28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Irish]

The pop culture references are so abundant that they start to lose meaning and every character has the same voice (the author's).

Good stuff. I think this is the last screenplay he wrote with Avary, and in my mind the last screenplay that holds together well.

I can't wait for you to get to Kill Bill.

[B-side]

Now don't you go catching a persecution complex. We've already got too much of that going around. Nobody here called you a whiner. Keep up the love and let the frustration slide. Wars of attrition FTW.

This post begs to differ. I had no interest in turning this into some multi-page fight where everyone declares their irritation and suddenly Tony Scott discussion if off-limits and nobody feels like they can have fun with me because I might whine about it, but it appears that's already happened. I'm not appealing to authority to vindicate my opinion, but if anyone is interested in a little reading from a critic on Scott's auteurism and formal qualities, check this out. I'd offer more myself, but I'm not half the writer these guys are and I've already written plenty on Scott that I've posted here and have since archived on my blog.

[MadMan]

I would say the best thing about Pulp Fiction is its characters, not its dialogue. The dialogue would be third, actually, behind its wonderfully dark and twisted sense of humor. I love Pulp Fiction because of how unpredictable it is at times, that QT creates a rather frantic work of art that works because its not in the hands of a lesser director, and the film itself is 100% quintessential 90s material. If I was pressed to list a movie that helped to really shape and define the decade, QT's masterpiece would be it. Does the movie at times have messy moments that could have been better refined? Sure, but that's part of the charm to me. I defend its greatness just like I defend another flawed yet brilliant classic, Apocalypse Now, even though its not even necessary, really.

[Irish]

Brightside, both your links there go to Raider's post. I couldn't get to the analysis thing about Scott.

For what it's worth, I think the Scott discussion was just fine. The discussion got cut off a little too early for me, but what was there was good stuff.

[B-side]

Brightside, both your links there go to Raider's post. I couldn't get to the analysis thing about Scott.

For what it's worth, I think the Scott discussion was just fine. The discussion got cut off a little too early for me, but what was there was good stuff.

Whoops. Fixed it.

I'd be more than happy to try and dismantle your Tony Scott hatred, but I fear the article I linked to will do most of that for me. Yes, I suppose that makes me lazy and insecure, but... well, I am.

[Irish]

I'd be more than happy to try and dismantle your Tony Scott hatred, but I fear the article I linked to will do most of that for me. Yes, I suppose that makes me lazy and insecure, but... well, I am.

Excellent. Thanks for the link, reading up now.

[Watashi]

Man, Jim Broadbent and Lesley Manville fucking pwn in Another Year. It's like bizarro version of Happy Go-Lucky.

[Winston*]

What drives Crimson Tide (1995) if not an explicit battle for the direction of the sub (and, more roundabout, over the interpretation of reality)?

[elixir]

weighing in...

1. I feel bad for making that comment about Tony Scott in reply to a Brightside comment once. That he probably doesn't even remember. So...yeah. Though I think I just said I disliked the movie, nothing against him. And hey, my brother loves Tony Scott! You guys can be the cool kids at my house while I sit alone in the corner.

2. I've only seen three Mike Leigh films but I've loved them all, with my most recent viewing of Secrets & Lies being my new favorite.

3. Lesley Manville's performance in Another Year--which I'm sure some find annoying, grating, inauthentic, etc--is one of the best of last year.

4. Pulp Fiction's dialogue still doesn't grate me, though I see that...but I would argue that all characters do NOT have the same voice. But I probably need a re-watch to effectively argue that.

[soitgoes...]

A Brighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, 1991) 10

Good job.

[elixir]

Just like when The Mirror blew me away a few weeks back, I am left unsure on how to articulate my love for a new favorite, this one being A Brighter Summer Day. So, what is it that makes me love this film so much? Hm...I love that it is a portrayal of a town through turbulent change, sprawling in its web of connections to the outside world yet intimate in its insular surroundings. I love how it takes specific stories crafted with genuine drama that touch on so many themes and sociopolitical ideas without on-the-nose dialogue (though it's not without a purposeful philosophical musing or two, which I love) or overt plot devices that spell out what the movie is going for.


This is so fucking vague. The journey of Sir's character is not merely emotionally satisfying, but ripe with thematic richness, but it's not so much that his principled nature and prideful personality reflects and represents the Taiwanese at the time so much as it reveals a porthole into looking at the changes the country is going through. Knowing a bit of history was certainly helpful in the context of the story, and it made its crafting of the narrative into history rather than simply around key events all that more impressive.

I'm not doing justice to this movie so I'm gonna stop...but yeah, for 4 hours long I was never less than enthralled and by the time it ended I was overcome with emotion, overwhelmed by the vast (yet, like I said, intimate) nature of it all...and I can't wait to see it again. But I don't think it has a fucking DVD!!! What the hell? I saw it in pretty shitty quality and would LOVE to see a good transfer of it (though the poor quality didn't take away from the greatness of the work). So, yeah...it's better than awesome.

[B-side]

weighing in...

1. I feel bad for making that comment about Tony Scott in reply to a Brightside comment once. That he probably doesn't even remember. So...yeah. Though I think I just said I disliked the movie, nothing against him. And hey, my brother loves Tony Scott! You guys can be the cool kids at my house while I sit alone in the corner.

I don't remember anything in particular from you, which further demonstrates why you shouldn't feel bad.:P

Really, I'm far more concerned about the blanket dismissal of Tony Scott than I am some gentle ribbing.

[Bosco B Thug]

Really, I'm far more concerned about the blanket dismissal of Tony Scott than I am some gentle ribbing.

The correct way to feel.

So now some questions: He may have style and ideas, but are they particularly intellectually lofty? And are you saying that, as you tick off what's so great about Tony Scott, you're not also ticking off in your head what's crap about him?

I have not seen any Tony Scott films, though, but maybe at some future date when cars make hover noises and Donald Trump is president, I'll be able to reply to whatever you reply. :twisted:

[B-side]

The correct way to feel.

So now some questions: He may have style and ideas, but are they particularly intellectually lofty? And are you saying that, as you tick off what's so great about Tony Scott, you're not also ticking off in your head what's crap about him?

Intellectually lofty? Not really. He's sort of a modern day Ford in terms of embracing and simultaneously criticizing and having fun with Americana. His 2000s work has targeted modern media and surveillance and put them to use both formally and thematically in interesting ways. Most of his work has a central romantic arc that is highly romantic at a high cost. It's not always easy to embrace Scott's aesthetic and form, especially in his 2000s work, but it's nothing if not unique and wholly his own. Like many directors, Tony has had stages to his career and auteurist sensibilities. He's used similar color palettes going all the way back to Top Gun. I don't know that there's anything about Tony's work that I find especially egregious, just that his sensibilities don't always work as well with the material to coalesce and form a completely compelling whole. He can be goofy, on the nose and scatterbrained, but one gains a certain appreciation for these traits while watching more and more of his work.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend possibilities (Ozu and some Italians):

Days of Youth
Passing Fancy
Early Summer
Tokyo Story
Il Bidone
Bellissima

[Irish]

Intellectually lofty? Not really. He's sort of a modern day Ford in terms of embracing and simultaneously criticizing and having fun with Americana.

I'm hoping against hope here that you're not actually comparing John Ford to Tony Scott.

Please don't let me down, Brights.

[B-side]

I'm hoping against hope here that you're not actually comparing John Ford to Tony Scott.

Please don't let me down, Brights.

Scott's certainly not as good as Ford, no. Just comparing them in a broader thematic assessment.

[Raiders]

I don't really understand how I've been deemed a whiner for what I said, but whatever. I was more than willing to defend my position, but nobody was interested in any actual discussion.

That's a conclusion jump. I'd like to think I don't typically back down from any discussion. You immediately responded defensively to what was just a ribbing on my part over being the first person here to actually like the film and I responded in kind. You make it sound as if you had posted this excellent piece on the film and we all just said "Blah, no" and moved on.

[B-side]

That's a conclusion jump. I'd like to think I don't typically back down from any discussion. You immediately responded defensively to what was just a ribbing on my part over being the first person here to actually like the film and I responded in kind. You make it sound as if you had posted this excellent piece on the film and we all just said "Blah, no" and moved on.

Well, I tried to make it clear I wasn't trying to play the victim or anything and was just responding to a general trend in the way people have been responding to my Tony Scott posts. The ribbing doesn't bother me. It's the blanket dismissal of my thoughts on his work and his work in general that bothers me.

[dmk]

The most interesting characteristic of Tony Scott is that apparent, inherent and brash kitsch that pervades it. But I’ve yet read any piece by Brightside or tativille that addresses this recurring trait, which unfortunately forces me to assume that this widespread Tony Scott appreciation (initially a contrarian position among bloggers) isn’t exactly well thought out - regardless of the verbosity dedicated to his prized shit. I say shit, not because I dislike his films, but because kitsch really is shit. Spaniel shit to be exact – ornate with thorns bathed in Vegemite.

But then I haven't really seen that much from Scott besides his latest, some early stuff a decade ago and that BMW short (which is actually great because it doesn't pretend to be anything else besides kitschy nonsense).

[Raiders]

Well, I tried to make it clear I wasn't trying to play the victim or anything and was just responding to a general trend in the way people have been responding to my Tony Scott posts. The ribbing doesn't bother me. It's the blanket dismissal of my thoughts on his work and his work in general that bothers me.

I do not dismiss Tony Scott in general; I really enjoy Deja Vu as a matter of fact and as I think I have said before, I always have a level of anticipation for his films even if I generally wind up disappointed.

He's certainly not a boring filmmaker in general, but I do recall being very bored by The Fan. De Niro is just silly, exuding little pathos and nowhere near the scary intensity of his similarly deranged Max Cady. The supposedly sympathetic Wesley Snipes is a completely washed over character and should have been the central point for the pull between personal life and a superstar dealing with fans, but his grapples are at best glossed over (he gets what, two minutes of guilt at being the reason his fellow ballplayer--who of course is a slimeball--is murdered). The film never creates any sympathy for De Niro's character whatsoever, he is immediately cast as a villain, which is fine but when you have such a rote villain and such a useless good guy, there is little to really get invested in. The film has the dramatic pull of a soap opera and you claim there is unbearable tension, but it all was completely devoid of such tension for me, between De Niro's lack of any chilling charisma, the poorly edited baseball scenes, the lack of a strong narrative momentum or any real conviction in its paralleling of the two main characters (it never establishes any reason for De Niro's fixation on Rayburn in particular but rather simply creates him as a monster from thin air--it isn't a chilling randomness but an unfounded obsession). The film's occasional glimpes of a consumerist America gone overboard into bottom-line frenzy are completely washed away and forgotten and the film's finale at the ballpark is so overdone and silly that it completely kills even the positives that came before.

(I've done all this from memory, so forgive me if I can't say much more)

[B-side]

I do not dismiss Tony Scott in general; I really enjoy Deja Vu as a matter of fact and as I think I have said before, I always have a level of anticipation for his films even if I generally wind up disappointed.

I'm glad you're a fan of that one. It's probably my best bet for getting people to enjoy something of his on a more serious level. I didn't mean to single you out with my criticism. You're certainly not alone in being surprised at any and all Tony Scott praise.

He's certainly not a boring filmmaker in general, but I do recall being very bored by The Fan. De Niro is just silly, exuding little pathos and nowhere near the scary intensity of his similarly deranged Max Cady. The supposedly sympathetic Wesley Snipes is a completely washed over character and should have been the central point for the pull between personal life and a superstar dealing with fans, but his grapples are at best glossed over (he gets what, two minutes of guilt at being the reason his fellow ballplayer--who of course is a slimeball--is murdered). The film never creates any sympathy for De Niro's character whatsoever, he is immediately cast as a villain, which is fine but when you have such a rote villain and such a useless good guy, there is little to really get invested in. The film has the dramatic pull of a soap opera and you claim there is unbearable tension, but it all was completely devoid of such tension for me, between De Niro's lack of any chilling charisma, the poorly edited baseball scenes, the lack of a strong narrative momentum or any real conviction in its paralleling of the two main characters (it never establishes any reason for De Niro's fixation on Rayburn in particular but rather simply creates him as a monster from thin air--it isn't a chilling randomness but an unfounded obsession). The film's occasional glimpes of a consumerist America gone overboard into bottom-line frenzy are completely washed away and forgotten and the film's finale at the ballpark is so overdone and silly that it completely kills even the positives that came before.

(I've done all this from memory, so forgive me if I can't say much more)

It's hinted at several times during the film and especially at the very end that he may be attempting to fulfill some sort of failed baseball fantasy by living vicariously through Rayburn. Scott does well not to make that connection explicit so as to strangle its focus. I found his escalating madness to be very well handled and completely menacing. For example, when we first see him go to his wife's home, he looks in disgust at her new husband and calls him by the wrong name right before leaving even after he'd been corrected, then the entirety of the scene at the stadium when he takes his kid is highly uncomfortable and tense; his growing madness becoming even more evident as he begins rather blatantly placing his adoration of Rayburn and baseball in general ahead of any real connection with his child. His kid obviously enjoys the game, but lacks the intense personal connection to any of the players that Gil feels he has with Rayburn. The whole "dad wants me to be something I don't wanna be" angle is a tired one, certainly, but it's somehow not exhausting here, maybe because it's not the entire focus of the film. It's more about Gil's disconnect and ideals. That disconnect between the fans and the players is a key element of the film. Rayburn puts on a fake smile to see a child he didn't even know was dying until he saw him. Nearly all of the fans save for Gil turn on Rayburn when he stops hitting so well demonstrating a distinct lack of any real personal connection between them, which is what makes Gil's obnoxiously loud continued support of Rayburn in spite of this such a stark contrast and further isolates him among the fans.

Another major point comes when the announcers at the ball game comment on Rayburn approaching the mound to yell at the pitcher to try and get him to throw a pitch he can hit so Gil will be satisfied and they insist it's probably due to Rayburn being hit with a ball from him a while back. The tragic personal nature of the circumstances create real sympathy with the player where there would typically be none. More scenes employing the unbearable tension I spoke of are the scene at the little league tryouts when Gil charges the field to chide the coach for throwing to his kid too hard, and the extended sequence at Rayburn's home when Gil shows up out of nowhere to save his kid from drowning; particularly the scene where Gil pitches to Rayburn and they discuss how Rayburn started hitting so well and why.

[Mara]

I watched The Servant completely blind-- Netflix recommended it, and I love Harold Pinter-- and I have to say that I'm gobsmacked. What a gorgeous, surreal, unexpected pleasure.

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

[Yxklyx]

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

Well, I loved it too. Excellent vision of the corruption of societal norms by man's baser self.

On another note:

The Illusionist -> Two Legged Dog -> Ha Ha Ha

[Raiders]

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

I love it very, very much as well. Pinter/Losey was a powerful combination. Make sure to check out Accident as well (also with Bogarde). The Go-Between is worthwhile, but not as great as the other two.