Hollywood's most elegant sequence of the last 15 years?

[Izzy Black]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uxY8Wsygpw

I think so.

[Dukefrukem]

I need to see this movie.

[Fezzik]

I haven't seen this movie in years. I really need to revisit it. The editing in that scene is some of the best I've ever seen.

[Izzy Black]

Yes, you do. Arguably Soderbergh's best.

[Pop Trash]

Saw this flick in the theater when I was still in HS. Definitely left an impression on me in my formative years.

[number8]

Heh, anyone remember the Karen Sisco show where Carla Gugino played her?

[MadMan]

Heh, anyone remember the Karen Sisco show where Carla Gugino played her?I do, but I didn't watch it. I recall it being rather short lived.

Out of Sight is one of those movies that I should have seen by now, but haven't for some reason or another.

[ledfloyd]

Yes, you do. Arguably Soderbergh's best.
pretty easily from my purview, but i'm hardly a fan.

[Qrazy]

I like the music cues which begin the cross cutting and end the cross cutting but overall... it's alright. I guess I find the footage itself kind of mediocre so I find it hard to fully endorse the final product. I'd say Out of Sight is maybe top 6 Soderbergh. I greatly prefer Sex Lies and Schizopolis and maybe Traffic and some others.

[Winston*]

I loved Sex Lies and Schizopolis!

[Izzy Black]

I like the music cues which begin the cross cutting and end the cross cutting but overall... it's alright. I guess I find the footage itself kind of mediocre so I find it hard to fully endorse the final product. I'd say Out of Sight is maybe top 6 Soderbergh. I greatly prefer Sex Lies and Schizopolis and maybe Traffic and some others.

I great enjoy the footage and the dialogue. I also find Sex Lies to be one of his weakest films.

[Boner M]

Sorry Q, had to.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/5337/qrazy.png

[MadMan]

Don't forget the "C-" rating, too.

[Qrazy]

Don't forget the "C-" rating, too.

B-...

[Qrazy]

I great enjoy the footage and the dialogue. I also find Sex Lies to be one of his weakest films.

It's no Erin Brokovich!

[MadMan]

B-...:lol:

[Izzy Black]

It's no Erin Brokovich!

Please tell me about Solaris.

[Qrazy]

Please tell me about Solaris.

I found it to be quite a tedious affair lacking all of the formal elegance of Tarkovsky's adaptation. Soderbergh's film looks fine but no shot feels essential or integral the way Tarkovsky's camerawork functions so that worked to the film's detriment. It would be kinder to judge the film purely on it's own but as it exists as an adaptation of the same source material it's hard not to judge it comparatively.

Overall though I think it was the mediocre acting and lack of attention to character motivation that dragged down the film for me. I found both Viola Davis and Jeremy Davies to be quite poor in the film. Davis has this one scene that doesn't play at all with Clooney shouting at her through a closed glass door. Davies is his usual twitchy self and doesn't successfully sell his true character to me. Clooney and McElhone are better but here Soderbergh doesn't chart the logic of their actions well enough. The transition between Clooney getting rid of the first incarnation and accepting the second is baffling and far fetched. There needed to be another scene in here somewhere.

I enjoyed a bit of the editing work in the dream/flashback content (reminded me a bit of the Out of Sight sequence actually), some of the music here also and a bit of the art design from this future world but other than that I found the experience truly unengaging.

[Spinal]

Not sure what to make of Soderbergh. I've liked some of his work, but the bad ones are soooo bad that I'm always wary when his name is attached.

[Qrazy]

Not sure what to make of Soderbergh. I've liked some of his work, but the bad ones are soooo bad that I'm always wary when his name is attached.

Which would you file into the good/bad category?

[Spinal]

Good:
Traffic
Out of Sight

OK:
Sex, Lies and Videotape

Bad:
The Informant!
The Girlfriend Experience (didn't finish)
Erin Brockovich
Schizopolis

[Qrazy]

Good:
Traffic
Out of Sight

OK:
Sex, Lies and Videotape

Bad:
The Informant!
The Girlfriend Experience (didn't finish)
Erin Brockovich
Schizopolis

Hmm for me I actually rarely find him to be all that good or bad his work is just always sort of average with some being better and some worse than others. Granted I haven't seen The Girlfriend Experience but I find Schizopolis and The Informant to be quite funny. A recent(ish) viewing of Traffic brought it down in my esteem though. I don't think there's any film from him I would call genuinely great.

[Spinal]

I don't think there's any film from him I would call genuinely great.

I would agree based on what I've seen thus far. Curious about Che, but I'm not sure I'm up for the commitment.

[Qrazy]

I would agree based on what I've seen thus far. Curious about Che, but I'm not sure I'm up for the commitment.

Same here, I still haven't seen that one. You might enjoy some of his earlier stuff like Kafka or King of the Hill but even those I can't recommend very highly. I do think they'd be more in line with your aesthetic than some of his other stuff though.

[Spinal]

Yes, I'm really not sure why I haven't seen Kafka yet. Been meaning to.

[Raiders]

King of the Hill is one of the most underseen films of the 90s. Love it. I cannot in good conscience recommend Kafka but as with Soderbergh, it is certainly an interesting failure.

I also don't think anyone is "complete" on Soderbergh without having seen The Limey, and I think you will at least enjoy it. Not promising any revelations like I had, but it is certainly well worth your time to give it a go.

If you like: My review (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1150)

[Izzy Black]

I found it to be quite a tedious affair lacking all of the formal elegance of Tarkovsky's adaptation. Soderbergh's film looks fine but no shot feels essential or integral the way Tarkovsky's camerawork functions so that worked to the film's detriment. It would be kinder to judge the film purely on it's own but as it exists as an adaptation of the same source material it's hard not to judge it comparatively.

I don't think the film's quality should be determined by its relation to Tarkovsky's film. I'd be more receptive if it were actually a remake of the Tarkovsky but it's not. They're also rather different interpretations of the novel. Formally I think this is a very sophisticated film, particularly when placed in the context of mainstream Hollywood cinema.


Overall though I think it was the mediocre acting and lack of attention to character motivation that dragged down the film for me. I found both Viola Davis and Jeremy Davies to be quite poor in the film. Davis has this one scene that doesn't play at all with Clooney shouting at her through a closed glass door. Davies is his usual twitchy self and doesn't successfully sell his true character to me.

I actually agree with this entirely. Viola's character is an utter enigma to me. Her capacity to have no respect at all for the possibility that these are sentient beings that have moral rights is bewildering. We're supposed to be convinced that her visitor was so traumatizing that it would have this effect, but it's hard to imagine how this could happen. In the end, her character comes off very lazily written and emerges as little more than a foil for Kris. I thought Davis, a very fine actress, did the best she could with the role but she wasn't given much. Davies was nothing short of annoying. This was easily the weakest part of the film for me, which is a frustration, since I enjoy the film overall.


Clooney and McElhone are better but here Soderbergh doesn't chart the logic of their actions well enough. The transition between Clooney getting rid of the first incarnation and accepting the second is baffling and far fetched. There needed to be another scene in here somewhere.

Maybe. I think I had a similar reaction. In fact, I could never really relate to how he sent the first one away to begin with. This is my only real quibble with their part, though.


I enjoyed a bit of the editing work in the dream/flashback content (reminded me a bit of the Out of Sight sequence actually), some of the music here also and a bit of the art design from this future world but other than that I found the experience truly unengaging.
These elements (along with the individual scenes with just Clooney and McElhone) anchor the film for me. It would've been a great film if Davis and Davies were cut out altogether, and truer to Soderbergh's insular depiction of their relationship. The difference I think is that I tend to value this other stuff more than you did.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[DavidSeven]

Got a ton of respect for how he shot Ocean's Twelve. Probably one of the most interestingly shot pure popcorn films in recent memory. I just wish the underlying script measured up to the film's craft. I'd say the same, to a certain extent, of Out of Sight. This seems to be the story with me and Soderbergh. His films always seem to come up an element or two short of being something I can really get behind. Got a lot left to see though.

[Qrazy]

Got a ton of respect for how he shot Ocean's Twelve. Probably one of the most interestingly shot pure popcorn films in recent memory. I just wish the underlying script measured up to the film's craft. I'd say the same, to a certain extent, of Out of Sight. This seems to be the story with me and Soderbergh. His films always seem to come up an element or two short of being something I can really get behind. Got a lot left to see though.

Really? The laser breakdance is one of the most stupidly conceived and executed sequences I've ever seen (on a formal level also).

[DavidSeven]

Really? The laser breakdance is one of the most stupidly conceived and executed sequences I've ever seen (on a formal level also).

Not a fan of that sequence. It's dumb and looks cheesy as hell. I like his approach to the rest of the film though. Very unorthodox at the time and unexpected on the heels of the more conventionally slick/polished Ocean's Eleven.

[Izzy Black]

Got a ton of respect for how he shot Ocean's Twelve. Probably one of the most interestingly shot pure popcorn films in recent memory. I just wish the underlying script measured up to the film's craft. I'd say the same, to a certain extent, of Out of Sight. This seems to be the story with me and Soderbergh. His films always seem to come up an element or two short of being something I can really get behind. Got a lot left to see though.That's the common reaction to Soderbergh. But I look at him almost as an avant-garde filmmaker. Taken as traditional movies, they don't hold up well, and they will always fall short of standards of greatness. His stories don't conceal the substance of his films, though. It's the manner in which he evokes, relates, and comments on these stories formally that the substance of his films come to light. His identity is found in the nested layers of technique and formal strategy that govern the film. Soderbergh's attitude toward cinema is one of "problem-solving." He's interested in cinematic situations and possibilities, evocative gestures and ideas, how the form takes on a life of its own within the context of traditional styles, stories, and genres. He's not trying to film the next great American novel. He's akin to Brain DePalma as a commercial experimenter on genre and style (though I'm not a huge fan of DePalma's strategies). In other words, if you want Soderbergh to deliver a "great" film in the traditional sense, you'll never get it, and if you did, it probably would've been due more to luck than any deliberate purpose. Perhaps this makes Soderbergh a slight filmmaker compared to auteurs like Bergman and Godard, but I like him for this very fact of difference.

[Qrazy]

That's the common reaction to Soderbergh. But I look at him almost as an avant-garde filmmaker. Taken as traditional movies, they don't hold up well, and they will always fall short of standards of greatness. His stories don't conceal the substance of his films, though. It's the manner in which he evokes, relates, and comments on these stories formally that the substance of his films come to light. His identity is found in the nested layers of technique and formal strategy that govern the film. Soderbergh's attitude toward cinema is one of "problem-solving." He's interested in cinematic situations and possibilities, evocative gestures and ideas, how the form takes on a life of its own within the context of traditional styles, stories, and genres. He's not trying to film the next great American novel. He's akin to Brain DePalma as a commercial experimenter on genre and style (though I'm not a huge fan of DePalma's strategies). In other words, if you want Soderbergh to deliver a "great" film in the traditional sense, you'll never get it, and if you did, it would've been due to luck than deliberate purpose. Perhaps this makes Soderbergh a slight filmmaker compared to auteurs like Bergman and Godard, but I like him for this very fact of difference.

That's giving him more credit than he deserves (the bolded).

I would settle for a great genre film, but I don't feel he delivers that either (Soderbergh).

[Raiders]

The exception to this is King of the Hill. Seriously guys, it's terrific. See it already.

[Qrazy]

Not a fan of that sequence. It's dumb and looks cheesy as hell. I like his approach to the rest of the film though. Very unorthodox at the time and unexpected on the heels of the more conventionally slick/polished Ocean's Eleven.

Yeah, there's quite a bit of stylistic verve in the film (in the scene construction... less impressed by the cinematography), it's just so awful on a narrative/character level that I can't even look upon the other elements favourably.

[Qrazy]

The exception to this is King of the Hill. Seriously guys, it's terrific. See it already.

Meh, better than most of his films but still kind of blah.

[Raiders]

Meh, better than most of his films but still kind of blah.

Oh knock it off.

[Qrazy]

Oh knock it off.

Don't know what that means, as in don't have a genuine reaction based upon my own thoughts and feelings to the films I see? I started Mauvais Sang last night by the way and it's also shaping up to be a bad film.

[Izzy Black]

That's giving him more credit than he deserves (the bolded).

Really? I mean Brain DePalma actually shares somewhat of a similar (though more esteemed) reputation. He's a household name, but not exactly considered a cinematic titan in the vein of Bergman, or hell, even Scorsese.


I would settle for a great genre film, but I don't feel he delivers that either (Soderbergh).

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't consider Brain DePalma, for instance, a great "genre filmmaker." His a great filmmaker that works in genre, but for instance, one of his most interesting films, Snake Eyes, is by all standard accounts, a terrible, god-awful film. But if you're prepared to dismiss what DePalma's doing on these grounds, then don't bother wasting your time with him.

[Raiders]

Don't know what that means, as in don't have a genuine reaction based upon my own thoughts and feelings to the films I see? I started Mauvais Sang last night by the way and it's also shaping up to be a bad film.

I think you're genuine in your dislike/ambivalence, I just don't really understand what you do like.

But, for that I guess I need to watch Aleksei German.

[Qrazy]

Really? I mean Brain DePalma actually shares somewhat of a similar (though more esteemed) reputation. He's a household name, but not exactly considered a cinematic titan in the vein of Bergman, or hell, even Scorsese.

I'm saying I don't think he deserves the title of 'Brain'.


I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't consider Brain DePalma, for instance, a great "genre filmmaker." His a great filmmaker that works in genre, but for instance, one of his most interesting films, Snake Eyes, is by all standard accounts, a terrible, god-awful film. But if you're prepared to dismiss what DePalma's doing on these grounds, then don't bother wasting your time with him.

Not talking about Brian at all, I was saying that from Soderbergh I'm not expecting a Bergman/Fellini level film. I would be happy with a great genre film in the vein of a Jean Pierre Melville, Jonnie To, etc. But I don't think Soddy delivers that either.

[soitgoes...]

I started Mauvais Sang last night by the way and it's also shaping up to be a bad film.
Oh knock it off.

[Qrazy]

I think you're genuine in your dislike/ambivalence, I just don't really understand what you do like.

But, for that I guess I need to watch Aleksei German.

http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=2160

[Qrazy]

Oh knock it off.

Can't be helped!

[Izzy Black]

I'm saying I don't think he deserves the title of 'Brain'.

Oh, you're poking fun at my bad spelling. You big bastard.


Not talking about Brian at all, I was saying that from Soderbergh I'm not expecting a Bergman/Fellini level film. I would be happy with a great genre film in the vein of a Jean Pierre Melville, Jonnie To, etc. But I don't think Soddy delivers that either.

I think he comes close, but again, I don't think he really operates best in that mode of analysis.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah, there's quite a bit of stylistic verve in the film (in the scene construction... less impressed by the cinematography), it's just so awful on a narrative/character level that I can't even look upon the other elements favourably.

It's a film with an over-bloated sense of self-awareness, running cautiously alongside and against celebrity self-importance to the point of casual parody, resulting in situations of transparency and actor/personal breakdown that's central to Soderbergh. Does it work on its dramatic merits? I'd say probably not. But I relish in all the in-jokes, breezy pacing, chic style, and self-reference.

[Qrazy]

Oh, you're poking fun at my bad spelling. You big bastard.

:lol:


I think he comes close, but again, I don't think he really operates best in that mode of analysis.

He certainly has creative strengths which is why I keep coming back to his work he's just always disappointing me at the end of the day.

[Izzy Black]

Qrazy's a hater. A crank.

[Qrazy]

Qrazy's a hater. A crank.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj172/lnglgs/cranky.jpg

[StanleyK]

I found it to be quite a tedious affair lacking all of the formal elegance of Tarkovsky's adaptation. Soderbergh's film looks fine but no shot feels essential or integral the way Tarkovsky's camerawork functions so that worked to the film's detriment. It would be kinder to judge the film purely on it's own but as it exists as an adaptation of the same source material it's hard not to judge it comparatively.

A little late but I thoroughly disagree with you on Soderbergh's direction being tedious of functional. I love its emphasis on longer takes (not on a Tarkovsky level though, granted) and I think it is very smart about the composition of the elements in the shots. Although I'm not really sure what Israfel means by 'elegant', I could probably nominate many of the sequences from Solaris for this thread. I've cooled down a little on the film and agree somewhat on your complaints about Viola Davis and Clooney's too-quick switch to acceptance, but otherwise I still think it's among the best films from the 00's.

[Irish]

That's the common reaction to Soderbergh. But I look at him almost as an avant-garde filmmaker. Taken as traditional movies, they don't hold up well, and they will always fall short of standards of greatness. His stories don't conceal the substance of his films, though. It's the manner in which he evokes, relates, and comments on these stories formally that the substance of his films come to light. His identity is found in the nested layers of technique and formal strategy that govern the film. Soderbergh's attitude toward cinema is one of "problem-solving." He's interested in cinematic situations and possibilities, evocative gestures and ideas, how the form takes on a life of its own within the context of traditional styles, stories, and genres. He's not trying to film the next great American novel. He's akin to Brain DePalma as a commercial experimenter on genre and style (though I'm not a huge fan of DePalma's strategies). In other words, if you want Soderbergh to deliver a "great" film in the traditional sense, you'll never get it, and if you did, it probably would've been due more to luck than any deliberate purpose. Perhaps this makes Soderbergh a slight filmmaker compared to auteurs like Bergman and Godard, but I like him for this very fact of difference.

That's an interesting comparison, but at the same time I can't help but think "...Yeah but Carrie and Dressed to Kill are still better than anything Soderburgh has ever done."

Meaning, I don't understand why a guy polishes one aspect of his movies to a high sheen but almost completely ignores the other. It's kind of telling that some of the best things he's done (Traffic, Out of Sight, Ocean's 11) have been adapted from other sources.

In my mind this makes him half a moviemaker.

[Izzy Black]

That's an interesting comparison, but at the same time I can't help but think "...Yeah but Carrie and Dressed to Kill are still better than anything Soderburgh has ever done."

Meaning, I don't understand why a guy polishes one aspect of his movies to a high sheen but almost completely ignores the other. It's kind of telling that some of the best things he's done (Traffic, Out of Sight, Ocean's 11) have been adapted from other sources.

I think Traffic, Limey, Out of Sight and King of the Hill are as good as anything De Palma's done as far as "traditional" movies go.


In my mind this makes him half a moviemaker.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying Soderbergh doesn't make good movies, that his plot and stories don't matter and the only thing worth a damn in his movies is all formal. I'm saying that he hasn't made anything in the "traditional" sense that would rival, say, a Bergman film. It's not that he can't execute plot and story. To the contrary, I think he's a master of execution. I think his stories, however, tend to be plain, familiar, unoriginal, or not very exciting on their own and this is what holds him back from achieving "greatness" in terms of making a "great" film. But I think part of the reason for this is because Soderbergh isn't interested in the stories so much as what he can do with them. Again, I think he's more of a "problem solver" kind of filmmaker. I also think that he can and has produced films worthy of greatness, but it achieves this result not because the stories he tells are so compelling or interesting, but the way he engages these stories and scripted narrative elements formally allows complicated, interesting themes such as artistic truth and problems of personal, professional, and intellectual transparency to emerge. He's a very postmodern filmmaker in this way. His ideas come out through self-reflexive gestures and concepts, much like De Palma. And like De Palma, while Dressed to Kill, Carlito's Way, and Carrie might be his most regarded and enjoyable films in the traditional sense, I don't think his best work are the ones with great stories and style. They're films like Femme Fatale, Blow Out, and Body Double, where he's at his most experimental, and as an artist, his most personal (Carrie, for instance, is a rather impersonal film artistically.)

Basically what I'm trying to communicate here is not that Soderbergh isn't capable of greatness (if that were the case my efforts would seem rather counter-productive here), but that filmmakers like Soderbergh and De Palma might be better appreciated when looked at in a different light. Their films are very deceptive. As Hollywood filmmakers with standard mass marketing schemes and films with traditional plots and set-ups, you would guess that their films should be judged in the same way as any other Hollywood film. I don't fault the audience for this tendency, but I don't think it's the best approach. Bazarov on RT was the first to really point out how I wasn't fairly considering De Palma's work by drawing attention to his postmodern attributes. I used to really hate De Palma and would levy criticisms at him similar to those I've seen against Soderbergh, but now I've come to appreciate him, even if not to quite the extent as Soderbergh.

[Irish]

It's not that he can't execute plot and story. To the contrary, I think he's a master of execution. I think his stories, however, tend to be plain, familiar, unoriginal, or not very exciting on their own and this is what holds him back from achieving "greatness" in terms of making a "great" film.

I agree with bits of your post, but your statement here contains something of a contradiction. Basically, you're saying Sods could make a "great" film with a solid story but chooses not to due to postmodern sensibilities. I can't buy that, and I choke on the idea that these formalist elements elevate sloppy material to new heights, making it worth appreciating.

The skill of execution in things like Femme Fatale and Haywire can't make for problems that exist very oviously at a script level.

(Good read, though. I liked that post).

[Qrazy]

I think Traffic, Limey, Out of Sight and King of the Hill are as good as anything De Palma's done as far as "traditional" movies go.



I think you're missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying Soderbergh doesn't make good movies, that his plot and stories don't matter and the only thing worth a damn in his movies is all formal. I'm saying that he hasn't made anything in the "traditional" sense that would rival, say, a Bergman film. It's not that he can't execute plot and story. To the contrary, I think he's a master of execution. I think his stories, however, tend to be plain, familiar, unoriginal, or not very exciting on their own and this is what holds him back from achieving "greatness" in terms of making a "great" film. But I think part of the reason for this is because Soderbergh isn't interested in the stories so much as what he can do with them. Again, I think he's more of a "problem solver" kind of filmmaker. I also think that he can and has produced films worthy of greatness, but it achieves this result not because the stories he tells are so compelling or interesting, but the way he engages these stories and scripted narrative elements formally allows complicated, interesting themes such as artistic truth and problems of personal, professional, and intellectual transparency to emerge. He's a very postmodern filmmaker in this way. His ideas come out through self-reflexive gestures and concepts, much like De Palma. And like De Palma, while Dressed to Kill, Carlito's Way, and Carrie might be his most regarded and enjoyable films in the traditional sense, I don't think his best work are the ones with great stories and style. They're films like Femme Fatale, Blow Out, and Body Double, where he's at his most experimental, and as an artist, his most personal (Carrie, for instance, is a rather impersonal film artistically.)

Basically what I'm trying to communicate here is not that Soderbergh isn't capable of greatness (if that were the case my efforts would seem rather counter-productive here), but that filmmakers like Soderbergh and De Palma might be better appreciated when looked at in a different light. Their films are very deceptive. As Hollywood filmmakers with standard mass marketing schemes and films with traditional plots and set-ups, you would guess that their films should be judged in the same way as any other Hollywood film. I don't fault the audience for this tendency, but I don't think it's the best approach. Bazarov on RT was the first to really point out how I wasn't fairly considering De Palma's work by drawing attention to his postmodern attributes. I used to really hate De Palma and would levy criticisms at him similar to those I've seen against Soderbergh, but now I've come to appreciate him, even if not to quite the extent as Soderbergh.

I feel that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. And assuming that we on the site are like a general audience and just approach these films and filmmakers through a Hollywood lens. I think we well know that these filmmakers are a cut above the usual Hollywood piffle.

I for one approach them as filmmakers period. I judge their work in relation to what they accomplish therein. I love good genre cinema, I don't need intellectual depth to make a film worth watching. But what I dislike about De Palma is the utter cheesiness and leering quality apparent in so much of his work. This is a diffuse problem for him from the acting to his use of close-ups to general scene construction. His long shot tracking shots as well as his use of lighting in these shots are what make him vaguely tolerable for me. At times he'll also edit a sequence well or structure his film in a compelling manner. He is not devoid of merit certainly, but his weaknesses far outweigh his strengths when judging the gestalt of any given film (for me).

A film can be bad and still do a few things in a formally interesting manner. If your overall point is that we shouldn't pass value judgements on these films and filmmakers but should instead focus on their artistic strengths then fine, although I reserve the right to criticize these filmmakers when they fall short to me.

Postmodern attributes do not make a work inherently interesting. I see De Palma's awareness of the narrative conceits of his storytelling. I see the little self-reflexive thought bubbles and in that sense he is clever but in another more immediate sense he is deeply stupid and his films convey this.

[B-side]

It's safe to say people like Izzy and I place much more importance on form than narrative or traditional characterization, whereas you seem to be the opposite, Irish.

[Izzy Black]

I feel that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. And assuming that we on the site are like a general audience and just approach these films and filmmakers through a Hollywood lens. I think we well know that these filmmakers are a cut above the usual Hollywood piffle.

I for one approach them as filmmakers period. I judge their work in relation to what they accomplish therein.

I think interpreting any filmmaker, let alone a very complicated director like Steven Soderbergh, is a very challenging task. There are many ways of thinking about film, talking about form and content, and translating an artist's work and trying to gather their meaning. Some filmmakers can be best understood in certain contexts and with certain considerations, some in others. I am not condescending to any audience by suggesting alternative possibilities or ways of interpreting Soderbergh. If you've already considered the suggestions I've put forth, then that's fine, but as I said above, it took me a while to think my way around De Palma, so it's possible others might benefit from an alternative lens with respect to Soderbergh.


I love good genre cinema, I don't need intellectual depth to make a film worth watching. But what I dislike about De Palma is the utter cheesiness and leering quality apparent in so much of his work. This is a diffuse problem for him from the acting to his use of close-ups to general scene construction. His long shot tracking shots as well as his use of lighting in these shots are what make him vaguely tolerable for me. At times he'll also edit a sequence well or structure his film in a compelling manner. He is not devoid of merit certainly, but his weaknesses far outweigh his strengths when judging the gestalt of any given film (for me).

I won't defend De Palma here as it exceeds the scope of my present purposes, and I've only just recently come around to his work. I can only say that I disagree with your analysis. My intent of bringing him into the discussion assumes some appreciation for his work. If you don't value his work much, ignore the reference.


A film can be bad and still do a few things in a formally interesting manner. If your overall point is that we shouldn't pass value judgements on these films and filmmakers but should instead focus on their artistic strengths then fine, although I reserve the right to criticize these filmmakers when they fall short to me.

I'm not trying to stifle you from your critical rights, even if I am trying to suggest some alternative critical tools. My claim is not that one shouldn't pass judgment on Soderbergh. My claim is to consider him in a different light and to suggest alternate possibilities for appreciating his work. It may do you no good. He may still disappoint. That's fine. But so far in this thread, the kind of criticisms most of you have been levying I think miss the mark in capturing what Soderbergh is all about.


Postmodern attributes do not make a work inherently interesting. I see De Palma's awareness of the narrative conceits of his storytelling. I see the little self-reflexive thought bubbles and in that sense he is clever but in another more immediate sense he is deeply stupid and his films convey this.

I disagree about De Palma (I don't think he's at all "deeply stupid"), but I haven't suggested that postmodern attributes are inherently interesting. I've only suggested that they be taken into consideration, where in some cases, particularly in Soderbergh's case, I find they're often overlooked, missed, downplayed, or misinterpreted.

[Izzy Black]

I agree with bits of your post, but your statement here contains something of a contradiction. Basically, you're saying Sods could make a "great" film with a solid story but chooses not to due to postmodern sensibilities. I can't buy that, and I choke on the idea that these formalist elements elevate sloppy material to new heights, making it worth appreciating.

I'm not saying he chooses not to make a great film. I'm saying he hasn't yet (of the so-called kind) mostly in part because the stories that he tells are typically plain or unexciting. They don't really lend themselves to greatness. The problem isn't his execution, then (in my view). But I also don't think he wants or needs a great script to make a great film. That's because I don't think he's very interested in story so much as he is in the process. This is what I mean by a "problem-solving" filmmaker.


The skill of execution in things like Femme Fatale and Haywire can't make for problems that exist very oviously at a script level.

It's not merely skill of execution, but the manner of execution - the mode of execution. It's the way Soderbergh evokes that I find interesting. It's not a merely a matter of skill where there's a scale from 1 to 10 and Soderbergh gives it an 8.5. It's the way that he goes about his business that certain themes are able to emerge from his work. It speaks to his artistic integrity as a filmmaker. He finds his identity and personal voice in evocation, in formal exercise and experiment, and in his cinematic concerns, preoccupations, and gestures. It's not merely about formal execution. It's also about formal expression. This is what I'm interested in with Soderbergh.


(Good read, though. I liked that post).

Thank you! And thanks for the exchange and feedback.

[Qrazy]

Personally I approach all art intuitively first and foremost. If it does not work for me on an aesthetic level no amount of analysis in regards to how the themes play off the form and vice versa will help the film.

I guess you don't really want to talk about De Palma but I'll just give one example and then we can return to Soderbergh or what have you.

nSXhnSMz2z0

I actually think Carlito's Way has some things going for it and it may even be one of De Palma's better films (which isn't saying much to me) but as a representation of his style, even here in this opening scene I'm already turned off by the film. This flatly lit close-up of Pacino with some terrible slow motion added, an oppressive score, then pushing in from a close-up to an extreme close-up and a zoom on a blatantly obvious sign slash metaphor. It's just ugh.

[soitgoes...]

Best De Palma.

[Qrazy]

I'm not trying to stifle you from your critical rights, even if I am trying to suggest some alternative critical tools. My claim is not that one shouldn't pass judgment on Soderbergh. My claim is to consider him in a different light and to suggest alternate possibilities for appreciating his work. It may do you no good. He may still disappoint. That's fine. But so far in this thread, the kind of criticisms most of you have been levying I think miss the mark in capturing what Soderbergh is all about.


Okay but I don't know what this means in relation to criticism. I do not care what he is all about. I am not going to criticize his work in relation to his strengths. I am going to criticize his failings. For instance in regards to Solaris those two performances and some of the character motivations. I could get more in depth as to why I don't find the film visually compelling (not that it's ugly but just that I don't find it as visually purposive as I would like to see) but I would have to do it on a scene by scene or shot for shot basis and I don't really have the energy for it.

[Izzy Black]

Personally I approach all art intuitively first and foremost. If it does not work for me on an aesthetic level no amount of analysis in regards to how the themes play off the form and vice versa will help the film.


I find this a strange view. I would be surprised if you never changed your opinion about an artwork. You might reply that it's only changed because, some how, intuitively or the feeling aroused by the artwork changed. But I think it's a mistake to assume that there's no connection, or that there's not often a connection, between thought and affective reactions. Beliefs, for instance, affect emotion, and if that's right, so does knowledge. How you interpret any language, whether cinematic or written, can change how you feel. There's a strong cognitive component to emotional reaction that must be considered.

It really irks me that film discussion is nothing more than a sounding off of opinions; nothing more, or little more, in effect, than voting 'like' or 'dislike' on a youtube video. I want to believe that there's a collaborative effort, at least at some level, at understanding, and in understanding, comes greater appreciation of not just any given film or director, but of the medium as a whole.

[Qrazy]

Best De Palma.

There's also almost zero sense of geography to the scene. And then we could justify that in relation to the fact that he's been shot and dying and disoriented and how this plays out in relation to the end of the film but frankly FUCK that. Pulling the camera back a bit and giving more visual context, content and creativity to this sequence would not harm any of those things in my opinion.

[Izzy Black]

I actually think Carlito's Way has some things going for it and it may even be one of De Palma's better films (which isn't saying much to me) but as a representation of his style, even here in this opening scene I'm already turned off by the film. This flatly lit close-up of Pacino with some terrible slow motion added, an oppressive score, then pushing in from a close-up to an extreme close-up and a zoom on a blatantly obvious sign slash metaphor. It's just ugh.

It's a bit melodramatic, but I don't sense the formal violence that you do.

[Izzy Black]

There's also almost zero sense of geography to the scene. And then we could justify that in relation to the fact that he's been shot and dying and disoriented and how this plays out in relation to the end of the film but frankly FUCK that. Pulling the camera back a bit and giving more visual context, content and creativity to this sequence would not harm any of those things in my opinion.

Maybe not (it could be better), but it's not clear what's obviously so bad with it either.

[Izzy Black]

Okay but I don't know what this means in relation to criticism. I do not care what he is all about. I am not going to criticize his work in relation to his strengths. I am going to criticize his failings. For instance in regards to Solaris those two performances and some of the character motivations. I could get more in depth as to why I don't find the film visually compelling (not that it's ugly but just that I don't find it as visually purposive as I would like to see) but I would have to do it on a scene by scene or shot for shot basis and I don't really have the energy for it.

What you find visually purposive is motivated, at least in part, by certain aesthetic principles, concepts, or ideas. I've been suggesting ways that one might find his visuals more purposive. I've particularly stressed this in my discussion of Haywire.

[Qrazy]

I find this a strange view. I would be surprised if you never changed your opinion about an artwork. You might reply that it's only changed because, some how, intuitively or the feeling aroused by the artwork changed. But I think it's a mistake to assume that there's no connection, or that there's not often a connection, between thought and affective reactions. Beliefs, for instance, affect emotion, and if that's right, so does knowledge. How you interpret any language, whether cinematic or written, can change how you feel. There's a strong cognitive component to emotional reaction that must be considered.

I change my opinion about an artwork as I change (more so when I was younger in relation to now because I'd seen fewer films and had less of a sense of what I liked etc), but it's still an intuitive response first and foremost. I can then dissect after the fact why I had that intuitive response (perhaps I did not like the acting in a scene, a motivation was undercooked, a shot felt too dark, etc) but the response for me is felt before it is intellectualized. For instance I'm currently watching Mauvais Sang and my reaction is 'Ugh, this film is trying to be cute but it is merely irritating me'. Example: I'm sure many of you laughed and enjoyed the scene where he's trying to get her to laugh with magic tricks, but to me it was deeply obnoxious.


It really irks me that film discussion is nothing more than a sounding off of opinions; nothing more, or little more, in effect, than voting 'like' or 'dislike' on a youtube video. I want to believe that there's a collaborative effort, at least at some level, at understanding, and in understanding, comes greater appreciation of not just any given film or director, but of the medium as a whole.

It's both. It's both value judgements and analysis and sometimes the two are intertwined and sometimes not. I would not begrudge anyone the right to write a lengthy article about De Palma's pet themes and formalisms and how they relate. I would probably even find the article interesting but it would not make me like his films more because my dislike does not stem from a lack of appreciation of the talents he does possess as a filmmaker (and he does have some).

[Qrazy]

Maybe not (it could be better), but it's not clear what's obviously so bad with it either.

I don't know how to clarify why I feel that it's bad, other than that I don't find the shots convey much nuance. Perhaps you could provide me with an example of a shot that you think is bad and how you would describe why it's bad and I could go from there.

[Pop Trash]

I think Soderbergh's early commentary tracks sealed the deal with me being a fan of his. I learned a lot about filmmaking from those in my formative years. The only film I actively dislike by him (that I've seen) is Erin Brockovich.

[Qrazy]

What you find visually purposive is motivated, at least in part, by certain aesthetic principles, concepts, or ideas. I've been suggesting ways that one might find his visuals more purposive. I've particularly stressed this in my discussion of Haywire.

I find something visually purposive in so far as it is semiotically tight. The shot is rich with information and it comments upon what came before and what is coming after both thematically and aesthetically. By rich with information I don't even mean full of objects with clear thematic purpose, it could be an effective close-up at the right time with the right use of light capturing an essential emotion from a character.

For example, at the end of Tarkovsky's Solaris Kelvin comes up to the window and we see the rain falling inside the house as he moves towards the window and smoke behind him. Then he gets to the window and cut to his dad being rained on inside, then back to him, he moves away and towards the entrance to the house cut to a wide angle and he collapses in front of his father... camera pulls back and back. No dialogue. It's a powerful scene. The corresponding scene in Soderbergh's Solaris is mid-shots and close-ups between a kid and Clooney as they grab each other's hands and before that a close-up of Clooney's hand and then his face as he realizes his cut healed immediately. There is so much needless information here (too many shots, too many cuts and frankly a rather cliched use of a child as this stand in for a return to innocence/supernatural power) and these shots (for instance the close-up of the hand) could have appeared in any film. There is nothing integral about any of it.

[B-side]

It really irks me that film discussion is nothing more than a sounding off of opinions; nothing more, or little more, in effect, than voting 'like' or 'dislike' on a youtube video. I want to believe that there's a collaborative effort, at least at some level, at understanding, and in understanding, comes greater appreciation of not just any given film or director, but of the medium as a whole.

:)

This is why I overuse qualifiers when assessing a film. I don't like to take firm stances on a piece of art. How I process that art is ever-changing, and my thoughts and feelings towards a certain piece of art are constantly being morphed and manipulated by new information and ideas. I don't feel I ever really know an artist or their work, I just come at it from a certain direction, and sometimes that direction is conducive to praise and other directions may not be. I don't look at a single shot very often and think, "gee, that's really bad." Rather, I think, "hm, I wonder how this relates to the overarching themes of the work, the prior images, the artist's previous or upcoming work, etc." Even a seemingly tedious close-up can carry so much more weight and nuance with a little more understanding or simply a different set of contextual guidelines.

[Izzy Black]

It's both. It's both value judgements and analysis and sometimes the two are intertwined and sometimes not. I would not begrudge anyone the right to write a lengthy article about De Palma's pet themes and formalisms and how they relate. I would probably even find the article interesting but it would not make me like his films more because my dislike does not stem from a lack of appreciation of the talents he does possess as a filmmaker (and he does have some).

Seems to me that it does. The level of your dislike is calibrated by the level of his talent. Right?

[Pop Trash]

Qrazy is mostly upset by modern cinema's lack of fisheye.

[Izzy Black]

I don't know how to clarify why I feel that it's bad, other than that I don't find the shots convey much nuance. Perhaps you could provide me with an example of a shot that you think is bad and how you would describe why it's bad and I could go from there.

I think that strategy might be a little to general to be useful here.

[Qrazy]

Seems to me that it does. The level of your dislike is calibrated by the level of his talent. Right?

Well talent isn't a binary scale. De Palma is talented at long shots, tension building through editing (mostly by mimicking Hitchcock's approach) and overall story structure. He's incredibly untalented at knowing when to ease off on music, on abusing stylistic excess (such as slo-mo) resulting in cheesiness, his use of close-ups, and his overall dramatic direction (which is not to say he doesn't get good performances but I find a lot of his drama stilted).

[Izzy Black]

I think Soderbergh's early commentary tracks sealed the deal with me being a fan of his. I learned a lot about filmmaking from those in my formative years. The only film I actively dislike by him (that I've seen) is Erin Brockovich.

Likewise (at least in part). Watching more of his oeuvre, hearing his own views, and hearing thoughts from peers is what has shaped my view of Soderbergh.

[Qrazy]

:)

This is why I overuse qualifiers when assessing a film. I don't like to take firm stances on a piece of art. How I process that art is ever-changing, and my thoughts and feelings towards a certain piece of art are constantly being morphed and manipulated by new information and ideas. I don't feel I ever really know an artist or their work, I just come at it from a certain direction, and sometimes that direction is conducive to praise and other directions may not be. I don't look at a single shot very often and think, "gee, that's really bad." Rather, I think, "hm, I wonder how this relates to the overarching themes of the work, the prior images, the artist's previous or upcoming work, etc." Even a seemingly tedious close-up can carry so much more weight and nuance with a little more understanding or simply a different set of contextual guidelines.

The gestalt is more important than the individual pieces but you also have to remember that the gestalt is constructed with those pieces.

[B-side]

... gestalt... gestalt...

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Miscellaneous/gestapo-paris.jpg

[Izzy Black]

Well talent isn't a binary scale. De Palma is talented at long shots, tension building through editing (mostly by mimicking Hitchcock's approach) and overall story structure. He's incredibly untalented at knowing when to ease off on music, on abusing stylistic excess (such as slo-mo) resulting in cheesiness, his use of close-ups, and his overall dramatic direction (which is not to say he doesn't get good performances but I find a lot of his drama stilted).

You've said your dislike of him doesn't stem from a lack of appreciation of his talents. I think that it does.

The problem here is that you think that when I say that people are missing what Soderbergh's about, that's irrelevant, because the problem are his weaknesses and not his strengths. But what I'm saying is that a fuller, more accurate appreciation of his strengths, of his real strengths, will perhaps help absolve or mitigate what are perceived as his weaknesses.

[Qrazy]

I liked Soderbergh quite a lot when I was getting into film first year of undergrad. I've now seen the following. I cooled on him over time. I just don't feel he's on the level of even say the second tier directors. I'd probably put him on the third tier, in the top 400 directors or something. He's not bad but his work just doesn't measure up for me at this point.

The Informant! (2009)
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Solaris (2002)
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Traffic (2000)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
The Limey (1999)
Out of Sight (1998)
Schizopolis (1996) (uncredited)
King of the Hill (1993)
Kafka (1991)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)

[B-side]

I've considered doing an auteur spotlight on Soderbergh for one of the blogs I contribute to.

[Izzy Black]

:)

This is why I overuse qualifiers when assessing a film. I don't like to take firm stances on a piece of art. How I process that art is ever-changing, and my thoughts and feelings towards a certain piece of art are constantly being morphed and manipulated by new information and ideas. I don't feel I ever really know an artist or their work, I just come at it from a certain direction, and sometimes that direction is conducive to praise and other directions may not be. I don't look at a single shot very often and think, "gee, that's really bad." Rather, I think, "hm, I wonder how this relates to the overarching themes of the work, the prior images, the artist's previous or upcoming work, etc." Even a seemingly tedious close-up can carry so much more weight and nuance with a little more understanding or simply a different set of contextual guidelines.

My approach is similar. To me, art is a form of communication, one that requires constant negotiation, interpretation, translation, analysis, feeling, observing, sensing, listening, watching, and understanding.

[Izzy Black]

I liked Soderbergh quite a lot when I was getting into film first year of undergrad. I've now seen the following. I cooled on him over time. I just don't feel he's on the level of even say the second tier directors. I'd probably put him on the third tier, in the top 400 directors or something. He's not bad but his work just doesn't measure up for me at this point.


We've tallied your opinion. :)

[B-side]

At least now we're all aware that Soderbergh and De Palma aren't on the same tier as Alexei German.

[Izzy Black]

I've considered doing an auteur spotlight on Soderbergh for one of the blogs I contribute to.

Cool man! I've gotten really into Soderbergh the past couple of years or so. I really like him. He's one of my favorite Americans. I still have my reservations with him (he can be lazy), and I hate that he's trying to retire, but I still really like him a lot.

[Qrazy]

The problem here is that you think that when I say that people are missing what Soderbergh's about, that's irrelevant, because the problem are his weaknesses and not his strengths. But what I'm saying is that a fuller, more accurate appreciation of his strengths, of his real strengths, will absolve what are perceived as his weaknesses.

Yes I know that you think this, I think that what you think is wrong. ;) What are these real strengths that will absolve my perception of his weaknesses? Out of Sight is according to you his best film and that sequence is Hollywood's most elegant sequence from the last 15 years. I am not impressed by it but I'm curious how you will convince me that I should be.

I mean what you're really saying is 'I really like this, I don't understand how others couldn't. I will have to explain to them why it's good and if they don't agree then at that point it's because they haven't gotten my argument, not because they fundamentally disagree.'

[Qrazy]

At least now we're all aware that Soderbergh and De Palma aren't on the same tier as Alexei German.

I'm glad you're keeping track of my rankings because I don't pay any attention to yours. Or perhaps it's because you don't have any, you're too busy whispering sweet nothings into these films ears as you try to caress and explore their innermost secrets.

[Sven]

I think Soderbergh's interesting, but Bubble definitely ranks high on my list of movies I will never see again because they are so very very bad.

[B-side]

I'm glad you're keeping track of my rankings because I don't pay any attention to yours. Or perhaps it's because you don't have any, you're too busy whispering sweet nothings into these films ears as you try to caress and explore their innermost secrets.

I have a very private relationship with my impossibly obscure film loves. A plebeian like you just wouldn't understand.

[Izzy Black]

Yes I know that you think this, I think that what you think is wrong. ;) What are these real strengths that will absolve my perception of his weaknesses? Out of Sight is according to you his best film and that sequence is Hollywood's most elegant sequence from the last 15 years. I am not impressed by it but I'm curious how you will convince me that I should be.

If you're right here, I'm not sure it's worth the effort! (Why argue at all?)

And Out of Sight isn't his best film. I think it's among his best work, though.


I mean what you're really saying is 'I really like this, I don't understand how others couldn't. I will have to explain to them why it's good and if they don't agree then at that point it's because they haven't gotten my argument, not because they fundamentally disagree.'

That's not right. I haven't reached the point of disagreement in a lot of cases. If people get what I'm saying about Soderbergh and think it's wrong, that's fine. But film analysis can help people see things they didn't see, consider ideas, viewpoints, perspectives, and interpretations they'd never considered. I believe those interpretations, that information, can impact the way people think and feel. Some people approach filmmakers with frustration, because they want to appreciate them, or understand what others find in them that's so great. I've tried to offer a different way of approaching or interpreting Soderbergh. If people don't respect it, fine. But do I think that it can be helpful? Well, I do, at least for some people, even if not you, because I know that it was a new interpretation of De Palma, for instance, that helped me appreciate and understand him. The same is true for many of my favorite filmmakers, artists, songs, bands, or what have you. My interpretation of various artworks, echoing B-Side, has been shaped and informed by my increased interaction with friends, acquaintances, professors, mentors, and the culture at large.

[Qrazy]

If you're right here, I'm not sure it's worth the effort! (Why argue at all?)

And Out of Sight isn't his best film. I think it's among his best work, though.



That's not right. I haven't reached the point of disagreement in a lot of cases. If people get what I'm saying about Soderbergh and think it's wrong, that's fine. But film analysis can help people see things they didn't see, consider ideas, viewpoints, perspectives, and interpretations they'd never considered. I believe those interpretations, that information, can impact the way people think and feel. Some people approach filmmakers with frustration, because they want to appreciate them, or understand what others find in them that's so great. I've tried to offer a different way of approaching or interpreting Soderbergh. If people don't respect it, fine. But do I think that it can be helpful? Well, I do, at least for some people, even if not you, because I know that it was a new interpretation of De Palma, for instance, that helped me appreciate and understand him. The same is true for many of my favorite filmmakers, artists, songs, bands, or what have you. My interpretation of various artworks, echoing B-Side, has been shaped and informed by my increased interaction with friends, acquaintances, professors, mentors, and the culture at large.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome your analysis, commentary and discussion upon any and all filmmakers. And please continue with it! All I meant is that when you make a statement such as...


A fuller, more accurate appreciation of his strengths, of his real strengths, will absolve what are perceived as his weaknesses.

That suggests that people who are less fond of the work are less fond because they do not properly understand it. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a freshman undergrad student who's favorite film was Donnie Darko. I told him I wasn't a fan and why I wasn't a fan and his response was 'well it's a very complex film, you might get it if you watched it again'.

[Qrazy]

I have a very private relationship with my impossibly obscure film loves. A plebeian like you just wouldn't understand.

I rue the day I ever took you under my cinematic mentor wing on RT.

http://www.impawards.com/1986/posters/little_shop_of_horrors_ver2_xl g.jpg

^ This movie is based upon our story.

[B-side]

Sorry, I only watch Soviet Union-era Estonian musicals featuring sly subversive commentary on the Nazi occupation.

[Qrazy]

Sorry, I only watch Soviet Union-era Estonian musicals featuring sly subversive commentary on the Nazi occupation.

Should prob update your sig then... :lol:

[elixir]

Sorry, I only watch Soviet Union-era Estonian musicals featuring sly subversive commentary on the Nazi occupation.

Mean Girls (Mark Waters | 2004 | USA/Canada) re.
Jackass: The Movie (Jeff Tremaine | 2002 | USA) re.
Mirror Mirror (Tarsem Singh | 2012 | USA)
more like mainstream american flicks, amirite?

edit: goddammit qrazy!!!

[Irish]

Sorry, I only watch Soviet Union-era Estonian musicals featuring sly subversive commentary on the Nazi occupation.

:lol: You're on a roll tonight.

(that "gestalt" post was priceless.)

[B-side]

You guys are totally misreading it. My sig is itself a commentary on the forlorn American dream.

[B-side]

:lol: You're on a roll tonight.

(that "gestalt" post was priceless.)

I'll be here all night.

Or until this download of Jackass 2 finishes.

#heirstotheviennaactionists

[Qrazy]

Yeah, the actualization of Godwin's Law is always a laugh riot. Ha. ha. ha...

[Izzy Black]

That suggests that people who are less fond of the work are less fond because they do not properly understand it. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a freshman undergrad student who's favorite film was Donnie Darko. I told him I wasn't a fan and why I wasn't a fan and his response was 'well it's a very complex film, you might get it if you watched it again'.

Well, he might be right! But no, I don't always think it's the case that a proper understanding will lead to appreciation, since it may still be a bad film, but I certainly think that a proper understanding can lead to greater appreciation.

[B-side]

Yeah, the actualization of Godwin's Law is always a laugh riot. Ha. ha. ha...

I hope you know I wasn't insinuating you were being out of line or anything. I just kept thinking "gestapo" every time you said "gestalt."

[Qrazy]

I hope you know I wasn't insinuating you were being out of line or anything. I just kept thinking "gestapo" every time you said "gestalt."

I assumed you were just posting it because gestalt is a German term...

[Irish]

Iz, can you indulge me a bit? Taking a look at the clip you posted of Out of Sight, how it apply to what you've been saying?

(I'm mostly looke for a more concrete example that illustrates your take here).

[Qrazy]

Well, he might be right! But no, I don't always think it's the case that a proper understanding will lead to appreciation, since it may still be a bad film, but I certainly think that a proper understanding can lead to greater appreciation.

And you'll be the arbiter of this then? As to who does and does not possess the proper understanding? Sounds like a sweet job, are you accepting applications?

[B-side]

I assumed you were just posting it because gestalt is a German term...

Can't it be both? Maybe I also thought you were being a total ersatz Nazi? Can't comprehend the layers.

[Irish]

I hope you know I wasn't insinuating you were being out of line or anything. I just kept thinking "gestapo" every time you said "gestalt."

That's why it was funny! :lol:

Personally, it struck me as a very Chico Marx kind of joke to make.

[Qrazy]

Can't it be both? Maybe I also thought you were being a total ersatz Nazi? Can't comprehend the layers.

Ultimately I just figured you didn't know what the word meant or why I was using it. Also you know I'm Jewish right? Maybe you should stop before you continue to compare me to Nazis.

[B-side]

That's why it was funny! :lol:

Personally, it struck me as a very Chico Marx kind of joke to make.

I'm kind of a big deal, Irish. Hop on board. We'll have some fun.


Ultimately I just figured you didn't know what the word meant or why I was using it.

Ouch. That really hurt, man. Implying I wouldn't take the 5 seconds to click on the Dictionary tab on my browser and get the definition. You really don't think much of me, do you?

[B-side]

Also you know I'm Jewish right? Maybe you should stop before you continue to compare me to Nazis.

Wouldn't that only make it funnier?

[Qrazy]

I'm kind of a big deal, Irish. Hop on board. We'll have some fun.



Ouch. That really hurt, man. Implying I wouldn't take the 5 seconds to click on the Dictionary tab on my browser and get the definition. You really don't think much of me, do you?

I did until you started eating everyone I know. /shopofhorrors

[Izzy Black]

And you'll be the arbiter of this then? As to who does and does not possess the proper understanding? Sounds like a sweet job, are you accepting applications?

In my opinion, Soderbergh is a misunderstood filmmaker. So is De Palma. To some extent, so is Antonioni and Godard. I also think a lot of people give bad interpretations of films. Like Pulp Fiction for example. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. What of it?

[Qrazy]

Wouldn't that only make it funnier?

If Jackass The Movie is your yardstick for hilarity then sure.

[Izzy Black]

Iz, can you indulge me a bit? Taking a look at the clip you posted of Out of Sight, how it apply to what you've been saying?

(I'm mostly looke for a more concrete example that illustrates your take here).

It's getting close to that time. Perhaps I'll come back in tomorrow and flesh out some examples.

[B-side]

If Jackass The Movie is your yardstick for hilarity then sure.

I won't conform to your PC government standards, bro. I'm outside your comfort zone, and I speak the truth, Ruth. Can't shackle me, Qray-zee.

[Qrazy]

In my opinion, Soderbergh is a misunderstood filmmaker. So is De Palma. To some extent, so is Antonioni and Godard. I also think a lot of people give bad interpretations of films. Like Pulp Fiction for example. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. What of it?

Meh, I can feel in my gut that if we continue down this road we'll arrive very shortly at a conversation about the relative subjectivity of art so let's just call it a day on that front and you hand me a job application.

[Irish]

It's getting close to that time. Perhaps I'll come back in tomorrow and flesh out some examples.

Very cool. Looking forward to it.

[Izzy Black]

Meh, I can feel in my gut that if we continue down this road we'll arrive very shortly at a conversation about the relative subjectivity of art so let's just call it a day on that front and you hand me a job application.

We've already been dancing around it. I think there are shared standards of analysis and judgment that put a limit on what we can say about things. I can't be justified in saying, for instance, Pulp Fiction is about aliens on Mars. It's just wrong. I sense you leaning more on the other end, even if not radically so.

[Qrazy]

We've already been dancing around it. I think there are shared standards of analysis and judgment that put a limit on what we can say about things. I can't be justified in saying, for instance, Pulp Fiction is about aliens on Mars. It's just wrong. I sense you leaning more on the other end, even if not radically so.

We've already had this discussion so many times in the past though, don't really think it's worth rehashing. In regards to philosophy discussions on movie forums we're basically the old married couple of the community.

Which reminds me that we are supposed to be reading Jaspers.

[Izzy Black]

We've already had this discussion so many times in the past though, don't really think it's worth rehashing. In regards to philosophy discussions on movie forums we're basically the old married couple of the community.

:)


Which reminds me that we are supposed to be reading Jaspers.

Yes, yes. We should do that.