28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

Yeah, and FMJ has a very long list on that site as well. Still, I go through those and find myself categorizing them as "probably a legitimate goof" and "quite possibly communicating something."

And I'm sure Ed Wood intentionally changed his scene from night to day.

The point being I don't think I've ever heard of a narrative feature film without a single continuity error or some sort of goof.

[balmakboor]

And I'm sure Ed Wood intentionally changed his scene from night to day.

The point being I don't think I've ever heard of a narrative feature film without a single continuity error or some sort of goof.

I never claimed -- nor would I ever dare to claim -- that every goof in FMJ is really some clever device to communicate a hidden theme. But I do claim that some of them are.

A question I can ask anyone out there is, is it a valid option for a director to do such a thing? I once had a film studies professor who pointed out how as Ethan approaches the homestead at the start of The Searchers there is a blanket (which later comes to symbolize home) is draped over a railing. Then Ford cuts to the reverse angle and the blanket is gone. The professor said it symbolized Ethan's acceptance into the home.

The professor could have been wrong and it was just a goof. (He could've been wrong about it symbolizing "home" in the first place.) But, in theory, are such "goofs" valid and possible ways of subtly communicating ideas?

[Qrazy]

I never claimed -- nor would I ever dare to claim -- that every goof in FMJ is really some clever device to communicate a hidden theme. But I do claim that some of them are.

A question I can ask anyone out there is, is it a valid option for a director to do such a thing? I once had a film studies professor who pointed out how as Ethan approaches the homestead at the start of The Searchers there is a blanket (which later comes to symbolize home) is draped over a railing. Then Ford cuts to the reverse angle and the blanket is gone. The professor said it symbolized Ethan's acceptance into the home.

The professor could have been wrong and it was just a goof. (He could've been wrong about it symbolizing "home" in the first place.) But, in theory, are such "goofs" valid and possible ways of subtly communicating ideas?

I'm sure they have been used purposely by directors in the past to communicate ideas. But personally I don't think they're a very worthwhile manner of conveying ideas. The most obvious reason being how do you differentiate between purposeful goofs and accidental ones? The second reason being that the director is trying to create a world (not necessarily a realistic world but a world nonetheless)... and this world operates according to certain established rules. Goofs by their very nature violate these rules. They necessarily violate because they are not standardized, they are isolated incidents where something does not make sense. Unless the director is drawing attention to this something not making sense, in which case it is not a goof after all, and would not seem to be one. So even in Godard films or avant-garde cinema or what have you goofs can still be made. If you're going to make a statement with a boom mic for instance, better to do it for some reason, make the 'pretend goof' obvious... so then having a boom mic in the shot would be a joke or 4th wall breaking or etc.

Then there's also the case where a goof occurred unintentionally during the shoot and the director has to decide what to do with the footage during an edit. Then the goof could effectively be manipulated to communicate meaning... however I still don't really get much out of such an approach.

[Russ]

The point being I don't think I've ever heard of a narrative feature film without a single continuity error or some sort of goof.

I haven't seen Russian Ark yet, but I wonder if it would be the exception? (as far as continuity goes; I'm sure there were probably other goofs of which I'm unaware)

[number8]

Coppola believes that Godfather Part II should have never been made.

Thoughts?

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen Russian Ark yet, but I wonder if it would be the exception? (as far as continuity goes; I'm sure there were probably other goofs of which I'm unaware)

Good call, I have seen it and it's good. Here's all I could find.

Mistake Factual error: Peter the Great died 32 years before the construction of the Winter Palace had begun and 40 years before the construction of the original "Hermitage" gallery, built for Catherine the Great in 1765 by the French architect Vallin de la Mothe.

Factual error: One of the members of the orchestra is reading off sheet music held together by sticky tape, which is an anachronism.

[Raiders]

Coppola believes that Godfather Part II should have never been made.

Thoughts?

I agree, if only because I find the second film weaker than the first. It certainly wasn't necessary in that the first film doesn't need the second film and does end on a pitch-perfect, and self-sufficient, note. But, then again, the second film is still damn good and any film worth watching was worth being made.

[Qrazy]

I prefer the second and if the script is worthwhile and the film turns out good enough I see nothing wrong with a sequel. The two films balance very well off one another. I appreciate his sentiment that unnecessary sequels usually should not be made but The Godfather Part II was an artistic success so I'm glad it was made.

[BuffaloWilder]

This just in, on IMDb, from user jamb-kirch, on the subject of contemporizing To Kill A Mockingbird:

I agree, Cuba Gooding Jr. should be Tom Robinson.

I say Robert Downey Jr. should be Atticus.

The mind! She burns!

[Spinal]

Coppola believes that Godfather Part II should have never been made.

Thoughts?

I agree with Francis. Never really understood this notion that the second Godfather ranks among the all-time great films. It's well made. It's well acted. But it lacks the sense of purpose and consequence that makes the first so good.

[megladon8]

Christian Bale should play Tom Robinson in black face.

[Raiders]

This just in, on IMDb, from user jamb-kirch, on the subject of contemporizing To Kill A Mockingbird:

The mind! She burns!

I don't know. I think a sly, sarcastic and somewhat impious Atticus Finch would be a great idea. However, Cuba Gooding Jr. should never be in anything ever again.

[number8]

I agree with Francis. Never really understood this notion that the second Godfather ranks among the all-time great films. It's well made. It's well acted. But it lacks the sense of purpose and consequence that makes the first so good.

Hm. I appreciate the story of Michael stepping up into the role, but I've just always preferred the story of it being cyclical and parallel at the same time with Vito. I think the second one expresses a sense of history that I didn't get from the first.

I'm thinking of rewatching both this weekend. I own the trilogy, but I'm probably going to go rent that new Bluray release.

[Spinal]

Christian Bale should play Tom Robinson in black face.

How about Ted Danson in black face with Whoopi playing Atticus in white face?

[Qrazy]

I agree with Francis. Never really understood this notion that the second Godfather ranks among the all-time great films. It's well made. It's well acted. But it lacks the sense of purpose and consequence that makes the first so good.

I prefer it because it has greater scope and really shows how the business can completely unravel a man. By the end of the film Michael loses everything he once valued. The juxtaposition between the old days and the new days of the mafia also really demonstrates how enormously things have changed... but all the old grudges are still there. Plus you have the brotherly rivalry, the family tearing itself apart from the inside out. There was an inside man in the first film but he wasn't as central a figure in the family.

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know. I think a sly, sarcastic and somewhat impious Atticus Finch would be a great idea. However, Cuba Gooding Jr. should never be in anything ever again.

In the name of god, do your duty.

[Spinal]

Yeah, Downey is a good enough actor that I don't think casting him as Atticus is all that crazy.

[dreamdead]

Weekend:
The Apartment (Mimouni, not Wilder)
My Beautiful Girl Mari (Korean animation)
The Scarlet Empress
Save the Green Planet!

[Raiders]

In the name of god, do your duty.

I'm not really following you here. Maybe it is the fact that I am not much of a fan of either the book or the 1962 film.

[number8]

Obviously, Downey can play both Atticus and Tom Robinson. Duh.

[BuffaloWilder]

I've got no problem with Downey by himself, but it seems his name is starting to pop up as much as Christian Bale's did, after Batman Begins.

Speaking of whom, yes to Bale in blackface.

[transmogrifier]

Well, I'm not sure if I even have a stretch of a guess. There is a lot of Left/Right/Left/Right/Left stuff going on during the whole Parris Island segment and Pyle first being on their left and then on their right could relate to that.

I admit though that Kubrick was such a meticulous perfectionist that I give him a huge benefit of the doubt. Considering he must've spent weeks shooting that scene, getting it just right, I doubt such a huge continuity shift would be an error.

That's the cult of Kubrick in a nutshell right there. He is assumed to be a perfectionist genius, and then every single microsecond of every single film is rendered as some sort of high art, so even an apparent flaw is another example of his artistic genius. Circular reasoning 101.

The camera crew reflected in the bathroom in Eyes Wide Shut begs to differ.

[MacGuffin]

Shoot the Piano Player: I'm going to go ahead and edit out all of the excess that I had previously written. This is too poorly structured, Truffaut throws us right in (I know I didn't care about what I was watching), and gives us exposition in the middle of the movie? Ruins pacing. Movie picks back up in the second half, but remains no more than a homage to gangster movies. I don't find this to be very important at all. Entertaining, certainly watchable, but definitely passable.

[Raiders]

The camera crew reflected in the bathroom in Eyes Wide Shut begs to differ.

Clearly a subversive comment on voyeurism.

[transmogrifier]

Clearly a subversive comment on voyeurism.

Hardly subversive when a million faceless thriller directors manage to do it every single year. Or maybe they're all superubercinematic geniuses as well.