28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[elixir]

I think the question is how much do these sequences ultimately add up to. And I think he makes an interesting point about how Karen Black's character is rewritten every time she appears to suit the needs of the particular moment.

Well, you picked my other main complaint with the movie, the underwritten female role. (I suppose I am looking past my perceived flaws of the movie a bit). Though I don't think it's quite as bad as he makes it out to be. And certainly other characters are more consistent (especially Indiana).

[Skitch]

That's one of my favorite scenes. Apparently Harrison Ford was suffering from some kind of bad stomach aliment, and thus didn't feel like being part of a lengthy fight scene. Regardless, its hilarious in that you expect Indy to fight the guy equally, instead he just cheats and moves on.

So what you're saying is...Harrison Ford shot first.

[megladon8]

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

The bit you posted about the "sexual release" of the scene in which Indy shoots the swordsman.

These metaphors he uses are completely nonsensical - "Hollywood's pretty bejeweled navel"? And that idea that the scene provides the audience with some kind of "sexual release"?

What the hell are you talking about, man?

Why can't he just reference the moment as being a cathartic bit of comic relief in the midst of the intense action, which is about the jist of what he's saying anyways? And even more interestingly, how that - which has become one of the iconic scenes of the series - was never intended in the first place. There was a whole choreographed fight sequence that Ford bailed on because of intense diarrhea.

Perhaps this intellectual diarrhea is just his raison d'être.

[Melville]

Have you seen Fritz Lang's The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb? Or Moonfleet, for that matter?

Nope. I haven't seen any post-The-Big-Heat Lang movies.

[MadMan]

So what you're saying is...Harrison Ford shot first.

Oh absolutely.

[Derek]

Leave it to MatchCut to call the best critic out there silly. :crazy:

I used to think '81 was one of the worst years for film, but I've started to come around on it as I've seen more.

1. The Road Warrior (George Miller)
2. Southern Comfort (Walter Hill)
3. America is Waiting (Bruce Conner)
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)
5. Excalibur (John Boorman)
6. Blow Out (Brian De Palma)
7. Modern Romance (Albert Brooks)
8. Scanners (David Cronenberg)
9. Ms. 45 (Abel Ferrara)
10. Stripes (Harold Ramis)

[megladon8]

It's not him who is silly, it's that intellectual posturing that's silly.

[baby doll]

The bit you posted about the "sexual release" of the scene in which Indy shoots the swordsman.

These metaphors he uses are completely nonsensical - "Hollywood's pretty bejeweled navel"? And that idea that the scene provides the audience with some kind of "sexual release"?

What the hell are you talking about, man?

Why can't you just reference the moment as being a cathartic bit of comic relief in the midst of the intense action? And even more interestingly, how that - which has become one of the iconic scenes of the series - was never intended in the first place. There was a whole choreographed fight sequence that Ford bailed on because of intense diarrhea.

Perhaps this intellectual diarrhea is just his raison d'être.

Given how many English speakers use the phrase "raison d'être," I don't think that qualifies as showing off his French.

As for the "pretty bejeweled navel bit," he's hardly the first writer to notice that Hollywood consistently and systematically dehumanizes people from other cultures by emphasizing their otherness. Sure, you can say he's making too much of this one example (which is a skillful bit of comic relief), but given how prevalent this sort of thing is, I can see his point.

[megladon8]

Given how many English speakers use the phrase "raison d'être," I don't think that qualifies as showing off his French.

As for the "pretty bejeweled navel bit," he's hardly the first writer to notice that Hollywood consistently and systematically dehumanizes people from other cultures by emphasizing their otherness. Sure, you can say he's making too much of this one example (which is a skillful bit of comic relief), but given how prevalent this sort of thing is, I can see his point.

I'm not arguing with the point itself (which is valid), I'm arguing with these little phrases like "pretty bejeweled navel."

These are unnecessary and come across as kind of pompous.

[Sycophant]

Dismissing an intellectual argument as mere "posturing" and pretense ITT.

[MadMan]

I think we had a 1981 consensus thread. I'm interested in getting more recs for that year, as I've really dug most of what I've viewed from it so far.

[Sycophant]

It's ok with me if people write above a 5th grade reading level.

[Adam]

1981 is rough, but '83 is the worst film year of the '80s, I think

[baby doll]

1981 is rough, but '83 is the worst film year of the '80s, I think

Yeah, that's a pretty bad one too. All I can come up with for a top ten are L'Argent, The Crimson Permanent Assurance, The 4th Man, Sans soleil, Videodrome, and maybe Nostalghia. I need to take another look at The King of Comedy and My Brother's Wedding though, and I've never seen Hammett.

[megladon8]

It's ok with me if people write above a 5th grade reading level.

I like when people write well. I just don't think that his use of nigh-incomprehensible metaphors and stretching out rather simple ideas with needlessly complex language is necessary.

Something that was drilled into us when writing newscasts in radio was that, if you cannot explain a concept using easy-to-understand terms and phrases, then you don't truly understand the topic.

I'm not saying that he doesn't understand what he's writing about, I'm simply saying that he could communicate the same ideas in a more accessible manner.

[megladon8]

Dismissing an intellectual argument as mere "posturing" and pretense ITT.

That's not what I'm doing at all.

[Derek]

'83 is somewhat weaker overall, but has three of my all-time favorites at the top with Nostalghia, L'Argent and El Sur.

[megladon8]

1982 is where it's at.

[MadMan]

1982 is where it's at.

Best year for sci-fi? Maybe.

[Mara]

That's not what I'm doing at all.

Not that you want the idea simplified, you just want him to stop overwriting it. Elegant writing isn't bombastic, grandiloquent, or purple. I gotcha.

I'm not familiar with the critic, myself, but I get what you're saying.

[baby doll]

1982 had some great films (Blade Runner, The Draughtsman's Contract, Passion, Querelle, The State of Things, Veronika Voss), but I'm partial to 1989 myself:

1. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee)
2. City of Sadness (Hou Hsiao-hsien)
3. Sweetie (Jane Campion)
4. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (Peter Greenaway)
5. Monsieur Hire (Patrice Leconte)
6. The Seventh Continent (Michael Haneke)
7. Kiki's Delivery Service (Hayao Miyazaki)
8. The Unbelievable Truth (Hal Hartley)
9. Mystery Train (Jim Jarmusch)
10. sex, lies & videotape (Steven Soderbergh)

[megladon8]

Best year for sci-fi? Maybe.

Just one of the best years ever in my books.

Fanny & Alexander, Blade Runner, The Thing, Fitzcarraldo, Missing, Tenebrae, Wrath of Khan, Conan the Barbarian, The Draughtsman's Contract, Class of 1984

Can't thing of many years that best that.

[megladon8]

Not that you want the idea simplified, you just want him to stop overwriting it. Elegant writing isn't bombastic, grandiloquent, or purple. I gotcha.

I'm not familiar with the critic, myself, but I get what you're saying.

EXACTLY!! Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say.

[Derek]

Something that was drilled into us when writing newscasts in radio was that, if you cannot explain a concept using easy-to-understand terms and phrases, then you don't truly understand the topic.

I'm not saying that he doesn't understand what he's writing about, I'm simply saying that he could communicate the same ideas in a more accessible manner.

More accessible sounds a lot like "dumb down" to me. There's a big difference between radio and written film criticism in terms of audience and purpose and I see no need to boil everything down to the most simplistic language possible simply to make things easily digestible to more people. Rosenbaum's not perfect (only the great, indomitable Quentin Tarantino reserves that distinction), but his diction is not among his faults and not everything that attempts to be intellectual is "posturing".

[MadMan]

Aye, 1989 is super awesome, too. Which is why Driving Miss Daisy winning Best Picture for that year makes me wonder what the hell the Academy voters were smoking.