an extreme gift for basketball.

[transmogrifier]

No, it's not. It's no different than someone who was born to grow 6'11 and have an extreme gift for basketball.

Yeah, but The Incredibles (and Ratatouille as well) is saying that the 5'6ers have no right to be anywhere near the court, no matter how hard they work.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

Bird is simply stating one who tries to falsely apply himself as being superior will ultimately fail in the competition.
I completely disagree. The villain doesn't at all "falsely apply" himself to begin with. At first he merely makes an honest effort to be "incredible" himself, and is summarily dismissed. When he finally does prove himself capable of matching them, he is evil and insane.

The film does make a point of doing the best you can do, but it only seems to apply this to those who have "special" abilities. Everyone else need not bother.

[transmogrifier]

Is that a compliment to wats? I don't understand.

He said "Brad Bird is better than all of us"

"Us" included him, me and you other guys.

"Speak for yourself" means don't include other people in your group.

Therefore, his statement should read "Brad Bird is better than me".

Not a compliment.

[Melville]

Why not just call the film "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors"?
:lol:

Awesome.

[Watashi]

Yeah, but The Incredibles (and Ratatouille as well) is saying that the 5'6ers have no right to be anywhere near the court, no matter how hard they work.

Bird never says that. Remy isn't going to be putting any chefs out of business nor is he going to gloat himself over his natural abilities. Syndrome pushes himself out of anger and hatred, not because he *wants* to become a "super". He wants to see everyone fail and could care less on who lives and dies in the process. It's like someone cheating with steroids to be a better player than someone who just has god-given talents.

[transmogrifier]

Bird never says that. Remy isn't going to be putting any chefs out of business nor is he going to gloat himself over his natural abilities. Syndrome pushes himself out of anger and hatred, not because he *wants* to become a "super". He wants to see everyone fail and could care less on who lives and dies in the process. It's like someone cheating with steroids to be a better player than someone who just has god-given talents.

couldn't

:)

[Melville]

Yeah, but The Incredibles (and Ratatouille as well) is saying that the 5'6ers have no right to be anywhere near the court, no matter how hard they work.
It's especially irritating in Ratatouille because, besides Remy's natural ability making him inherently better than all the plebes who have nothing meaningful to do in their lives except help him achieve greatness, the quality of his food is also presented as an objective fact. All the plebes and all the scowling critics simply cannot dispute the overwhelming greatness of Remy's food; there's no room for subjectivity, for differences in opinion. Admittedly the final quote allows that crap food can be made meaningful by people liking it—but it's still objectively crappy. That's just nonsense.

[megladon8]

I hate to say it, but I almost feel like there's way too much being read into the films of Brad Bird...

[Buffaluffasaurus]

Bird never says that.
He does say it in this exchange and how ti shapes The Incredibles (I had to look up IMDB for exact wording):

Dash: You always say 'Do your best', but you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?
Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we gotta be like everyone else.
Dash: But Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of, our powers made us special.
Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.


The film has a distinctively superior attitude in the way it asks us to see not everyone as equals, but in having an inescapable place in the human race that has nothing to do with hard work, merit, morals or even application, but rather genetic traits that merely denote greatness or mediocrity. The fact the film goes out of its way to claim that to value every human life is in some way detrimental to the human race is at best disconcerting and at worst scary.

[D_Davis]

It's kind of a negative take on the theme Vonnegut touched upon in his short story, Harrison Bergeron. In this, everyone is brought down to the LCD so that no one feels bad about not being as pretty as a model, or as graceful as a ballerina, or as smart as a scholar. Beautiful people have to wear masks and graceful people wear weights and shackles.

"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."


http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

[Melville]

I hate to say it, but I almost feel like there's way too much being read into the films of Brad Bird...
I have to agree with iosos that these ideas are hardly subtle subtext: they are dominant themes that structure the entire narrative.

[monolith94]

I think The Incredibles is inherently negative in the way it views people, and elitism is a apt word for it.

Consider this meg - the heroes are naturally gifted people who are clearly superior to everyone else due to their god-given abilities, no matter how badly they squander these talents. And the villain? He's the guy who does not have natural abilities, but through hard work, sacrifice and industry, has dared to challenge the übermenschen at their own game. Of course he gets a savage beatdown, and we get told that "if everyone is special, then no one is very special at all".

Why not just call the film "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors"?

God, and all this time I thought I was alone in this view. Thank you.

[Watashi]

So much negative rep to give out...

[Raiders]

Yeah, I kind of find myself agreeing with Bird's film. To call them Nazi supermen is just ridiculous for the sake of an argument. But, the film very deftly touches upon one of my least favorite aspects of society, which is the repulsive need for everyone to fit into a particular ideal. It hits upon the ridiculous misconception so many Americans have about what this country "ought" to be, WASPs caught in an idealized, Eames-era vision of themselves that just isn't right.

I think Syndrome is more of a model of a traditional Bond-esque villain, a supermind that naturally gravitates toward evil. Everyone isn't created equal, but he is representative of society's need to categorize and label their icons (Todd Haynes' most recent work similarly showed a society castrating its icon), and when he has that shoved in his face, he kicks back. It isn't nature vs nurture because the film isn't holding them up as examples of the two sides. Syndrome chooses his fate by choosing evil. He doesn't have to build any of what he does. He chooses to try and be super. He cannot accept who he is unless nobody is better than him. Instead of finding what he is good at, he tries to take other people's talents.

In the end, everyone has a purpose, and something they are good at. The heroes of the film are good at being heroes. They aren't good office workers, they are dysfunctional as a family... they're far from perfect. But society's desire to make them fit with traditional values, to live the "ideal American life," squanders their natural talents. They can't help they were born with these talents, and to have society tell them they can't be who they are, to hold it against them, is a great injustice.

[Melville]

God, and all this time I thought I was alone in this view. Thank you.
I just did a search for Brad Bird and Ayn Rand, and google returned 5000 hits, so apparently this is a fairly common interpretation of Bird's films. Brad Bird has even responded to questions about it in interviews. His response (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/03/brad-bird-on-ayn-rand.html):

"I was into Rand for about six months when I was 20, but you outgrow that narrow point of view. Some compromise is necessary in life."

[Rowland]

*cackles maniacally*

[Melville]

Yeah, I kind of find myself agreeing with Bird's film. To call them Nazi supermen is just ridiculous for the sake of an argument. But, the film very deftly touches upon one of my least favorite aspects of society, which is the repulsive need for everyone to fit into a particular ideal. It hits upon the ridiculous misconception so many Americans have about what this country "ought" to be, WASPs caught in an idealized, Eames-era vision of themselves that just isn't right.

I think Syndrome is more of a model of a traditional Bond-esque villain, a supermind that naturally gravitates toward evil. Everyone isn't created equal, but he is representative of society's need to categorize and label their icons (Todd Haynes' most recent work similarly showed a society castrating its icon), and when he has that shoved in his face, he kicks back. It isn't nature vs nurture because the film isn't holding them up as examples of the two sides. Syndrome chooses his fate by choosing evil. He doesn't have to build any of what he does. He chooses to try and be super. He cannot accept who he is unless nobody is better than him. Instead of finding what he is good at, he tries to take other people's talents.

In the end, everyone has a purpose, and something they are good at. The heroes of the film are good at being heroes. They aren't good office workers, they are dysfunctional as a family... they're far from perfect. But society's desire to make them fit with traditional values, to live the "ideal American life," squanders their natural talents. They can't help they were born with these talents, and to have society tell them they can't be who they are, to hold it against them, is a great injustice.
The problem (or a problem) is the lack of nuance. Everybody in Ratatouille is unambiguously destined to a certain role.

[monolith94]

I think Syndrome is more of a model of a traditional Bond-esque villain, a supermind that naturally gravitates toward evil. Everyone isn't created equal, but he is representative of society's need to categorize and label their icons (Todd Haynes' most recent work similarly showed a society castrating its icon), and when he has that shoved in his face, he kicks back. It isn't nature vs nurture because the film isn't holding them up as examples of the two sides. Syndrome chooses his fate by choosing evil. He doesn't have to build any of what he does. He chooses to try and be super. He cannot accept who he is unless nobody is better than him. Instead of finding what he is good at, he tries to take other people's talents.


I don't know, Syndrome turns out to be pretty darn good at being a supervillain. When you consider all of those superheroes he managed to off, and all. This leads one to believe that, had he existed in a society which respected his ambition to become a superhero despite not having any "super powers," then he might not have become a sociopath.

[Rowland]

I imagine that Bird feels the need to be aggressive, when he is just about the lone voice for this perspective in the realm of children's entertainment. I like how Walter Chaw puts it:

"The Incredibles takes aim at this country's appalling insurance crisis, but it takes closer aim at the way that an institutionalized policy of force-feeding self-esteem to our kids (no child left behind, indeed) leads to self-loathing, the eradication of gifted and talented programs, and the insanity of celebrating mediocrity. (A sickness that reaches its apogee/nadir in a President who's fond of reminding folks of his "C" average in school.) The oft-repeated mantra of The Incredibles is "If everyone is super, no one is"--and if there's a more important message for a nation of kids who regularly test highest in confidence yet lowest in everything else (the only demographic testing higher in self-confidence than high school kids belongs to convicted felons), I'm not sure what it might be."

[monolith94]

I think that part of the problem is that, like it or not, these issues with elitism are bound to cause friction because they are fundamentally anchored to real-life issues. I think here of class. Syndrome is essentially a Great Gatsby figure turned homicidal, a noveau-riche, only with wealth replaced by the abstract idea of "powers". The idea that Syndrome must learn to live "in his place" is, as unfair as this comparison may be, somehow reminiscent of established-wealth viewpoints that the poor are where they are by virtue of cosmic order. And that that's where they'll stay. And if they try to get ahead, they're dangerous upstarts.

[transmogrifier]

(A sickness that reaches its apogee/nadir in a President who's fond of reminding folks of his "C" average in school.)

But surely this can be seen in two different ways. There is the negative view above, which sees Bush as encouraging students to settled for low scores (which, even though I'm no Bush fan, seems doubtful), or it could be that it shows that people who are not academically successful when they are young (for whatever reason), can still develop into someone to be proud of through hard work and dedication, which is a nicer message.

If I were a kid that only saw and heard the haves talking about how they got straight A's at everything, I'd be somewhat discouraged if I didn't have the same book smarts. But book smarts aren't everything.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

In the end, everyone has a purpose, and something they are good at. The heroes of the film are good at being heroes. They aren't good office workers, they are dysfunctional as a family... they're far from perfect. But society's desire to make them fit with traditional values, to live the "ideal American life," squanders their natural talents. They can't help they were born with these talents, and to have society tell them they can't be who they are, to hold it against them, is a great injustice.
This is a good post but I disagree with your conclusions. Obviously the film is arguing for a place for the Incredibles and their abilities, but I think it does so too much to the devaluing of everyone else. As monolith alluded to, the natural extension of the film's philosophy is a caste system (similar to India for example), where everyone has a born place in society that cannot be questioned. If you are born good at cleaning toilets, then a toilet cleaner you shall be, and no measure of aspiration or application should be allowed to change this. Indeed, why even allow such people to consume vital educational resources when they simply need to know how to make that ceramic sparkle? Let's prevent them from moving up and down in society as they choose - as long as they work hard and apply themselves in their God-given profession, society will work itself out because clearly hard work, determination, skilled training, education, parental nurturing, social, economic and environmental factors play no part in determining people's abilities or use to the human race.

[Rowland]

I think people are beginning to extrapolate beyond the scope of the movie's thematic breadth, taking it too literally and measuring it in broad sociological terms, as I warned about earlier. I imagine that the movie is geared more towards subverting particular societal myths, while healthily defending the notion that we all have innate talents waiting to be uncovered and the family unit as a functional support system. We shouldn't be reinforcing an artificial equilibrium so much as encouraging each child's development individually. Increasingly systemized education has proven disastrous in the last half decade.

[Sven]

I think people are beginning to extrapolate beyond the scope of the movie's thematic breadth, taking it too literally and measuring it in broad sociological terms, as I warned about earlier.

How dare you apply a film's thematic concerns to society at large!

:wags finger:

[Rowland]

How dare you apply a film's thematic concerns to society at large!

:wags finger:I'm applying them to the elements of society at large that they address. Everyone is right that class doesn't really come into play in The Incredibles, at least as far as I recall (hell, I haven't seen it in over three years). In fact, now that I think about it, maybe this class issue was a conscious reason for Bird to focus Ratatouille on a rat extricating itself from the literal gutter.

[Bosco B Thug]

How dare you apply a film's thematic concerns to society at large!

:wags finger: The film's thematic concerns are inherently applied to society at large, and Rowland didn't inhibit this application. It just targets a particular "myth" and mindset that we should measure our worth and importance on one standardized set of abilities, and to analogize the standard of "superpowers or no superpowers" to class or caste or race is to ignore that the film is very particularly aimed at showing kids that they should believe that merits are predicated not on if they were born with powers but if they think like or don't think like Syndrome, who is a victim of the crippling mindset mentioned above.

I mean, does the film ever ask us to identify with a non-superhero character? Edna, Syndrome's henchgirl, and Syndrome only, huh... I'd have to re-watch the film to decide if those two others (I doubt Edna) play any important part in this discussion. :)

Anyway, I'm glad to read this discussion, I've had a hard time coming to terms with the undercurrents in this film, which I upon first viewing loved. I do remember the final "school track competition" rubbed me the wrong way, though.

[Sven]

My biggest problem with The Incredibles is the way it very ineffectively deals with Mr. Incredible's rage problem. That scene where he throws his boss through the walls at his office and puts him in traction... how can the film just write that action off like it's nothing? It's played for laughs (ha, ha, look at the mousy little horrible boss get hurted!) and then all is good. Mr. Incredible doesn't seem too concerned about hurting innocents. Then there's that part just after he thinks his family is blown up where he grabs that woman helping Syndrome and says he's going to "squeeze the life" out of her. Now, I understand that he's in a state of despair and anger and hurt, and I don't fault the film for including that scene. However, I do fault that film for not appropriately acknowledging this homicidal streak in Mr. Incredible.

[Sven]

Buff, if you care to read any more about my and trans's take on Ratatouille, you will find a moderately lengthy exchange here and onto the next page:

http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=509360#509360

[origami_mustache]

Inconsequential violence is part of the iconography of cartoons imo.

[Mysterious Dude]

Inconsequential violence is part of the iconography of cartoons imo.
Maybe it shouldn't be.

[origami_mustache]

Maybe it shouldn't be.

booourns to PC
I could agree with this argument in relation if it were regarding a live action kid's film or television show, but I think even children can easily determine the differences between reality and cartoon fantasy, and if they can't then the parents should be responsible enough to set them straight.

[Duncan]

I just spent a hell of a long time writing a response here, but decided to delete it. Basically, I came to some conclusions that I am not at all comfortable with and need to consider further. Here is the question I cannot answer: how can one acknowledge that not everyone is created equal, but still value every human life equally?

I think, once upon a time, I may have been able to answer that question in a way that satisfied me. Now, however, I can't. And from there I went to some pretty far out places, ethically speaking. Someone help me out, because I started writing about a movie starring an animated rat, and I ended up in a bit of an existential crisis.

[transmogrifier]

Well, it's relatively simple to me.

- Everyone has different talents.
- Hard work and dedication is an acceptable substitute for natural talent. One should not be valued over the other, as long as the results are the same.
- Society's job is to provide an outlet to best use either our talents, should we so chose, or our hard work, should we so choose.

Bird's films, to me, truly dislike people who attempt to catch up to natural talent with hard work, as opposed to the charitable view that he is criticizing the attempt to drag the talented down to the level of "mediocre" people.

[megladon8]

Chiming in on the issue of the violence, I must agree with origami_mustache - even children can determine the difference between cartoons and reality.

I find this censorship really bothersome, especially when it comes to the Lonney Tunes cartoons I watched and loved growing up. Knowing that they may be harder to acquire in the future is really bothersome.

[D_Davis]

Here is the question I cannot answer: how can one acknowledge that not everyone is created equal, but still value every human life equally?


Socially, we are all equal. As human beings we should all have the same freedoms, human rights, dignity, and so on. However, physically and mentally, we are all different. Some people are smarter, some are dumber, some are weaker, some are stronger. These differences are genetic, biological, and environmental.

[Duncan]

Well, it's relatively simple to me.

- Everyone has different talents.
- Hard work and dedication is an acceptable substitute for natural talent. One should not be valued over the other, as long as the results are the same.
- Society's job is to provide an outlet to best use either our talents, should we so chose, or our hard work, should we so choose.
But the results are never the same.

I somewhat agree with your position on Bird's films. I didn't like Ratatouille for the exact reason's you're describing. I was another person who made the Ayn Rand connection. I haven't seen The Incredibles in years, and I forget exactly how that initial dismissal of the villain plays out. If it's like Buff describes it, then I would have to agree with him. I remember liking the film when it first came out though. Not Watashi love, but I liked it.


Socially, we are all equal. As human beings we should all have the same freedoms, human rights, dignity, and so on. However, physically and mentally, we are all different. Some people are smarter, some are dumber, some are weaker, some are stronger. These differences are genetic, biological, and environmental.

Yes, I agree that we should all be socially equal. That's one of the great things about society. But I'm talking about looking at the question from a personal, humanist standpoint. Tired hypothetical: Two people are placed before you, and you have to choose one to live and one to die. The choice may be a difficult one, but couldn't you always make it? I think I could. And by making it, haven't I decided that one person is worth more than another? What I come up with in answer is a sort of argument from permanence. Each death is as permanent as the next, so each death is as tragic as the next. But then I start thinking all mathy (sometimes I can't help it) and I consider that there are an infinite number of outcomes when limiting functions of time to infinity. And then I'm back to one being worth more than the other. I have other ideas involving sublimity, suffering and joy, but I'm not philosopher enough to really make anything of them without having obviously flawed assumptions. My other idea is that trying to measure the value of life like this is futile, because life has some sort of sanctity or holiness that trumps these ideas. But I'm not willing to back those sorts of terms.

Sorry to hijack the thread a bit. And sorry if I'm rambling like an idiot.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I'm going to soon post the next film in here but I just wanted to add another couple of thoughts to this debate:

- I think The Incredibles greatest problem is actually an overlong and underdeveloped storyline that features Pixar's sloppiest storytelling to date. The film fails to take advantage of manifold opportunities to deepen conflict and progress the characters and narrative in interesting ways, and this to me is more disappointing than the dubious subtext.

- I think A Bug's Life is a perfect counterpoint to The Incredibles elitism and some of the arguments being thrown around about Ratatouille (which, for the record, I don't think exhibits anything like the subtext of The Incredibles - it is only the dismissal of criticism that I dislike). A Bug's Life manages somehow to balance arguments both for the importance of individuality and creative invention (embodied in Flick), and also the the necessity of working together as a team and the value of a larger society of individuals (since the only way the Flick's plan can work is by utilising the respective talents of the circus performers and the ant colony). I think it's a much cleverer and morally conscious film than perhaps any that Pixar has made.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#8

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/muhe.jpg
The Lives of Others
(Das Leben der Anderen)

Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Robbing Pan's Labyrinth of the Best Foreign Film Oscar would be sufficient reason to despise most movies, but not The Lives of Others. Less ostentatious in scope and style, it is a film of inscrutable faces and deadly whispers. It builds its complex dramatic web with quiet, masterful crafting, aided by one of the most perfectly cast ensembles of last year. By less discerning critics, von Donnersmarck's direction has been criticised as anonymous and plain, which is exactly the point. There are no visual flourishes or beauty in this movie because such things did not exist in East Berlin. We feel the dreariness, the quiet desperation, and the suffocating, endless grey. And it's fascinating.

The Best Thing About It: Ulrich Muehe's performance of intense concentration and subtlety. Rarely has such a passive central character been so compelling.

The Worst Thing About It: A curiously handled and unnecessary coda that somewhat undermines the power of the emotional climax that precedes it.

Rating: 9/10

[Duncan]

I liked that one, but your defense of the pedestrian direction seems flimsy to me. I think one of the points of the film is that there is still a lot of beauty to human life, even under such a repressive regime. Like when the writer plays "Ballad of a Good Man" on the piano. It's a nice moment, but I've seen similar scenes in other films that were transcendent. With the right film language I think this scene could have been as well.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I liked that one, but your defense of the pedestrian direction seems flimsy to me.
The thing is - I don't think the direction is pedestrian. Not for a second. I know that there are many who believe it to be so, but what I think they're responding to is the intentional decision to make it a slow-burning, muted film because it's very much set in a place where any kinds of outbursts of emotions are inhibited by fear and paranoia.

What I'm responding to is the fact that most people equate showy visuals or elaborate set pieces as "good directing" when it's actually about telling the story in the most effective way possible. If your story benefits from a sweeping visual effects shot, then fine. This film benefits from its unhurried but inevitable pacing, its intelligent usage of classical film language, its sombre tone and its fine performances. It is so compelling because it is subtle and the dramatic threads are drawn together so expertly in order to maximise the audience's understanding of their impact. All of these things are the domain of the director, and in my opinion he does a very fine job.

[Melville]

Yes, I agree that we should all be socially equal. That's one of the great things about society. But I'm talking about looking at the question from a personal, humanist standpoint. Tired hypothetical: Two people are placed before you, and you have to choose one to live and one to die. The choice may be a difficult one, but couldn't you always make it? I think I could. And by making it, haven't I decided that one person is worth more than another? What I come up with in answer is a sort of argument from permanence. Each death is as permanent as the next, so each death is as tragic as the next. But then I start thinking all mathy (sometimes I can't help it) and I consider that there are an infinite number of outcomes when limiting functions of time to infinity. And then I'm back to one being worth more than the other. I have other ideas involving sublimity, suffering and joy, but I'm not philosopher enough to really make anything of them without having obviously flawed assumptions. My other idea is that trying to measure the value of life like this is futile, because life has some sort of sanctity or holiness that trumps these ideas. But I'm not willing to back those sorts of terms.

Sorry to hijack the thread a bit. And sorry if I'm rambling like an idiot.
I’m not sure what kind of equality you’re looking for. On what scale are you trying to measure human value? When you say that you could choose which of the two people to save, you are presumably measuring their value to you, evaluating their particular way of being human in terms of how you wish the world to be. From that personal standpoint, a human life is worth exactly as much as you value it, and so of course you can find that people have differing value. And I don’t see how quantifying a person via the tragedy of his death would be any different: death is only tragic if someone finds it tragic.

(Although I’m also not sure about your mathy problem. It should be pretty straightforward to meaningfully define your terms in a way that avoids such a problem. For example, since the universe is potentially finite, you might not want to take the limit as time approaches infinity anyway. Instead, permanence could be expressed as irreversibility: there is no function that reverses death at any time; that is, death is a non-invertible function. Since death is a functional that maps from the space of human lives (themselves functions of time) to the set of values, and it maps all lives to the same value, the function must be non-invertible anyway, so it’s all consistent. How’s that for mathy!)

However, if you think that people are valuable by virtue of being human (defined, for example, by their possession of self-consciousness, or, if you’re pro-life, by their near certainty to attain self-consciousness), rather than by virtue of their particular mode of being human, then you wouldn’t be able to determine what makes one more valuable than the other. And thinking this is justifiable. If you want to behave most “authentically”, i.e. most in accord with the nature of your fundamental existence in the world (although desiring such a thing is itself an implicit value judgement), then you must abide by the fact that your valuations are precisely as meaningful as those of any other person; and you must furthermore abide by the fact that personal valuations carry only contextual meaning, dependent entirely on your mode of being and and that of the person that you are valuating at a particular time. The equality of valuations suggests that if you assign a personal value to a person (e.g. if you think their cooking or their super-heroics are laudable), you should be trepid in giving that valuation transcendent or universal weight. And the contextuality of valuations suggests that the only way to uniquely valuate a person—not by a particular person at a particular time, but by any person any time—is based upon that person’s invariant characteristic of being a person, in which case all people must be assigned the same value if their value is to be assigned uniquely. Of course, making personal judgements of people is inevitable, and is a part of your very awareness of them, but you must realize the finitude of these judgements and the universality of the judgement that all people are equal by virtue of being people. This conclusion admittedly depends on the assumptions of a particular description of human existence, but I think those assumptions are, if not absolutely correct, at least not obviously flawed.

[Duncan]

(Although I’m also not sure about your mathy problem. It should be pretty straightforward to meaningfully define your terms in a way that avoids such a problem. For example, since the universe is potentially finite, you might not want to take the limit as time approaches infinity anyway. Instead, permanence could be expressed as irreversibility: there is no function that reverses death at any time; that is, death is a non-invertible function. Since death is a functional that maps from the space of human lives (themselves functions of time) to the set of values, and it maps all lives to the same value, the function must be non-invertible anyway, so it’s all consistent. How’s that for mathy!) Neat.


However, if you think that people are valuable by virtue of being human (defined, for example, by their possession of self-consciousness, or, if you’re pro-life, by their near certainty to attain self-consciousness), rather than by virtue of their particular mode of being human, then you wouldn’t be able to determine what makes one more valuable than the other. And thinking this is justifiable. If you want to behave most “authentically”, i.e. most in accord with the nature of your fundamental existence in the world (although desiring such a thing is itself an implicit value judgement), then you must abide by the fact that your valuations are precisely as meaningful as those of any other person; So, I think I follow up until this point. What is my "fundamental existence in the world"? Are you referring to the state of being human? But being human is to fall within some genetic spectrum. Isn't someone with a different genetic makeup than mine going to have a different fundamental existence? And if so, then why are his/her valuations precisely as meaningful as my own? I think "person" may either be too broad or too narrow a categorization and, some would argue, even arbitrary.


and you must furthermore abide by the fact that personal valuations carry only contextual meaning, dependent entirely on your mode of being and and that of the person that you are valuating at a particular time. The equality of valuations suggests that if you assign a personal value to a person (e.g. if you think their cooking or their super-heroics are laudable), you should be trepid in giving that valuation transcendent or universal weight. And the contextuality of valuations suggests that the only way to uniquely valuate a person—not by a particular person at a particular time, but by any person any time—is based upon that person’s invariant characteristic of being a person, in which case all people must be assigned the same value if their value is to be assigned uniquely. I largely agree with the idea that these valuations carry only contextual meaning. And I agree that you should not grant those valuations universal weight. But I do not agree that the only way to uniquely valuate a person is to assign everyone the same value. As you go on to say, personal judgments are inevitable. That's part of valuations having contextual meaning. However, I think deriving a universal value from a person's person-hood goes too far in subverting that individual context. To me, this act seems like a matter of bookkeeping; of labeling. Being a person might be an invariable characteristic, but there is variation within the characteristic itself. If you are to go this route, then I much prefer to assign a universal value derived from the characteristic of existence alone, not the characteristic of being a person. All existence having some abstract value by virtue of its existence. Of course, from this perspective everyone is equal, but so is the dust they return to. Is this not another way of uniquely valuating a person? This is what I mean when I say "person" is too narrow a categorization. By too broad a categorization, I mean that perhaps each person should be judged as a singular event, and not part of a larger one such as persons or existence. Their unique value would be determined by a function dependent on their thoughts, actions, autovaluation, the valuations of everyone in the entire world, etc. Obviously, this would require omniscience. It's impossible, but you can do your best to reach the "truth" and by further knowing that person you could better valuate yourself by contrast. I don't think it's anymore impossible than denying the relativity of your own context and assigning everyone a universal value. And this way you would know yourself better, and know how to increase your own value better. I think this is a more aspirational method, whereas the other one is more resigned.


Of course, making personal judgements of people is inevitable, and is a part of your very awareness of them, but you must realize the finitude of these judgements and the universality of the judgement that all people are equal by virtue of being people. This conclusion admittedly depends on the assumptions of a particular description of human existence, but I think those assumptions are, if not absolutely correct, at least not obviously flawed. I don't have much more to say, but the bolded part is what I remain unconvinced of. I am very interested in this whole judgment thing, and I think it is unfortunately disregarded by a lot of popular wisdom nowadays, including a lot of post-modern theory. I consider it a personal joke that I am so intellectually opposed to either Christianity or Islam, but find their visions of the Apocalypse undeniably appealing. I mean, the Apocalypse? Of all things for me to identify with.

From the 81st sura:

When the sun shall be folded up; and when the stars shall fall; and when the mountains shall be made to pass away; and when the camels ten months gone with young shall be neglected; and when the wild beasts shall be gathered together; and when the seas shall boil; and when the souls shall be joined again to their bodies; and when the girl who hath been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death; and when the books shall be laid open; and when the heaven shall be removed; and when hell shall burn fiercely; and when paradise shall be brought near: every soul shall know what it hath wrought.
It's awful, but I must admit I find it a compelling ideal.

[monolith94]

In fact, now that I think about it, maybe this class issue was a conscious reason for Bird to focus Ratatouille on a rat extricating itself from the literal gutter.

Hmmm. Very interesting point.

[Melville]

So, I think I follow up until this point. What is my "fundamental existence in the world"? Are you referring to the state of being human? But being human is to fall within some genetic spectrum. Isn't someone with a different genetic makeup than mine going to have a different fundamental existence? And if so, then why are his/her valuations precisely as meaningful as my own? I think "person" may either be too broad or too narrow a categorization and, some would argue, even arbitrary.
I'm coming at the problem from an existentialist perspective, in which your fundamental existence in the world is as a embodied consciousness that is conscious of both itself and, depending on the stringency of your definition, of others' consciousness of it. I see no reason why people with different genetic makeup would have different fundamental existences. Well, I do see why (i.e. there are animals that are obviously not self-conscious at one end, and there is the star baby at the other, and individuals have slightly differing positions on the range of options between those), but I don't think the definition is too broad.


I largely agree with the idea that these valuations carry only contextual meaning. And I agree that you should not grant those valuations universal weight. But I do not agree that the only way to uniquely valuate a person is to assign everyone the same value. As you go on to say, personal judgments are inevitable. That's part of valuations having contextual meaning. However, I think deriving a universal value from a person's person-hood goes too far in subverting that individual context. To me, this act seems like a matter of bookkeeping; of labeling. Being a person might be an invariable characteristic, but there is variation within the characteristic itself. If you are to go this route, then I much prefer to assign a universal value derived from the characteristic of existence alone, not the characteristic of being a person. All existence having some abstract value by virtue of its existence. Of course, from this perspective everyone is equal, but so is the dust they return to. Is this not another way of uniquely valuating a person?
But their person-hood is a fundamental fact of your existence—you always potentially feel the weight of the Other's gaze, you live within a social network of values, etc.—so I don't think it's just a matter of bookkeeping to give it value. And their existence is fundamentally different from that of dust, so there is reason to give them a different value.


This is what I mean when I say "person" is too narrow a categorization. By too broad a categorization, I mean that perhaps each person should be judged as a singular event, and not part of a larger one such as persons or existence. Their unique value would be determined by a function dependent on their thoughts, actions, autovaluation, the valuations of everyone in the entire world, etc. Obviously, this would require omniscience. It's impossible, but you can do your best to reach the "truth" and by further knowing that person you could better valuate yourself by contrast. I don't think it's anymore impossible than denying the relativity of your own context and assigning everyone a universal value. And this way you would know yourself better, and know how to increase your own value better. I think this is a more aspirational method, whereas the other one is more resigned.
But omniscience wouldn't solve the problem. Even if you had all the variables in hand, you'd still be providing the function that assigns a value, given those variables. And I'm not saying that you should deny the relativity of your context in assigning people an equal value, I'm just saying that, when assigning people your personal value, you should be aware of their fundamental similarity and the transient context of your current valuation of them.


I don't have much more to say, but the bolded part is what I remain unconvinced of. I am very interested in this whole judgment thing, and I think it is unfortunately disregarded by a lot of popular wisdom nowadays, including a lot of post-modern theory.
I think you're looking for a reason why you must assign people an equal value, rather than a reason why you reasonably could or should. Outside of huge metaphysical assumptions or religious faith, I don't think that's possible.

[Morris Schæffer]

Excellent choice! A masterpiece and one that I will be seeing again very soon, especially now that I've actually visited Berlin.

[lovejuice]

#8

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/muhe.jpg

The Worst Thing About It: A curiously handled and unnecessary coda that somewhat undermines the power of the emotional climax that precedes it.


indeed. although i hate that ending so much the movie is intentionally excluded from my top ten.

[Sycophant]

indeed. although i hate that ending so much the movie is intentionally excluded from my top ten.Word. Sadly, the ending is by far my most potent memory of the film. All the ridiculous time-leaping had me pulling my hair out. Perhaps knowing this fault, a second viewing would allow me to have a kinder opinion. Also, though my memory is hazy (it's been a good, what, eight to ten months since I saw it) I remember thinking it was imperfect in a lot of other ways as well.

[Spinal]

The film is great. The ending is one of the best parts about it.

[monolith94]

I just spent a hell of a long time writing a response here, but decided to delete it. Basically, I came to some conclusions that I am not at all comfortable with and need to consider further. Here is the question I cannot answer: how can one acknowledge that not everyone is created equal, but still value every human life equally?

I think, once upon a time, I may have been able to answer that question in a way that satisfied me. Now, however, I can't. And from there I went to some pretty far out places, ethically speaking. Someone help me out, because I started writing about a movie starring an animated rat, and I ended up in a bit of an existential crisis.

Not everyone is created equally. Certainly. But in the process of deciding how is better than others, the questions arises, what are we to judge people by? Their intelligence? Their actions?

We can never know another human being well enough to judge them in such an extensive way that we can say that one human life has more value than another.

[Duncan]

I think you're looking for a reason why you must assign people an equal value, rather than a reason why you reasonably could or should. Outside of huge metaphysical assumptions or religious faith, I don't think that's possible. Yeah, you're probably right about this. I think that's why those passages on the final judgment from religious texts are so interesting to me.

[DSNT]

The film is great. The ending is one of the best parts about it.
QFT.

[Watashi]

Meet the Robinsons - 3.5/10

:crazy:

One of the better films of the year.

[DSNT]

:crazy:

One of the better films of the year.
So people say. I thought it was like Jimmy Neutron with an annoying ensemble cast. It was also not funny in the slightest.

[Melville]

To get this thread back on track, I'll say that I didn't really care for The Lives of Others. It was a good story and all, but I agree with Duncan that the muted style didn't suit all the scenes, and I agree with most people that the ending was kind of trite and overstated. However, if I recall correctly, Spinal did write a pretty good defense of the ending back at the old site.

[Boner M]

Welcome back Buff! Gotta say that my appreciation of TLoO has waned over time, mostly for the reasons stated by Melville and Duncan. I share your Ratatouille and Half Nelson ratings, even though only the former makes the cut on my list (going by Aussie dates).

PS: Seen the Cinematheque program recently?

[Buffaluffasaurus]

Welcome back Buff! Gotta say that my appreciation of TLoO has waned over time, mostly for the reasons stated by Melville and Duncan.
I definitely do think it's one of those films that you need to be watching to appreciate fully. It doesn't leap out and grab you in retrospect.


PS: Seen the Cinematheque program recently?
Kinda keeping loose tabs on it. Haven't been in ages, but I am planning on checking out their presentation of Grindhouse in its original form.

[transmogrifier]

I still waiting for a movie I like or have seen. Luckily, Fincher released a film last year, so I don't have to wait forever.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#7

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/30wedd.jpg
After the Wedding
(Efter Brylluppet)

Director: Susanne Bier

It's not often I can say I love a film but hate its direction, but After the Wedding marks the first of two films on this list to have this distinction. As an exercise in Dogme filmmaking, it's as clumsy, distracting and sloppy as the rest of them. As human drama, it's one of the most moving films I saw all year. The premise of a man being unwittingly invited to his ex-lover's wedding could be used for far lesser melodramas and romantic comedies, but here it kick-starts a stirring examination of the human soul and its myriad frailties. The film's brilliance is the gradual unraveling of its characters, as the film's dramatic core gains increasing momentum until finally hitting its mark with devastating impact. And yet the tears I shed throughout were not from mere emotional contrivance or misanthropic manipulation - it's a film of great compassion, truth and catharsis.

The Best Thing About It: Rolf Lassgård's portrayal and character of Jørgen. Bold yet fragile, angry but wounded, the film's drama is propelled by him and each turn of the narrative strips Jørgen's layered defenses back until we see the heartbreaking humanity as his core. One of the rawest performances of the year.

The Worst Thing About It: Bier's intrusive directorial style of ugly, "verite" camerawork, poor editing and disinterested scene construction. Indeed, perhaps the best thing about the film is that the emotional integrity of the piece still shines through the murk of an incompetent director.

Rating: 9/10

[MacGuffin]

:crazy:

One of the better films of the year.

What? It's absolutely horrendous in every way. Aside from it being annoying due to horrible voice acting and a bad sound mix, it assumes the audience is stupid, and gives away the movie's whole point ('Keep moving forward') within less than an hour after the movie begins. After that, there's really no other point in watching if you hadn't left already since I can't see the loud humor and mediocre animation appealing to anybody, really.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

Added an index to the first post.

[Boner M]

Didn't care much for After the Wedding, although oddly enough I don't really disagree with anything you wrote about it (esp. regarding Bier's terrible direction). Didn't strike me as being anything more than an efficient weepie, or a "thrill ride for emotion junkies" as one RT blurb put it.

Can't deny that Lansard's breakdown got to me, though; a scene that could've been disastrous in the hands of a lesser performer.

[Watashi]

What? It's absolutely horrendous in every way. Aside from it being annoying due to horrible voice acting and a bad sound mix, it assumes the audience is stupid, and gives away the movie's whole point ('Keep moving forward') within less than an hour after the movie begins. After that, there's really no other point in watching if you hadn't left already since I can't see the loud humor and mediocre animation appealing to anybody, really.
You're hilarious. A bad sound mix? R u 4real?

[MacGuffin]

You're hilarious. A bad sound mix? R u 4real?

Yeah, the music was annoying and distracting. The characters were talking too loud, there was no ambience, no atmosphere.

[Ezee E]

I still think one of the reasons people like The Lives Of Others so much is because they like having that director's name on their list. Seriously, what a cool name.

[origami_mustache]

What? It's absolutely horrendous in every way. Aside from it being annoying due to horrible voice acting and a bad sound mix, it assumes the audience is stupid, and gives away the movie's whole point ('Keep moving forward') within less than an hour after the movie begins. After that, there's really no other point in watching if you hadn't left already since I can't see the loud humor and mediocre animation appealing to anybody, really.

I thought the animation was pretty half-assed too. I stopped watching about 20 minutes in.

[Sycophant]

I thought the animation was pretty half-assed too. I stopped watching about 20 minutes in.
I made it all the way through. Its third act redeemed the experience overall, but there's a lot of stupidity to get through earlier. Too many characters that go nowhere, and the animation really was lackluster, despite some tasty character design. Far from easily one of the year's best. One of the year's most thoroughly mediocre.

[MacGuffin]

I thought the animation was pretty half-assed too. I stopped watching about 20 minutes in.

I really don't blame you at all; you didn't miss anything of any quality.

[Raiders]

I found Meet the Robinsons pretty good, actually. The Bowler hat guy is a pretty good villain, far from your typical Disney-esque evil. In fact, his character's fate (and the remarkably poignant moment where his future in encapsulated by a mere "?") is pretty good stuff. Flawed, certainly. But I think in comparison to most of what Disney turns out, it was pretty satisfying.

[Spinal]

I thought the animation was pretty half-assed too. I stopped watching about 20 minutes in.

I saw it in 3-D and thought it was pretty impressive. I may have felt differently watching it on DVD.

[lovejuice]

I found Meet the Robinsons pretty good, actually. The Bowler hat guy is a pretty good villain, far from your typical Disney-esque evil. In fact, his character's fate (and the remarkably poignant moment where his future in encapsulated by a mere "?") is pretty good stuff. Flawed, certainly. But I think in comparison to most of what Disney turns out, it was pretty satisfying.

yes, i really like MtR as well. and considered it came before that rat thingy i can't spell and after cars, quite a victory that disney can still do something that is better than pixar.

[origami_mustache]

I really don't blame you at all; you didn't miss anything of any quality.

I usually don't stop watching films like that, but since it was on an airplane and it was not my choice to actually watch it, I declined to continue.

[MacGuffin]

I usually don't stop watching films like that, but since it was on an airplane and it was not my choice to actually watch it, I declined to continue.

I can't imagine you get the full experience (as David Lynch might put it) on an airplane.

[origami_mustache]

I can't imagine you get the full experience (as David Lynch might put it) on an airplane.

indeed

[Robby P]

The prodigal son returns. I feel all warm and tingly inside.

Half Nelson is a real gem. Three truly great performances and an ending that doesn't pander to the audience's expectations. Exceptional stuff.

Looking forward to the rest.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I can't believe this thread has more posts about Meet the Robinsons than After the Wedding, The Lives of Others or Half Nelson.

[Raiders]

I can't believe this thread has more posts about Meet the Robinsons than After the Wedding, The Lives of Others or Half Nelson.

What do those last three have to do with this thread?

[DSNT]

I can't believe this thread has more posts about Meet the Robinsons than After the Wedding, The Lives of Others or Half Nelson.
Blame Watashi. Bastard stalked my sig and hijacked your thread. He's bad people.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#6

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/into-the-wild.jpg
Into the Wild

Director: Sean Penn

For the first 45 minutes or so, I kinda hated Into the Wild. The uneven structure dilutes the early scenes in Alaska, the opening titles look like they were made by a 12 year-old on iMovie, and Penn's direction is amateurish and rarely in control of the directorial contrivances he litters his film with. But, slowly, the story's power begins to take over. That Penn identifies with this disenfranchised, fiercely independent young man is no surprise. That he understands what he spurns, and the terrible, lonely tragedy of his life very much is however. The film's final, puissant revelation is a shattering reversal of Christopher McCandless' idealistic journey, proving that the real wilderness worth conquering is that of lasting relationships, and all the pain, heartache and betrayal they evoke.

The Best Thing About It: Hal Holbrook. The connection, the revelation, the chance at redemption. Ron's final offer to Chris moved me more than any scene in cinema in 2007. It's played with heartbreaking restraint by Holbrook, which makes the death he dies inside all the more potent, and Chris' unwitting choice all the more tragic.

The Worst Thing About It: Penn's film-student direction and that ugly-ass yellow text he destroys the screen with.

Rating: 9/10

[Boner M]

I think Rowland said it best about Penn's direction: "He employed a loose, "let's try this!" aesthetic that suitably mirrored the material, as passionate as it was tactless, and always expressive." I also felt that the choices seemed perfectly in sync with McCandless's adventurous spirit. It took me a while to get into it's groove, but I don't think I'd have found the film as effective had it been more restrained (I though Hirsch was kinda miscast).

[Rowland]

Excellent choice, one that hasn't seen a lot of love around here. I'd actually defend Penn's direction as well, which I perceived as reflecting Chris. It's endlessly searching and striving, cycling through techniques with a startling lack of tact, as if Penn himself wishes to break away from the expectations imposed on him as a filmmaker.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I do in some ways appreciate the abandon that Penn attacks the film with, but I feel he understands too little about what he's doing for it to work. Perhaps, as you point out Rowland, this makes it an apt metaphor for Chris himself, but I really felt this was a film that worked in spite of its director rather than because of it. To Penn's credit, there aren't many directors who would make such a personal film out of it, and he certainly extracts fantastic performances. I think Hirsch is perfect as he embodies all the contradictions of the character - at once charming and social, but also determinedly unaware of the ramifications of his choices on others.

I'm just disappointed that this film should've been my #1 of the year.

[Rowland]

To Penn's credit, there aren't many directors who would make such a personal film out of it, and he certainly extracts fantastic performances. He also shot as practically as possible in the general whereabouts of the actual locations, which adds immeasurably to the texture of the film.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

He also shot as practically as possible in the general whereabouts of the actual locations, which adds immeasurably to the texture of the film.
Definitely. I was quite amazed when I learned the bus in the film is the actual bus where McCandless lived.

[megladon8]

Your write-up is encouraging, Buff, but I really have zero interest in that movie.

I thought it had one of the worst, cheesiest, most ham-handed trailers I've ever seen.

Plus my ass-hat friends ruined it for me, and knowing the ending I really don't want to watch it.

[Rowland]

I thought it had one of the worst, cheesiest, most ham-handed trailers I've ever seen.Oh no, a trailer!

Plus my ass-hat friends ruined it for me, and knowing the ending I really don't want to watch it.It isn't really a "twist"; after all, the movie is based on a true story that lots of people already know. And besides, if anything, I'd argue that the movie works better with the knowledge of his final outcome in mind.

Hippies are empathized with in the movie though, so you'd probably hate it. :P

[Buffaluffasaurus]

Your write-up is encouraging, Buff, but I really have zero interest in that movie.

I thought it had one of the worst, cheesiest, most ham-handed trailers I've ever seen.

Plus my ass-hat friends ruined it for me, and knowing the ending I really don't want to watch it.
I agree about the trailer - I had heaps of interest in the film before seeing the trailer, zero after. It makes it look like a telemovie on the Lifetime channel, but it's far more than that.

And I agree with Rowland. Most reviews for the movie spoil McCandless' fate anyway - it does make the movie a lot better and a lot more resonant when you actually know how it all ends. It's handled kind of like an inevitability rather than a surprise.

[megladon8]

It isn't really a "twist"; after all, the movie is based on a true story that lots of people already know. And besides, if anything, I'd argue that the movie works better with the knowledge of his final outcome in mind.

Well, I knew absolutely nothing of the story up until they told me.

Knowing the outcome made me disinterested because I think so many of his actions and encounters will lose their power when I know what's going to happen.



Hippies are empathized with in the movie though, so you'd probably hate it. :P

What? When did I ever say I disliked hippies?

I think some of their ideals are pretty unrealistic and naive, but I don't have anything against them.


To be fair, I'll probably see the movie when it's on The Movie Network. But I wouldn't see it in the theatre, nor would I buy/rent it.

[Rowland]

What? When did I ever say I disliked hippies?Hmm, I don't know where I picked up this impression. You had to have made a disparaging remark regarding hippies some time, maybe in jest? Or I've just confused you with someone else. Give me a break, I'm old. :)

[megladon8]

Hmm, I don't know where I picked up this impression. You had to have made a disparaging remark regarding hippies some time, maybe in jest? Or I've just confused you with someone else. Give me a break, I'm old. :)


What? Aren't you like one year older than me? :P

[Sycophant]

Hmm, I don't know where I picked up this impression. You had to have made a disparaging remark regarding hippies some time, maybe in jest? Or I've just confused you with someone else. Give me a break, I'm old. :)Simple, documented, undeniable facts (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=487663#487663) .

(corrollary) (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=487665#487665)

The discussion this spawned from is kind of the origin story of our banner! :pritch:

[transmogrifier]

The book gives away the ending in the first sentence, I think. It doesn't make any difference, I wouldn't think.

[megladon8]

Simple, documented, undeniable facts (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=487663#487663) .

(corrollary) (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=487665#487665)

The discussion this spawned from is kind of the origin story of our banner! :pritch:


I can't believe you actually took the time to look that up :P

[Ezee E]

Yeah, the yellow text is awful. Buff pretty much nailed my opinion of the movie.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#5

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/jj.jpg
The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford

Director: Andrew Dominik

Seven years is an awful long time to wait since Dominik's auspicious first film, but for a man who seems so intent on aping Terence Malick, perhaps it's fitting. Long and meditative are not two words you'll generally find in a positive review from me, but here Dominik transforms the seemingly simple events of Jesse James' death (so simple they're announced in the title), into an elegiac study of two men locked in an inexorable waltz towards their fates. Having Pitt play James is a calculated gamble, as he brings the right amount of star power and mystery to the man, as well as the inevitable meta-narrative discourse on the psychology of fame and infamy. But if Pitt stands tall, it is only because Dominik draws such an epic canvas, painting elegant, surprising shades of light and dark into a landscape well traversed by heroes and villains long before him.

The Best Thing About It: Casey Affleck. Every single moment he's on screen is transfixing. He astounds in a potentially thankless and unappealing role, making every flicker of the eyes, every turn of the head, and every curl of the mouth a mesmerising event. The performance of the year.

The Worst Thing About It: The second act gets slightly repetitive and the overall length could be trimmed, but it's hard to take away from such hypnotic pacing. The narration occasionally fails to reach the poetic heights it clearly strives for.

Rating: 9.5/10

[megladon8]

Wonderful write-up for Jesse James, Buff, and you've made me want to see it even more!

Did you see Gone Baby Gone, by any chance? I was blown away by that film as a whole, but Casey Affleck was particularly impressive. I would love to see the two Affleck's work together again in the same fashion - Ben behind the camera, Casey in front.

[Boner M]

I didn't see the narration as striving for poetry, but rather aping how the media of the era (dimestore novels, other poets) described James. I wrote this at the old board...

"I actually thought the hyper-literal narration was a great touch once I got used to it, and complements the demystification of the James legend that Dominik is aiming for. It's very much in tune with the pseudo-poetry of the dime-store novels that romanticised James and his escapades, but when coupled with the images we're seeing the effect is entirely different. Yeah, it does somewhat kill the poetry in some of images by telling us what we should be seeing, it's distancing and distracting - even the tone of the voice lacks authority and command. But the film is more a dirge than a reverie, and I think it fits in with that doomy sense of inevitability. I'd say it's a great example of when telling instead of showing becomes a form of showing in itself."

[Buffaluffasaurus]

Wonderful write-up for Jesse James, Buff, and you've made me want to see it even more!

Did you see Gone Baby Gone, by any chance? I was blown away by that film as a whole, but Casey Affleck was particularly impressive. I would love to see the two Affleck's work together again in the same fashion - Ben behind the camera, Casey in front.
Thanks meg.

Nope, that one doesn't open here til March but I'm dying to see it. I've heard lots of good things, and based on Affleck's work here (and hell, he was probably the best thing about Ocean's 13 too), I'm highly anticipating it.

[megladon8]

Thanks meg.

Nope, that one doesn't open here til March but I'm dying to see it. I've heard lots of good things, and based on Affleck's work here (and hell, he was probably the best thing about Ocean's 13 too), I'm highly anticipating it.


Cool!

I was going to suggest that if you really wanted to see it, I would definitely be getting it so I could burn a copy of the DVD and send it to you.

But if it's opening in March (which is when the DVD comes out), I'm sure you'd rather see it in the theatre.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I didn't see the narration as striving for poetry, but rather aping how the media of the era (dimestore novels, other poets) described James. I wrote this at the old board...

"I actually thought the hyper-literal narration was a great touch once I got used to it, and complements the demystification of the James legend that Dominik is aiming for. It's very much in tune with the pseudo-poetry of the dime-store novels that romanticised James and his escapades, but when coupled with the images we're seeing the effect is entirely different. Yeah, it does somewhat kill the poetry in some of images by telling us what we should be seeing, it's distancing and distracting - even the tone of the voice lacks authority and command. But the film is more a dirge than a reverie, and I think it fits in with that doomy sense of inevitability. I'd say it's a great example of when telling instead of showing becomes a form of showing in itself."
Hmm, interesting thoughts. I understand that the film is very much engrossed in undercutting the mythology, and the ending certainly achieves that, but I guess I felt that the narration sat in an awkward gap between intention and actual effect a lot of the time. Instead of creating a third meaning (as you suggest), I felt too often it added nothing.

I do intend to see this again when it hits DVD though, so I'll certainly be interested to see how I react to it then.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

I was going to suggest that I could email you photos of myself naked.
Dude, that's gross! :eek:

Seriously, thanks for the offer but I'm happy to wait to see it in cinemas and line Ben Affleck's pockets.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#4

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/02zodiac1600.jpg
Zodiac

Director: David Fincher

I remember dreading the idea of The Fincher doing another serial killer movie. He already made The Greatest Serial Killer Movie Ever™ the first time around, so why tread down that path again? I dreaded because I am foolish. Because I am weak. Because I failed the first test of faith in The All Mighty Fincher and doubted he could sock me in the same celluloid-loving part of my cranium twice. And so not only does The Fincher level me with a triple dose of inspired casting, amazing detail and deft pacing, but he follows it up with a double-whammy of his patented "I shoot and cut shit better than anyone on planet Earth" game. And so I sit, humbled and awed, on the floor of my local multiplex, as The Fincher laughs at me from his 24 frame per second throne.

The Best Thing About It: The round table interrogation of Arthur Leigh Allen. Perhaps the year's best scene, it turns a stationary discussion between four seated actors into the most dramatically compelling sequence of the movie through an incredible sense of pacing, shot selection and editing.

The Worst Thing About It: The HD cinematography, though superior to most of what's out there, doesn't do justice to the visuals and atmosphere as much as 35mm would've. The film itself is shot beautifully, so the choice of technology is disappointing. The opening sequence suffers the most noticeably for being low resolution and the camera not accurately being able to reproduce blacks.

Rating: 9.5/10

[dreamdead]

The fact that Zodiac keeps making appearances on these types of lists tells me that I should finally get off of my duff and rent the damn thing. I've been a bit worried since Panic Room (which was fun, but nothing more), but I'll have to give this baby a go soon.

[Duncan]

The fact that Zodiac keeps making appearances on these types of lists tells me that I should finally get off of my duff and rent the damn thing. I've been a bit worried since Panic Room (which was fun, but nothing more), but I'll have to give this baby a go soon.

Same. I guess I dismissed it somewhat unfairly upon its initial release. I haven't really loved anything Fincher's done though.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Best Thing About It: The round table interrogation of Arthur Leigh Allen. Perhaps the year's best scene, it turns a stationary discussion between four seated actors into the most dramatically compelling sequence of the movie through an incredible sense of pacing, shot selection and editing.


And composition and color. In a way, he's made two sides of the ultimate serial killer movie. Seven showed the passionate, emotionally enormous potential of serial killers for drama, while this film goes in the reverse direction by suggesting the reality of cold, clinical analysis. This was my favorite film of last year.

[Grouchy]

#4 Zodiac

The Best Thing About It: The round table interrogation of Arthur Leigh Allen. Perhaps the year's best scene, it turns a stationary discussion between four seated actors into the most dramatically compelling sequence of the movie through an incredible sense of pacing, shot selection and editing.
You're right. It's the first scene that comes to my mind when thinking about the movie. It also has to do with the incredibly intense build-up to that scene.

I still have a ton of 2007 movies to see, but Zodiac is the best so far.

[Morris Schæffer]

Zodiac is great. It is more of a police procedural, but the killer's shadow always looms over our protagonists, creating a genuine sense of tension, of being watched. It totally scares me that people can commit such crimes and get away with it, taking their atrocities with them to the grave. The scene you mentioned is indeed memorable Buff.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

#3

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Buffaluffasaurus/ONCE_filmstill1_iw.jpg
Once

Director: John Carney

Boy meets girl and they make beautiful music together. Simple, right? Such is the offhanded, easy charm of Once that it would be facile to write it off as pure Irish luck that this film has resonated so much with audiences. But the simplicity of construction belies an innate, heartfelt humanity that cannot be compensated for by budget, genuine stars, or even filmmaking experience. It taps deeply into the soulful connection between our boy and girl, and needs only duets to express it. The film's rawness and lack of narrative complexity demands a pitch-perfect execution, and in the charming performances of Glen Hansard, Marketa Irglova and the understated helming of John Carney, the film has it. In a year when Hollywood has resorted to hackneyed shaky camerawork and rapid cutting in a desperate reach for authenticity, there's more truth in a single awkward glance here than in reels of Angelina Jolie crying.

The Best Thing About It: The songs. They tell you more about the characters and what they're feeling than any traditional dramatic devices could, and Carney wisely defers to them for the majority of the film.

The Worst Thing About It: All this music and not a single cover of a Whitesnake song.

Rating: 9.5/10

[Duncan]

Saw this one last week. Liked it a lot.

[Ezee E]

Couldn't get into this one at all. I'm pathetic.

[Velocipedist]

Couldn't get into this one at all. I'm pathetic.

Same here. Pretty forced and awkward, mostly because of the actors, I fear. It has strengths but I just can't see its charm.

I'm not pathetic though.

[Watashi]

To get back to the Ratatouille discussion. From Bird's own mouth:


Oh yeah, here's a film where a lot of people were worried that critics would misunderstand it and think that the critic was a "bad guy." He actually ends up being an enlightened character. I think that some people were concerned that critics would take it the wrong way and think that it was anti-critic. It really isn't.

It's about staying connected to what you love. The critic who becomes a critic because he is connected with what he loves, sort of loses his way a little bit and finds his way back from the most unexpected source that could ever bring him back. He has to review his own life and his place in it. Critics, most of them, got it in the spirit that it was meant and that was very gratifying.

[Rowland]

To get back to the Ratatouille discussion. From Bird's own mouth:http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4605/stormtrooperxk1.gif