MatchCut Link Dump: Articles, Reviews and Other Film-Related Oddities in Written Word

[Derek]

In an attempt to make finding those links to interesting blog articles and reviews much more manageable and convenient, here's a thread to drop them so we don't have to sift through 15 pages of the FDT just to find them.

No rules, no polls, just links. Add spoiler warnings if possible, but posters should keep in mind that a majority of critical analyses have spoilers by nature, so keep yer whining to a minimum. Clicker beware. :)

[Ezee E]

So, basically, Rowland's thread?

[Kurosawa Fan]

So, basically, Rowland's thread?

You beat me, and probably many others, to this one. Nicely done.

[Rowland]

I would have taken your recommendation Derek, you didn't have to do the honors. :)

Anyway, I'll repost the Oscar Symposium link:

Kim Morgan, Dennis Cozzalio, Nick Davis, and other bloggers veer an Oscar discussion panel into all-out war over the merits of Juno. (http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Awards/2007/oscar_symposium4.html) The rest is worth reading as well if this sort of thing interests you.

[Benny Profane]

In an attempt to make finding those links to interesting blog articles and reviews much more manageable and convenient, here's a thread to drop them so we don't have to sift through 15 pages of the FDT just to find them.



If the links in the FDT are hard to find, so are all the actual reviews by matchcutters. By your logic the whole FDT should be dissolved. That is something I would agree with, by the way.

[Ezee E]

If the links in the FDT are hard to find, so are all the actual reviews by matchcutters. By your logic the whole FDT should be dissolved. That is something I would agree with, by the way.
The thought has come before, and failed miserably.

I'm one of the supporters of FDT. No need for a 30 extra threads that only get one or two responses at the most.

[Benny Profane]

The thought has come before, and failed miserably.

I'm one of the supporters of FDT. No need for a 30 extra threads that only get one or two responses at the most.

OK fine if you disagree, but this thread just feels like something that is way out of context. What happens when this gets 20 pages long and too difficult to navigate? At least when there are separate threads you can use the search function and find what it is you're looking for rather easily.

[Derek]

OK fine if you disagree, but this thread just feels like something that is way out of context. What happens when this gets 20 pages long and too difficult to navigate? At least when there are separate threads you can use the search function and find what it is you're looking for rather easily.

Spinal and other mods have reminded posters countless times to post reviews in film-specific threads to move discussion there. I feel their pain b/c I made this thread for the purpose of posting links, yet 5 of the 6 posts include none. I realize this group, myself included, has the need to dissect and argue over eeeeeverything, but really this thread's not unnecessary and won't get difficult to navigate if pointless posts are kept to a minimum. It can work if MatchCutters follow the simplest of freakin' instructions and, ya know, only post in here when they have a link. Think of this as an appendix to the FDT, not a place for additional discussion. It will only become useless once it's abused, which I now realize is absolutely inevitable.

[/high horse and breaking own rule by posting without a link :)]

[Bosco B Thug]

Bright Lights Film Journal: Naomi Watts: Cinema's Postmodern Mother of Mirrors (http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/59/59naomi.html)

Pretty good article, sheds some light on The Ring, King Kong, and Eastern Promises, all of which I agree do some interesting things with Watts' ostensibly pleasant "pretty blonde" characters (distancing/intimating techniques and critical-ironic treatments/make-overs).

[Ezee E]

I would have taken your recommendation Derek, you didn't have to do the honors. :)

Anyway, I'll repost the Oscar Symposium link:

Kim Morgan, Dennis Cozzalio, Nick Davis, and other bloggers veer an Oscar discussion panel into all-out war over the merits of Juno. (http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Awards/2007/oscar_symposium4.html) The rest is worth reading as well if this sort of thing interests you.
The whole thing is a pretty good read. Seems like something Match Cut would do if we were more reknowned journalists.

[Raiders]

Seems like something Match Cut would do if we were more reknowned journalists.

Seems like something we should do. Though really, I guess the forum aspect of the site sort of makes it something we already do.

[Ezee E]

I wouldn't mind doing it. Although, when posted, I would think that not many would read it if it was too long, and we already know everyone's opinion on certain movies.

I guess we could always give it a try still.

[Izzy Black]

Bright Lights Film Journal: Naomi Watts: Cinema's Postmodern Mother of Mirrors (http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/59/59naomi.html)

Pretty good article, sheds some light on The Ring, King Kong, and Eastern Promises, all of which I agree do some interesting things with Watts' ostensibly pleasant "pretty blonde" characters (distancing/intimating techniques and critical-ironic treatments/make-overs).

Interesting enough read, but semiotic analyses are dwindling fast in filmic criticism in the wake of post-theorist like Bordwell, and perhaps for good reason too.

[Bosco B Thug]

Interesting enough read, but semiotic analyses are dwindling fast in filmic criticism in the wake of post-theorist like Bordwell, and perhaps for good reason too.
I wish I understood what you are talking about... :P No snark directed at you, really! I'm not too familiar with branches of analyses, the state of it now, all that jazz... I always seem to have to look up "semiotics" whenever the word's used here. I usually confuse it with "epistemology."

I think I'm a fan of "semiotics," though... why do you say it's dwindling?

[Dillard]

Bright Lights Film Journal: Naomi Watts: Cinema's Postmodern Mother of Mirrors (http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/59/59naomi.html)Question concerning the article: What is it about Watts' "girl/deer in the headlights" that gives us a greater sense of this fear of absence than does any number of other big actors/actresses? I guess I would say that we have the fear of absence concerning any main actor/actress, even though we identify with their personas in different ways.

Question for mods (or whoever): Should I start a new thread with this response? Was there a consensus on what we should do w/non-link posts in this thread?

[Ezee E]

That Naomi Watts article... I read it, and don't quite understand what it's trying to say. Overwritten and lacking focus, especially when discussing her latter roles, one of which the author even says he will not be watching.

[dreamdead]

Entertainment Weekly's Top 100 Worst Oscar snubs (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20007870_20164474_20178653, 00.html?iid=top25-20080219-Biggest+Oscar+snubs+ever%3A+No s%2E+100%2D76)(countdown starts today). Could be interesting as a source of discussion.

[Rowland]

Top Ten Shots of 2007:

Part I (http://www.incontention.com/2008/02/the_top_10_shots_of_2007_part. html)
Part II (http://www.incontention.com/2008/02/the_top_10_shots_of_2007_part_ 1.html)

[Watashi]

Love that Atonement shot.

[Velocipedist]

The Control shot is grating, just like the entire movie.

[Sycophant]

The L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan writes about what each best picture nominee represents (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-turanoscars24feb24,1,5200723.s tory).

[Sycophant]

Interesting article (http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/03/digging-into-ne.html) by Anne Thompson on New Line's downfall, which links to two other interesting articles.

That New Line sold off foreign territories for The Golden Compass does strike one as a pretty bad decision.

[lovejuice]

The L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan writes about what each best picture nominee represents (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-turanoscars24feb24,1,5200723.s tory).

strange that he thinks of movies only within movie culture context kinda like saying Moore's palm d'or is nothing but "documentary over fiction". (it's unfortunately "politics over art.")

juno, i think, represents rebellious teenage attitude more than just another small movie that could. the same goes for michael clayton and heavily celebritized liberalism. there will be blood is a grim self-criticize of capitalism.

[Rowland]

strange that he thinks of movies only within movie culture context kinda like saying Moore's palm d'or is nothing but "documentary over fiction". (it's unfortunately "politics over art.")

juno, i think, represents rebellious teenage attitude more than just another small movie that could. the same goes for michael clayton and heavily celebritized liberalism. there will be blood is a grim self-criticize of capitalism.He's talking about what message each movie winning would project onto the industry. The article is specifically about Hollywood politics, not the movies on their own terms.

[lovejuice]

He's talking specifically about what message each movie winning would project onto the industry. The article is specifically about Hollywood politics, not the movies on their own terms.

i understand that, but don't you think, it'll be more interesting to consider movies in the larger context of society. i don't mean to trash the article, but this reminds me of ebert's comment that there's no business like show business, and it's the only business that never tires of reminding you so. when a movie wins such a well-known award like the oscar -- i'll say, it's the second most celebrated award only to nobel prize -- it comments more than just the industry.

on the other hand, it's just too easy and plain wrong, if someone says stuff like juno's winning encourage teen pregnancy.

[Sycophant]

on the other hand, it's just too easy and plain wrong, if someone says stuff like juno's winning encourage teen pregnancy.Well, let me disagree. This year, the local high school isn't selling overpriced chocolate for its fundraising. It's a knockup-a-thon. A Juno-themed knockup-a-thon.

I was so ecstatic that the film won best screenplay, that I impregnated a teenager myself.

[Sycophant]

Joel Stein (who I kind of love) has written an excellent piece on how awesome George Clooney (who I--along with everyone else who is human--totally love) is. Good read (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1714996-1,00.html).

[Sven]

Joel Stein (who I kind of love) has written an excellent piece on how awesome George Clooney (who I--along with everyone else who is human--totally love) is. Good read (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1714996-1,00.html).

That "last movie star" malarkey is obnoxious.

[lovejuice]

Joel Stein (who I kind of love) has written an excellent piece on how awesome George Clooney (who I--along with everyone else who is human--totally love) is. Good read (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1714996-1,00.html).

good, now i know i'm cyborg.

[Duncan]

On why I'm Not There is the worst film of the year. (http://nplusonemag.com/?q=worst-movie-2007)

[Spinal]

On why I'm Not There is the worst film of the year. (http://nplusonemag.com/?q=worst-movie-2007)

Yes, yes, yes. Many great points in there. Several of which I made (albeit less eloquently) a couple weeks ago.

[Duncan]

Yes, yes, yes. Many great points in there. Several of which I made (albeit less eloquently) a couple weeks ago.

I like the film a lot, but for some reason I'm remembering it less and less favorably. I remember at the time that I found it breezy and funny. Maybe that feeling is wearing off. And that article is very strongly argued.

[Spinal]

And that article is very strongly argued.

In a testy restaurant scene with another couple, Robbie decides to become needlessly contrarian and argue the essential superiority of men to women. This alienates a friend who's "really into women's lib." (The gesture is typical of the film's ethos: a political movement is name-checked, rather than depicted.) Robbie mutters in response, "I've said it before: there are no politics." The friend cries, "Then what the fuck else is there?" Gnomically, after a series of Dylanesque hand gestures, Robbie says: "Sign language." It's a typically stupid, intentionally frustrating answer, of the sort that Dylan has produced by the boatload, but Haynes's film does nothing but dumbly approve it. This is Bob Dylan; Bob Dylan is a genius. Meanwhile it's hard to muster much support for the film's more politically minded characters, because the film never admits that politics exist.

Particularly like this bit.

[Sven]

For those of you like me who can't get enough Herzog or Morris (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200803/?read=interview_herzog).

[Qrazy]

On why I'm Not There is the worst film of the year. (http://nplusonemag.com/?q=worst-movie-2007)

No, no, no, the author of that presumes to know more about Haynes and Dylan than Haynes presumes to know about Dylan or Dylan presumes to know about the Time reporter. The guy is clearly not a Dylan fan, and he doesn't need to be but he lets his distaste for the artist cloud his perception of the film presented.

"The recreated scenes of I'm Not There stem from Haynes's guiding assumption that Dylan is transcendence itself, so manifestly a god that any attempt to pin him down (even with six Hollywood stars) will end in failure.

---

It's a typically stupid, intentionally frustrating answer, of the sort that Dylan has produced by the boatload, but Haynes's film does nothing but dumbly approve it. This is Bob Dylan; Bob Dylan is a genius."

Neither of these interpretations are evidenced in the film. They are preconceptions of Haynes intentions. Haynes recognizes Dylan's character flaws repeatedly. He is not deified, he is humanized and even in six different incarnations. This is to reaffirm his individuality, not to negate it. Above and beyond the social roles he is shoe-horned to fit... myth, poet, rockstar... he is a human being.


"Haynes steals techniques from Godard (e.g., slogans appear on the screen accompanied by gunshots), and this only helps remind us that Godard actually lived in the '60s, while Haynes pathetically wishes that he did."

The author presumes to know what it is Haynes actually desires based on his art? This is precisely what the film and Dylan were railing against. Dylan often did so in an egoistic, insulting fashion but this does not de-legitimize his central frustration.

Furthermore, the film is about historicity. It is only natural then that it employs stock and well known footage from Vietnam and elsewhere. Why is it stock and how did it become well known? Because it was seen over and over again. It has taken on a collective social meaning as well as an individual meaning and both meanings can be commented upon and elucidated and Haynes does exactly this in the film. Bergman, Fellini and Godard are borrowed from in an open fashion. This is a trait of postmodern cinema. The issue is not one of thievery because the thievery is acknowledge. The question becomes is the thievery useful for the themes, aesthetic and content of the film? The answer, very much so.

[Rowland]

Walter Chaw writes an alarmingly positive review for The Brave One (http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/butcherbrave.htm), convincing me to give it a shot after all.

[Sven]

Walter Chaw writes an alarmingly positive review for The Brave One (http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/butcherbrave.htm), convincing me to give it a shot after all.

Yeah. I said "screw it" to all the nay-sayers, watched it, and loved it quite a bit.

[Rowland]

Yeah. I said "screw it" to all the nay-sayers, watched it, and loved it quite a bit.This was the last nudge of encouragement I needed, thanks.

[Sven]

This was the last bit of encouragement I needed, thanks.

I think Chaw gets it right when he talks about viewers not being appropriately atune to his fantastical visions. He says "comic-book style", "dreamscape", and "expressionistic", which I rarely saw applied to this movie (despite those ideas being very prevalent in a lot of criticism about Jordan's other films).

[Rowland]

I think Chaw gets it right when he talks about viewers not being appropriately atune to his fantastical visions. He says "comic-book style", "dreamscape", and "expressionistic", which I rarely saw applied to this movie (despite those ideas being very prevalent in a lot of criticism about Jordan's other films).Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on In Dreams? I noticed Chaw off-handedly refer to it in the review as one of Jordan's best movies, which sparks my curiosity.

[Watashi]

Chaw is fucking nuts sometimes.

But I guess the greats make mistakes too.

The fact that iosos loves the film too makes me question the existence of God.

[Raiders]

Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on In Dreams? I noticed Chaw off-handedly refer to it in the review as one of Jordan's best movies, which sparks my curiosity.

I'm a pretty big Jordan fan, and he does his best with that film, but among his best films? Hardly.

[Sven]

I love In Dreams. It's probably among my five favorites of his. It's an incredible visual nightmare: sumptuous, horrifying, resonant. It's totally illogical and bonkers, but that just compounds the surreality.

[transmogrifier]

After reading White's rant against Funny Games, if I were Haneke I would be quietly whispering to myself, mission accomplished. God, White is a complete incompetent.


Michael Haneke claims modern sophistication but proves he’s a sadistic fraud in an American adaptation of his own film
By Armond White

Funny Games
Directed by Michael Haneke

Slasher movie fans exhibit better taste and higher standards when they scream or cheer at horror fare than Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke does. By transferring the setting of his 1997 film Funny Games to the United States, Haneke makes a tasteless and revolting miscalculation. (Apparently, America is only for Americans)

It’s the story of a well-to-do nuclear family, George (Tim Roth), Anna (Naomi Watts) and their 10-year-old son, George Jr. (Devon Gearhart), who are besieged in their lakeside summer home by two blond, gay serial killers, Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet)—and it's conceived to raise hackles. As art, it's Haneke’s comment on the inevitable (or deserved (where does White infer this from? Seems to me he is inventing fake motivation) violence in upper-class life. As entertainment, its scenes of the family’s dehumanization come to a literal dead-end. Haneke confirms he is a Eurotrash art fraud.

It is this new American context that vitiates any family or class critique Haneke intended to make. The obscenity of what happens to George, Anna and their son goes far beyond political rhetoric or moral satisfaction. Although derived from the siege situations memorably played out in The Desperate Hours, Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs, or John Brahms’ agreeably hokey 1967 feature Hot Rods to Hell, Haneke’s film refuses the cathartic release of those earlier movies (Really? I would have thought that is the entire point of the exercise?). The particular greatness of Straw Dogs was in Peckinpah exercising recognizable social tensions surrounding sex, imperialism and machismo (How?) Straw Dogs triggered the American appetite for justice or kick-ass resolution and then—masterfully—scrutinized it (How?). Only people without Peckinpah memories will buy Haneke’s specious claim to modern sophistication (In what way does he make this claim? Especially as it is a remake of a 10-year-old film).

When the psychotic Paul occasionally looks into the camera and addresses the audience—as if asking its permission to continue his malicious assault (again, kind of the point, don't you think?)—the postmodern routine doesn’t work as a critique of bloodlust. It’s just deconstructionism for art-house pseuds (this sentence is the intellectual version of a McDonals cheeseburger - empty calories). The spectacle of watching a family pointlessly (I thought that we were arguing that Haneke had an unjustified point, rather than none at all?) violated (George is wounded, Anna is forced to strip, the son is suffocated—and that’s only the midpoint) is a sadistic endeavor that says nothing about Western cultural habits (Was it meant to? Care to join the dots for us?). It’s merely Haneke’s twisted idea of art. Imagine Neil LaBute with film craft—yet that still doesn’t justify Funny Games.

From the first tense, deliberate shots of a car pulling a boat along a tree-lined highway seen overhead (like De Palma? Kubrick? O.J.? (Hang on? All over head shots are now the copyrighted domain of two directors or a horribly outdated cultural reference?)), it’s clear that things will not turn out well. We’re being set up for some kind of portentous massacre. If Haneke was the genius social critic he’s been celebrated as, this remake would have been re-titled as “Fun and Games”—wittily mocking his own misanthropy (How so? I seriously cannot see the difference here). But the dreadfully unfunny events (Oh MY GOD!!) Haneke indulges don’t even relate to Socialist schadenfraude (It also doesn't relate to mildly amnemic automechanics, nor wry discombobulation while we at it). Haneke’s previous film, Cache, an exploitation of media naiveté and French racism (How?), was typically hailed for “Scrape[ing] away at the surface of polite European affluence to lay bare the moral rot beneath.” But that hoary cliché ignores Haneke’s offensive methods, which brings us back to the matter of his arty Eurotrash techniques. (Which he's now not going to discuss, conveniently enough)

Restaging Funny Games in America reveals the snobbery in Haneke’s thinking. He tries to subvert the film-going niceties of identifiable characters and traditional morality—standards that today’s critics (Who?) perversely denounce in favor of frankly unwatchable films (Like what?). Here, Haneke even employs the help of American indie director Lodge Kerrigan whose deadened style (Clean, Shaven; Claire Dolan) lacks the energy of Saw, Hostel or even Last House on the Left—vulgar entertainments that facilitate catharsis (Oh dear God, make it stop).

Suppressing the audience’s emotional outlet is an illegitimate tactic that Haneke links to his specious artistic purpose (Care to explain a single syllable of this sentence?). When Anna cries out, “Why don’t you just kill us?” Paul answers, “You shouldn’t forget the importance of entertainment.” (I guess not) Paul’s shallow irony is Haneke’s odious attempt at cultural commentary (One may argue that shallow irony IS cultural commentary. Or one may just string together random words in the hope of sounding remotely coherent). It goes against the grindhouse reflex. If you’ve lost the confidence to reject Haneke’s highbrow European sadism, you’re left to endure a repellent relay of atrocities: The father fumbles with a dead cell phone. Anna briefly runs off but finds no help. George, Jr. momentarily escapes only to wander to an unfamiliar estate; then he to defend himself with an unloaded shotgun.(These are atrocities? Don't we see them in EVERY SINGLE THRILLER EVER MADE ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME? Isn't it interesting how these same conventions have been redeployed against us? I guess not?) Instead of pulling a rug from under your expectations (We expect everyone to die a horrible death, then?) Haneke continuously slams a door in your face.

Haneke’s cruelest, chicest ploy comes when Paul taunts Anna to pray. She doesn’t know how, but the serial killer does; rigging her in a pathetic, supplicating position so that Haneke can dare a God-is-dead provocation. This hopeless message is now fashionable among the movie-culture elite (Hey, a neat little straw man to fill in space). That explains the critics’ dismissal of Neil Jordan’s The Brave One, which explored human connection and the nature of vengeance in the post-9/11, post-feminist world (I'm sure it does, completely and without any possibility of it being anything else at all). It’s also why the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men is willfully trivialized as a horror-comedy (...by?); critics misinterpret the ending as nihilistic, deliberately (really? How could you possibly even pretend to know this?) overlooking the spiritual hope expressed in Tommy Lee Jones’ wry concluding dream. Paul’s demand that Anna and George gamble on their fate recalls the Coens’ superior moment when Kelly Mcdonald rejects Anton Chigurh’s wager as phony existentialism. Haneke’s two-hour gambit is similarly perverse (As what? The wager? I thought you were praising that? As the phony existentialism? Better writing would help)

Even the actors (Actually as it turns out, he's only talking about two of them, but what's a little hyperbolae among friends?) are sickening. Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet’s smiling creeps seem spawned from their previous repugnant movies Bully and Mysterious Skin—still blurring the line between gay and homicidal (!). Young Gearhart’s abused trembling is unsettling to watch. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts prove their skill by vivifying (He's apparently up to V in his dictionary - see vitiate above) their characters’ limited emotional scale (the shocking range between distraught and terrified). Watts’ participation as the film’s producer is especially troubling. Cultural critic Richard Torres cited political bias in the non-American family and American killers casting; it suggests political reasons why Watts would commit herself to a project no more serious than The Ring even more repulsive (How? For the love of God, please throw us a bone here). But we also need to question a culture that encourages such degradation. (Indeed. In fact, there's a movie you should watch that investigates this. It's called Funny Games)

What was the purpose of Haneke doing his own shot-by-shot remake? A genuine artist would rethink his material (like John Ford developing Judge Priest into The Sun Shines Bright), but Haneke polishes the same old crap: blond Nazi boys in white gloves and tennis shorts. Emphasis on the banality of TV noise. Off-screen violence with hyped-up sound effects. And a repeat of the much-discussed remote-control effect where Paul rewinds then replays the film itself, apparently to ensure viewers the degradation Haneke thinks they desire. There’s no outwitting the villain, no restoration of social order. In toto: It’s the ugliest movie experience since Twentynine Palms—another misjudged, American-set Euro-debauch. The only ambiguity in Funny Games lies in who’s most abused here, the characters or the audience? (OH MY GOD)

[Raiders]

I actually agree with some one his criticisms (of the original anyway), but what's with the constant berating of European art? I lost count of the number of times he fondled the phrase "Euro-trash" or something similar.

[Rowland]

An Armond White dismissal shouldn't be deemed a validation. Funny Games is still naive, hectoring trash.

[Ezee E]

I actually fully agree with him on this paragraph:

What was the purpose of Haneke doing his own shot-by-shot remake? A genuine artist would rethink his material (like John Ford developing Judge Priest into The Sun Shines Bright), but Haneke polishes the same old crap: blond Nazi boys in white gloves and tennis shorts. Emphasis on the banality of TV noise. Off-screen violence with hyped-up sound effects. And a repeat of the much-discussed remote-control effect where Paul rewinds then replays the film itself, apparently to ensure viewers the degradation Haneke thinks they desire. There’s no outwitting the villain, no restoration of social order. In toto: It’s the ugliest movie experience since Twentynine Palms—another misjudged, American-set Euro-debauch. The only ambiguity in Funny Games lies in who’s most abused here, the characters or the audience?

But completely disagree with him on Watts as producer as part of some hidden political agenda of hers.

I'm going to see the remake, solely for the performances, and how the audiences react to it. It'll be like rewatching it, but on the big screen. I like his compositions and visuals, so it works out well.

[Derek]

There needs to be a thread where Armond's reviews get transmogrifier'd to the eXtreme every week. That review was far better with the comments than it would've been without.

[Sven]

I think you focus too much on him needing to describe why he cites certain films as counter-points. It's something every critic ever does. It's not something I necessarily condone, but to condemn someone for it is to condemn everyone for it.

You point out some interesting things. But so does he.

[Qrazy]

I think you focus too much on him needing to describe why he cites certain films as counter-points. It's something every critic ever does. It's not something I necessarily condone, but to condemn someone for it is to condemn everyone for it.

You point out some interesting things. But so does he.

I think Trans point is that he rarely justifies his comparisons. He name drops more than anything.

[Sven]

I think Trans point is that he rarely justifies his comparisons. He name drops more than anything.

I agree that he name drops, probably excessively, but I see reason behind his droppings.

...

That came out wrong.

[Sycophant]

I agree that he name drops, probably excessively, but I see reason behind his droppings.

...

That came out wrong.:lol:

I don't read White religiously like I do some other critics, but I read him quite a bit. His perspective on a lot of things is truly interesting, but my problems with him tend to come down to his readiness to reduce.

[Sven]

but my problems with him tend to come down to his readiness to reduce.

... doesn't everyone but the staunchest of culture theorists do that, though? We all have expectations of what cinema should be and do for us (it's constantly evolving, just like the rest of our opinions). I'm not in favor of reductionism, but I think most criticism is masked in pretty reductive terms. Rarely do I come across reviews or thoughts focusing on film as theoretical or political artifacts, and often the discerning comments are pretty streamlined when focusing about craft as well. Think of the last time you read a blurb on this site (that wasn't about Juno) that focused on the screenwriter. Or the editing of a picture. Match Cut is a pretty great place to go for recommendations and entertaining discourse with smart, funny people, but most of us are very director-centric and view films more or less on a scale of their success as a thoughtful entertainment (depending of respective criteria of what that may be). Certainly, this is pretty narrow.

[Rowland]

Asia Argento Rising (http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0812,asia-argento-rising,381173,20.html)

Kudos to Nathan Lee for recognizing what a stimulating and fascinating director/actress she is. :cool:

[Spinal]

Asia Argento Rising (http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0812,asia-argento-rising,381173,20.html)

Kudos to Nathan Lee for recognizing what a stimulating and fascinating director/actress she is. :cool:

Yes! And that first line is hilarious.

[Sven]

Yeah, I will admit, I have given myself over to the school of Asia. Fun piece.

[Spinal]

This article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88591800) on the legacy of Long Duk Dong is pretty good reading. The actor who portrayed him is now 52!

[Rowland]

This article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88591800) on the legacy of Long Duk Dong is pretty good reading. The actor who portrayed him is now 52!This reminds me that Walter Chaw, a Chinese American, hates Sixteen Candles with a passion, for the very reasons described in this article.

[Rowland]

Christopher Orr of The New Republic, irritated by trailers that give away the entire movie, decides to review 21 (that Las Vegas movie with Spacey and Sturgess) solely on the basis of its trailer as an experiment. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ee49a324-1054-4a7e-b269-4753c6de1994)

[lovejuice]

Christopher Orr of The New Republic, irritated by trailers that give away the entire movie, decides to review 21 (that Las Vegas movie with Spacey and Sturgess) solely on the basis of its trailer as an experiment. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ee49a324-1054-4a7e-b269-4753c6de1994)

i don't know. to be fair, i think, it's the problem with the movie being cliche rather than the trailer giving out too much.

[Qrazy]

http://grunes.wordpress.com/category/100-greatest-films/

A bunch of top 100's by Grunes from different regions around the world. I can't speak to the quality of many of the films having not seen them, but those I have seen are usually fairly good to excellent and he certainly puts thought and energy into his comments, so that's something. Some of his attitudes seem fairly random and absolutely inexplicable to me... i.e. his hatred for Annie Hall yet utter praise for Zelig... or his hatred of 8 1/2 but love of And the Ship Sails On... which leave me wondering if much of his canon isn't semi-reactionary... but still plenty of quality capsule reviews and lots of recs for lesser known films and director's.

[Sven]

http://grunes.wordpress.com/category/100-greatest-films/

Very cool! Thanks for the link.

As for me, I've honestly never comprehended the praise for Annie Hall, though I don't hate it. I think it's the "meh"est of his popular films, however, and find Zelig to be ten times better.

[Qrazy]

Very cool! Thanks for the link.

As for me, I've honestly never comprehended the praise for Annie Hall, though I don't hate it. I think it's the "meh"est of his popular films, however, and find Zelig to be ten times better.

Hrm, personally I find it to be his most cinematically revolutionary work. While I prefer Manhattan, his formal and narrative approach to Hall was immensely innovative and has become a cornerstone of filmic narrative technique ever after... in terms of emulation and homage at least. While Zelig might be funnier in a transient sense, Hall has dramatic depths and resonance which Zelig doesn't even attempt.

But anyway, I can understand being lukewarm as you are to the film, but the guy's disdain seems to come way out of left field for me... but then again I'm sure others feel the same about my disdain for Vivre sa vie and Autumn Sonata. I suppose everyone's entitled to an individual dislike of a handful of the main stays of the canon.

[Sven]

Hrm, personally I find it to be his most cinematically revolutionary work. While I prefer Manhattan, his formal and narrative approach to Hall was immensely innovative and has become a cornerstone of filmic narrative technique ever after... in terms of emulation and homage at least. While Zelig might be funnier in a transient sense, Hall has dramatic depths and resonance which Zelig doesn't even attempt.

How on Earth is the humor in Zelig "transient"? Plus, I think you vastly discredit Zelig's tragic and social currents (either that or you're overcrediting Hall's love-'em-lose-'em simplicity).

I don't much care for Great Cornerstones of Cinema, because more often than not, what we think introduced something into the mix merely popularized it. Innovation is one thing, but reputation is not something I find inherently positive.


But anyway, I can understand being lukewarm as you are to the film, but the guy's disdain seems to come way out of left field for me... but then again I'm sure others feel the same about my disdain for Vivre sa vie and Autumn Sonata. I suppose everyone's entitled to an individual dislike of a handful of the main stays of the canon.

Oh, word to this, though. La Notte can kiss my ass.

[Spinal]

I definitely find more dramatic depth and resonance in Zelig than I do Annie Hall, but to each his own.

[Qrazy]

How on Earth is the humor in Zelig "transient"? Plus, I think you vastly discredit Zelig's tragic and social currents (either that or you're overcrediting Hall's love-'em-lose-'em simplicity).

I don't much care for Great Cornerstones of Cinema, because more often than not, what we think introduced something into the mix merely popularized it. Innovation is one thing, but reputation is not something I find inherently positive.



Oh, word to this, though. La Notte can kiss my ass.

Transient in that I probably laughed harder during it than Hall but Hall develops it's characters, narrative, themes and ideas much more deeply than Z so it stays with me and affects me much more. I like Z but like most of his more slapstick works (primarily earlier), it's cinematically much less interesting to me than his middle period.

It's not the reputation that is inherently positive, I'm saying the film has that reputation and that influence for a reason, because it has a superb narrative structure.

La Notte hate is unacceptable, you will be forced at gunshot to pick another canon fodder film to disdain. :P

[Sven]

It's not the reputation that is inherently positive, I'm saying the film has that reputation and that influence for a reason, because it has a superb narrative structure.

You don't think Zelig has a superb structure or has been as influential?

[Qrazy]

You don't think Zelig has a superb structure or has been as influential?

Not really, I think it's adequate, but mostly I just think the camera work, character, narrative and thematic development are far below that of Annie Hall. I like the film a lot but I find the individual moments in Annie Hall all reflect purposively on the story being told (beyond just the narrative), while with Zelig the individual moments lack that sense of purpose in it's constituent parts to the greater whole. I suppose that's why I find it weaker.

[Sven]

Not really, I think it's adequate, but mostly I just think the camera work, character, narrative and thematic development are far below that of Annie Hall.

Yep. Don't get it. Oh well. I'll let this one lie.

[Qrazy]

Yep. Don't get it. Oh well. I'll let this one lie.

There's too much extraneousness to so many moments of the film. I suppose in all my favorite films I look for a very tight semiotic arrangement, basically purposiveness (although not necessarily minimalism). Zelig covers a ton of ground and covers it well but it covers so much ground that it doesn't cover any of it with particular precision.

[Spinal]

There's too much extraneousness to so many moments of the film. I suppose in all my favorite films I look for a very tight semiotic arrangement, basically purposiveness (although not necessarily minimalism). Zelig covers a ton of ground and covers it well but it covers so much ground that it doesn't cover any of it with particular precision.

Even that doesn't really jive with my experience of the film. I thought Zelig was very spare in terms of it's comedic thrust and was all the more potent for it. I like Zelig because it's a focused effort. It commits to a witty premise and executes it masterfully. Annie Hall is a very good movie, but it's also a precursor to the cutesy Charlie Kaufman "oh-so-adorable" self-referential stuff that I find kind of tiresome.

[Qrazy]

Even that doesn't really jive with my experience of the film. I thought Zelig was very spare in terms of it's comedic thrust and was all the more potent for it. I like Zelig because it's a focused effort. It commits to a witty premise and executes it masterfully. Annie Hall is a very good movie, but it's also a precursor to the cutesy Charlie Kaufman "oh-so-adorable" self-referential stuff that I find kind of tiresome.

I'm talking purely in formal (primarily visual) storytelling while I think you're talking more tonally (in this case humor).

Opening of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUW8JsLDsNo

There's just so much filler in there, the B role in effect becomes the A role for this type of a film. We get tons of crowd inserts, establishing shots, etc, etc. It's certainly funny and it captures the various eras Zelig travels through relatively well, but with Annie Hall (and with most films I feel are great) I'll look at a shot and think yeah, this was the best choice of shot for the scene... where here I feel that the majority of the shots could be shuffled and rearranged in a different manner, or replaced or been filmed slightly differently without harming the film at all... perhaps making it slightly better even.

[Spinal]

Hmmm ... yeah, I don't tend to really care about shot selection with something like a Woody Allen film. Just not something I'm looking for in that particular case.

[Sven]

Hmmm ... yeah, I don't tend to really care about shot selection with something like a Woody Allen film. Just not something I'm looking for in that particular case.

Well, plus, it's hard to compare footage when the creations are so diverse. One is trying to replicate a news reel, the other is trying to replicate an autobiography.

[Qrazy]

Well, plus, it's hard to compare footage when the creations are so diverse. One is trying to replicate a news reel, the other is trying to replicate an autobiography.

I don't think so. I once did a shot by shot analysis for school of the entirety of Citizen Kane and nearly everything in that opening newreel footage is incredibly purposive on a variety of levels.

[Sven]

I don't think so. I once did a shot by shot analysis for school of the entirety of Citizen Kane and nearly everything in that opening newreel footage is incredibly purposive on a variety of levels.

I contest that the newsreel in Citizen Kane does not look like a newsreel at all, but rather, an artful reconstruction of one. Which is cool. There's a difference between utilizing form and constructing form.

But perhaps "news reel" is not what I mean, because Zelig's length is greater than that of a reel. I don't know. I thought it was fine its mimicry of an average news documentary.

[Sven]

In a related note, I find Grunes to be a good, though not terribly penetrative writer. I admire his appreciation of OC and Stiggs, but his lack of even mentioning Melvin Van Peebles is telling of a certain placidity.

[Raiders]

We should just all agree The Purple Rose of Cairo is Allen's best film and move on.

[dreamdead]

We should just all agree The Purple Rose of Cairo is Allen's best film and move on.

Or Love and Death. Lordy, I've watched that one more than any film since Lady and the Tramp's childhood viewings.

[Qrazy]

We should just all agree The Purple Rose of Cairo is Allen's best film and move on.

That's just crazy talk, Gordon Willis slept walked through that one.

[Raiders]

That's just crazy talk, Gordon Willis slept walked through that one.

OK. I thought the lighting and framing was just fine for the visuals, and I quite loved the set and art direction. I point this out since you seem to be suggesting I was speaking only in visual terms. I think it is all around his best film, not necessarily best in any one department.

[Qrazy]

OK. I thought the lighting and framing was just fine for the visuals, and I quite loved the set and art direction. I point this out since you seem to be suggesting I was speaking only in visual terms. I think it is all around his best film, not necessarily best in any one department.

Meh, it just meanders along, never really developing any drama, pathos or interest. Manhattan, Crimes, Annie Hall, Broadway Danny Rose and Hannah are all exponentially better, while Stardust Memories, Bananas, Love and Death, Take the money and Run, Interiors, and Sleeper are more interesting as well. Frankly I was relatively uninterested in Purple Rose actually, it was OK in that Woody running wild with a singular idea kind of way he does sometimes (Everything you wanted to know about sex, New York Stories, Zelig, What's up Tiger Lily), but I don't really have any interest in ever seeing it again.

[Boner M]

http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/APRIL/ericbanamovie.jpg

This and more at Vern's (http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/APRIL/VernBlog.html) new blog.

[Duncan]

Very lengthy interview with Andrei Tarkovsky (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/interview.html). Lots of other great stuff on that site.

[lovejuice]

classic video game and movie (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.WBwgtgameblog03 0120080328141929/WBStory/WBwgtgameblog0301)

this might fit better in the video game thread, but read on through the comments. it's pretty insightful about how "average joe" think that classic movies can age.

[Rowland]

This and more at Vern's (http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/APRIL/VernBlog.html) new blog.Well, it's not really his new blog, the entire page and idea was a joke. And a fucking hilarious one at that... I hope some people besides you and I read it.

[Boner M]

Well, it's not really his new blog, the entire page and idea was a joke. And a fucking hilarious one at that... I hope some people besides you and I read it.
I nearly threw up from laughing at the 'torture porn' entry.

[Duncan]

Errol Morris has this blog called Zoom (http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/play-it-again-sam-re-enactments-part-one/index.html)over at the New York Times. It's not updated very often, but when it is it's almost always interesting.