28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[DFA1979]

You know what movie doesn't get enough MC appreciation?

Wet Hot American Summer

That movie is wonderful.

[DFA1979]

It makes me really happy that trans likes Fight Club (and correctly calls it a comedy).

[

Show Spoiler

One of my favorite jokes that most people miss is at the end when the narrator repeats what he said at the beginning of the film, but says it differently, and Tyler says "Ah, flashback humor", acknowledging the difference. I also look at that part as the movie admitting the narrator's possibly flawed memory or version of events. I love that.

]

Now you make me want to view my copy again. I don't recall that part.

Also I like baby doll more than Armond White, although White for all the trolling he does is a good writer when he cares to be. I recall reading and enjoying one of his essays that he did for a Criterion release (I can't remember which one).

[megladon8]

That movie is wonderful.

It forever changed Jefferson Starship's Jane for me.

[baby doll]

Look closer at the other work Verhoeven and Eszterhas produced during that decade, both alone and together. I think that's a much better indication of where their artistic heads were at.

These are not subtle filmmakers. They have no use for heddy themes. If they have something they want to say, they'll slap the audience in the face with it (eg: the so-called satire of "Starship Troopers," or the sexual politics in "Jagged Edge"). If they happen to pick up thematic baggage that makes them look smart and stylish, they will happily claim it as their own invention. (See also: the entire career of George Romero, or going the other way, the current pseudo-controversy around "Nomadland.")

I haven't seen "Boogie Nights" since it premiered, but from memory it travels to one or two dark places with some of its characters, particularly Heather Graham and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I agree it has a more sentimental tone, but I can't say it doesn't comment on its premise and setting because ...

I don't think you can produce work that doesn't contain implicit commentary. Eg: War films will always say something about state sponsored killing from the go. A sex film in the most commercial city in the world can't help but comment on sex and commerce.

Boogie Nights travels to some dark places with its characters but a critique of the porn industry--or show business and capitalism more broadly--is not one of them. In fact, the film seems to go to great lengths to avoid going there. If the characters suffer, it's because they get hooked on coke, alienate their friends by acting like jerks, are socially ostracized by normies for working in porn, busted for child porn, cuckolded, impotent, secretly gay, or some combination thereof; having sex with strangers on film for money is the least of their worries, and the audience for their films is largely kept off screen. In short, the porn industry is merely a backdrop for the characters' personal problems. I can't go into specifics with Showgirls because I haven't seen it in over a decade but it seems to me that the film tackles these issues in a very direct way--and apparently Noël Burch (!) agrees with me, although I haven't yet been able to track down the article where he claims that it "takes mass culture seriously, as a site of both fascination and struggle" and uses melodrama as "an excellent vehicle for social criticism."

It's glib and reductive of me to frame your argument this way, but I read this (below) as a sorta "girl power" nod:

> it's a movie in which the representatives of patriarchal order come out looking far less appealing than the destabilizing feminine other.

I don't think that's true, because of authorial intent, and I think this argument is only possible in the present of 2021. I also think that on a story level, it doesn't work out, because the ending of the film is a narrative wash, with no clear resolution. The movie doesn't take a stance on the fundamental questions it raises, so how can the audience? If you think the woman come out better than the men, I can't really argue because of the way the movie is structured. But the reverse is then also true. I can walk out thinking Michael Douglas is King Cock of the World, who really stuck it to that bitch Stone, and the text won't refute me.

Manohla Dargis made a similar point in 1992, although in her reading of the film Stone's charisma unambiguously triumphs over script and direction:

From the butt-naked, uptight posturing of Michael Douglas’s cop... to his character's limp dyke-baiting, rarely had masculinity seemed so ludicrous, so ill at ease. Had ever a movie this tumescent oozed this much male anxiety? Slick and overdetermined, this picture was so far out of control it got snatched by snatch. From reel one Stone owned Basic Instinct. She took it away from Douglas and made it hers, and in the process rewrote Joe Eszterhas's misogynist tripe start to finish. It was, indeed, a performance worthy of all the great divas from Davis to Dietrich, who year in and year out turned man-made trash into gold, and yet another lesson in how complicated movies really are.

Where I differ with Dargis is that I don't think the film is out of control or that Stone is working against either the script or Verhoeven's direction. The final sequence is brilliant because it sustains the tension between masculine order and female anarchy that animates the film by undercutting the ostensive victory of the Douglas character: not only does he not catch the murderer, but his phallic victory over Stone (only apparently domesticated in the final scene) is only provisional and could be reversed at any second with the threat of castration remaining ever-present.

This reads like a handy dodge for forgiving narrative shortcomings in any film. ("Well, if you accept the logic of Freddy Got Fingered, then ..."). I'm being facetious but you get the idea.

PS: I like that "Shanghai" reference.

PPS: Telekinesis is plausible in "Carrie's" world with a single moment where the audience suspends its disbelief. There is no amount of disbelief that solves the narrative problems in "Femme Fatale." You can only ignore them and ride the technicals, BDP's mastery of form --- or in an extreme case such as this, actually credit them to DePalma as intentional.

The issue, as I see it, is whether abandoning plausibility makes a particular film more or less interesting. In this case, while the absence of characters and narrative plausibility is arguably a loss, it makes possible gains in other areas that are for me compensation enough. In other words, one kind of coherence (formal) subordinates and deforms another (logical); as in Mulholland Dr., the less the film makes logical sense the more it makes film sense. Conversely, Fight Club becomes progressively less interesting as the characters and narrative logic deteriorate because there's no underlying formal coherence that would compensate one for the breakdown of narrative plausibility.

[Idioteque Stalker]

This Baby Doll/Irish discussion is fantastic reading. Rep all around.

the current pseudo-controversy around "Nomadland."

I'm unaware of this. Could you summarize it for me?

[Wryan]

It's either the one about the director coming from a privileged background and thus shouldn't have been the one to make this movie...or the one about how the book was more specifically anti-Amazon and the movie isn't anti-Amazon enough or something.

I thought Nomadland was phenomenal.

[Idioteque Stalker]

It's either the one about the director coming from a privileged background and thus shouldn't have been the one to make this movie...or the one about how the book was more specifically anti-Amazon and the movie isn't anti-Amazon enough or something.

I thought Nomadland was phenomenal.

Yeah, neither of those things bother me. Good movie.

[megladon8]

It's either the one about the director coming from a privileged background and thus shouldn't have been the one to make this movie...or the one about how the book was more specifically anti-Amazon and the movie isn't anti-Amazon enough or something.

I thought Nomadland was phenomenal.

The first one sounds like a complaint by 5 people on Twitter, then a news outlet claimed it was a "controversy".

[transmogrifier]

Are you using "best" as a euphemism for "favorite"?

Or do you generally think that by whatever aesthetic criteria we measure, it's legit better than all challengers? I like the film enough but having seen it recently, I couldn't help remember all the critics who piled on with Woody Allen comparisons. Between the ersatz-Allen vibe and Billy Crystal being Billy Crystal, I just sorta shrugged at it.

It feels like minor work from a minor director (and an overrated screenwriter).

I don't distinguish between "best" and "favorite". In my opinion, distinguishing the two leads to a system where it is possible to say "I think this is the best film ever made, but I don't like it", which is frankly ridiculous. The only possible way to establish the two as distinct judgements is that "best" has to be measured based on critical consensus, which renders all discussions of "best" pointless as it is just a numbers game, and thus we all default back to "favorite" anyway in discussions like this.

So yes, it is legit better than all challengers. Does it have the best screenwriting, acting, cinematography etc than every single other romantic comedy ever made? Of course not, but film is not a tally of the individual parts ranked against each other. To me, cinema is alchemy - you never truly know a film works until it's cut together, and all the pieces end up fitting together, no matter what they look like individually. WHMS has a journeyman director, a mediocre screenwriter who became a truly terrible director, one-dimensional actor as the male lead, is strongly influenced by other works.... and yet, by some miracle, all of the individual choices that were made come together to create the perfect story of flirting, friendship, and love. It's just the way it goes.

[quido8_5]

Maybe I should have used provocative instead of pervy Wanna copyedit my posts from now on?

If you'll have me...

Edit: realized that you might need to copy edit me. I took issue with flashy, not pervy (which I think is undeniable, but also applies to far more directors). Dogme 95 didn't have a policy about being a perv, just lighting and such.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't distinguish between "best" and "favorite". In my opinion, distinguishing the two leads to a system where it is possible to say "I think this is the best film ever made, but I don't like it", which is frankly ridiculous. The only possible way to establish the two as distinct judgements is that "best" has to be measured based on critical consensus, which renders all discussions of "best" pointless as it is just a numbers game, and thus we all default back to "favorite" anyway in discussions like this.

So yes, it is legit better than all challengers. Does it have the best screenwriting, acting, cinematography etc than every single other romantic comedy ever made? Of course not, but film is not a tally of the individual parts ranked against each other. To me, cinema is alchemy - you never truly know a film works until it's cut together, and all the pieces end up fitting together, no matter what they look like individually. WHMS has a journeyman director, a mediocre screenwriter who became a truly terrible director, one-dimensional actor as the male lead, is strongly influenced by other works.... and yet, by some miracle, all of the individual choices that were made come together to create the perfect story of flirting, friendship, and love. It's just the way it goes.

This might be the best post I've ever read.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I fully support idea of best vs. favorite being a false dilemma.

[Wryan]

Is Van Helsing the best Stephen Sommers movie?

[

Show Spoiler

No.

]

But is Van Helsing my favorite Stephen Sommers movie?

[

Show Spoiler

No.

]

[Skitch]

I do best vs favorite. But I don't care if people disagree with it, to each their own, I don't care how anyone chooses to rate/rank/whatever movie. Is Sleepaway Camp a good movie? Fuck no. Is Sleepaway Camp an enjoyable movie. 100%.

[Dukefrukem]

I do best vs favorite. But I don't care if people disagree with it, to each their own, I don't care how anyone chooses to rate/rank/whatever movie. Is Sleepaway Camp a good movie? Fuck no. Is Sleepaway Camp an enjoyable movie. 100%.

Isn't entertainment the goal? If so, wouldn't it be GOOD at entertaining?

[transmogrifier]

This might be the best post I've ever read.

Thanks! All of my the films I love the most have this weird, almost indescribable flow or rhythm to them where all of the scenes just feed into each other to generate, for the lack of a better word, "presence" (stolen from the VR industry) where you, the viewer, become intently focused on the film (on whatever level you choose, whether it be narrative, atmospheric, thematic (or ideally all of these combined)) and this presence can help to smooth over technical, logical, acting issues etc that may be annoying in another film but that, in this particular film, are part of a cohesive whole that just fits together like, as I said, alchemy. Now, certain directors have a better grasp on this and are more likely to be able to create this feeling in a specific (or wider) audience, but even the best directors don't succeed every single time they go to bat, because ultimately, you never truly know a film works until it is cut together and in front of eyes.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Is Van Helsing the best Stephen Sommers movie?

[

Show Spoiler

No.

]

But is Van Helsing my favorite Stephen Sommers movie?

[

Show Spoiler

No.

]

Bwahahaha

[Irish]

Boogie Nights travels to some dark places with its characters but a critique of the porn industry--or show business and capitalism more broadly--is not one of them.

The commentary is inherent to the premise and the setting. If we move "Boogie Nights" to Miami Beach, and transform the characters into cashiers at a yogurt shop, does that change the film's meaning? I think it would. If it doesn't, then the backdrop is arbitrary, and worth criticizing.

I can't go into specifics with Showgirls because I haven't seen it in over a decade but it seems to me that the film tackles these issues in a very direct way--and apparently Noël Burch (!) agrees with me, although I haven't yet been able to track down the article where he claims that it "takes mass culture seriously, as a site of both fascination and struggle" and uses melodrama as "an excellent vehicle for social criticism."

Manohla Dargis made a similar point in 1992, although in her reading of the film Stone's charisma unambiguously triumphs over script and direction:

Where I differ with Dargis is that I don't think the film is out of control or that Stone is working against either the script or Verhoeven's direction. The final sequence is brilliant because it sustains the tension between masculine order and female anarchy that animates the film by undercutting the ostensive victory of the Douglas character: not only does he not catch the murderer, but his phallic victory over Stone (only apparently domesticated in the final scene) is only provisional and could be reversed at any second with the threat of castration remaining ever-present.

I like your read better than I like the ending of the film.

My own viewpoint is simple to the point of being crude: A mystery story should resolve its mystery. Douglas' thematic impotence would have been more interesting if it weren't so arbitrary. The weakness of "Basic Instinct" is that the killer could have been anybody. If the filmmakers don't care about this point -- and it's the central point of any murder mystery --- why should the audience? An ambiguous ending doesn't satisfy when everything that proceeded it is so absolutely literal.

I watched about 40 minutes of the film last night, eventually turning it off because it's really fucking bad. Every line of dialogue is so aggressively arch, featuring characters meant to be serious adults, but instead behaving like highschoolers overcome with hormones.

The famous interrogation scene is unintentionally funny. Douglas is the insecure jock with a practiced antipathy, and Wayne Knight stammers questions at Stone like a 14 year old virgin asking the prom queen for a date.

I like Stone in the movie. She knows what she's got and she knows what to do with it. There's very clearly a "joy of performance," the kind that George C Scott talked about once, in everything she does.

The issue, as I see it, is whether abandoning plausibility makes a particular film more or less interesting. In this case, while the absence of characters and narrative plausibility is arguably a loss, it makes possible gains in other areas that are for me compensation enough. In other words, one kind of coherence (formal) subordinates and deforms another (logical); as in Mulholland Dr., the less the film makes logical sense the more it makes film sense. Conversely, Fight Club becomes progressively less interesting as the characters and narrative logic deteriorate because there's no underlying formal coherence that would compensate one for the breakdown of narrative plausibility.

The narrative deformities in "Mullholland" are intentional and masterfully handled, whereas I don't think you could make the same claim for "Femme Fatale," at least not easily.

But then I must admit I haven't seen either in a long while, and if I can dig up a copy of "Fatale," I'll watch it again.

[Skitch]

Isn't entertainment the goal? If so, wouldn't it be GOOD at entertaining?

But its entertaining because its so bad. I hate even typing that sentence. Its a rare thing. Hey there are people here who love The Room, a completely unwatchable piece of shit. Does that make it well made? Imo no.

I know, I sound ridiculous. My point is only that I don't care how anyone grades films. Its all subjective to personal taste.

Personally, I balance the two by a double score if need be. I don't do it often, but sometimes I split a movie on an entertainment score and a filmmaking score.

[Wryan]

But then I must admit I haven't seen either in a long while, and if I can dig up a copy of "Fatale," I'll watch it again.

https://reelgood.com/movie/femme-fatale-2002

It's on Plex if you have it. Otherwise Prime and HBO.

[StuSmallz]

Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994) - First rewatch in many years a few new thoughts. (1) It was more interesting to me this time how the film doubles back on itself twice, which means we hear Jules' tiresome biblical quotation 3 times*. (2) I thought once this was one of Tarantino's best structured films, but now I'm not sure. Besides the double back, each story follows a similar template: Two characters exchange zippy observations (or "meaningless chit-chat" as Mia terms it), which is always followed by unexpected spectacle. A dance sequence in one story, but usually it's a fucked up level of violence. ("The Bonnie Situation," the most lackluster entry, reverses this and starts with violence, and follows it with inane conversation.) (3) The final story with Honey Bunny and Pumpkin in the diner is really meaningless, because Jules is a thin character and his spiritual transformation is entirely contained in the film's ending. Because of the structure, it feels like he has an arc but he actually doesn't. (4) Every actress with a speaking part appears barefoot. (5) Why is this movie 2 and a half hours long? (6) Several actors stutter over their lines and it sounds like a mistake, like somebody printed the wrong take. (7) The film pops with color and setting but the overall look is very much early 90s indie. (8) The dialogue still sings in places but in others ... yeesh. Corny, dated slang and casual use of racial slurs makes certain characters sound more improbable than they should. (9) The pop culture references are stilted and awkward and Tarantino uses them as a crutch. He has people talking about shit that was already 30 years old when this film was made. "Green Acres"? "Amos and Andy"? What kid today would pick up on that? (10) I've probably seen this movie a dozen times and I don't think I could tell anyone what it's about.

* PS: Quentin, ffs, "furious anger" is redundant.

ETA: (11) Vincent seems closely modeled on Mr Pink from "Reservoir Dogs," at least conceptually. Both are argumentative to the point of being obnoxious (ahem), with other characters rolling their eyes and generally ignoring them. But I get the sense that Tarantino is on their side, and believes the arguments they express to be right.

(12) The female characters are largely inconsequential, but I thought it was interesting each of them peddles a pet theory (comfortable silences, pot bellies, etc) and when they do it, they sound like mouthpieces for the director.

Hmm, sounds like you don't like it anymore. I mean, I didn't like it as much as I did when I was 15 when I rewatched it a couple of years ago, since I do agree with some of your complaints, such as its often "edgelord" tone (like with the slurs, and the entirety of the sequence in the pawnshop, sheesh), Tarantino's tendency to pretty blatantly use all the characters (although not just the female ones, for the record) as puppets to repeat his own pet theories and show-off his pop culture nerd tidbits (like the convo about TV pilots), and its structural problems, particularly with "The Bonnie Situation", which took Jules's character arc, which had already been put on pause for a full hour-and-a-half, gives us half of the remaining development he had left, and then puts that on pause again for more random lowlife shenanigans, without ever trying to do what it should've done and tie that situation into his arc, making it feel as though everything from the [

Show Spoiler

"I shot Marvin in the face" moment

] until the final sequence in the diner could've been straight-up cut without losing anything vital. It really just feels like that that entire section of the film got included because Tarantino had a leftover sequence from his True Romance script that didn't make it into the final film, and he wanted to recycle it, you know?

But, all of that being said though, I still feel that Pulp is a great moive on the whole; I mostly enjoy all the small talk chit-chat between the characters, it still has an overall one-of-a-kind vibe to its take on Crime films, and I still think that, besides the misstep of "The Bonnie Situation" interruption, Jules still has a great character arc on the whole. Of course, he still comes off as a cariacture at times in the film, particularly during the first half of the apartment sequence, but I think that's the point; it's so difficult to imagine him doing anything else for a living besides being a ranting, cold-blooded hitman that we'd never be able to see him as a quiet man of peace, which is why it's so impactful when he does end up becoming one, particularly when it's delivered through one of the greatest monologues written/performed in film history. That's the key difference between Jules and an actual thin Tarantino character like Django, whose "arc" is essentially finished after about five minutes into his film, and who is defined by almost nothing else but his basic motivations for revenge (and he doesn't even have the "colorful" personality of an Aldo Raine or the over-the-top performance of a Christoph Waltz to partially make up for that, either).

As for what the film's "about" on the whole, I would have to agree with the consensus that the main theme of PF is redemption, which we see in increasingly explicit examples through its chapters, whether it be [

Show Spoiler

Vincent redeeming Mia from a death by overdose (which is mostly done because he's afraid of what Marcellus would do to him as a result), Butch choosing to go back to save Marcellus even though they were mortal enemies, he had a clean getaway, and there was no need for Butch to go rescue him, or of course, Jules's final monologue, which ties that all together and makes that theme undeniable.

]

[Irish]

Femme Fatale (DePalma, 2002) - DePalma at his DePalmest and glorious to see, with a real hypnotic quality for the first 40 minutes. I'm not one of those formalist guys obsessed with aspect ratios and camera lenses, but I found myself rewinding scenes over here and there just for the pleasure of it.

But FML the plot is lame. The material is stock and uninteresting, the characters have circular conversations about nothing, and Rebecca Romijn can't act worth a damn. Somewhere in the second act, I lost track of the visuals, my happy fog dissipated, and I was pulled --- or rather, kicked --- out of the movie.

I wish DePalma could have tailored the script to Romijn's lack of ability, or found an actress who had some skill and an idea or two, because the ending returned to that quasi-dream state and I enjoyed it immensely. (That's some genuine phildickian shit right there.)

So, a mixed reaction. What's good is so good it's nearly god-tier, and the rest suffers by comparison (and also because of Romijn's terrible performance).

But at least now I have a better understanding of what baby doll has been talking about for the last 2 pages. He had a point all along, dammit, and the comparison to "Mulholland Dr" is apt.

PS: Hat tip to Wryan for letting me know where this was available. Wouldn't have seen it again otherwise.

[Grouchy]

The comparison to Mulholland Dr. is apt and I think De Palma has always shown a blatant and deliberate disregard for the plot - I mean, he uses it for his convenience or he forgets about it when it's just an excuse for a 15 minute set piece.

I don't think Romjin is THAT bad by the way. Certainly one of the better models turned actresses.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I haven't seen either in over a decade, but Femme Fatale/Mulholland Dr. seems like a total wtf comparison to me.

[baby doll]

The commentary is inherent to the premise and the setting. If we move "Boogie Nights" to Miami Beach, and transform the characters into cashiers at a yogurt shop, does that change the film's meaning? I think it would. If it doesn't, then the backdrop is arbitrary, and worth criticizing.

A film isn't what it's about but how it's about it. In Anderson's film, porn represents a temporary haven for lost souls where they can find validation and belonging until their personal flaws, and home video, catch up with them. Showgirls is about selling your body as a commodity. The characters are all either buyers and sellers, and the sellers view each other as competitors in an open market rather than as substitute family members (as Roger Ebert puts it in his review of the film, "nobody white is nice to [the heroine] for long").

I like your read better than I like the ending of the film.

My own viewpoint is simple to the point of being crude: A mystery story should resolve its mystery. Douglas' thematic impotence would have been more interesting if it weren't so arbitrary. The weakness of "Basic Instinct" is that the killer could have been anybody. If the filmmakers don't care about this point -- and it's the central point of any murder mystery --- why should the audience? An ambiguous ending doesn't satisfy when everything that proceeded it is so absolutely literal.

I watched about 40 minutes of the film last night, eventually turning it off because it's really fucking bad. Every line of dialogue is so aggressively arch, featuring characters meant to be serious adults, but instead behaving like highschoolers overcome with hormones.

The famous interrogation scene is unintentionally funny. Douglas is the insecure jock with a practiced antipathy, and Wayne Knight stammers questions at Stone like a 14 year old virgin asking the prom queen for a date.

I like Stone in the movie. She knows what she's got and she knows what to do with it. There's very clearly a "joy of performance," the kind that George C Scott talked about once, in everything she does.

I'll have to watch the film again to be sure, but I don't think the mystery is necessarily what the Russian Formalists would call the dominant--the organizing principle that subordinates every element of a work. For one thing, aside from Stone, there's no other plausible suspect, and I think the ending makes it pretty clear that she did it. It's probably more profitable to approach the film as a melodrama about male sexual hysteria. (It's not for nothing that Dorothy Malone made her last screen appearance in this film.)

Also, I think the interrogation scene is meant to be funny for the reasons you mention. A large part of what makes the film so much fun to watch is seeing Stone deflate the male characters' macho pretensions by brazenly flaunting patriarchal social norms ("What are you gonna do, arrest me for smoking?").