28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Spinal]

I just finished the entire Up series up through 49. It really is a great series of films. The only qualm I have is the extensive reusing of previously aired footage - it might be better to watch one film per week (except for the first two which are short). Up 56 (coming next year I would hope) is easily the film I most look forward to.

I find that I enjoyed the recaps when it had been a while since I had seen one of the films. But when I was knocking out the last few, they do get repetitive. I think it's best to view the films with quite a bit of breathing room in between.

[Yxklyx]

I find that I enjoyed the recaps when it had been a while since I had seen one of the films. But when I was knocking out the last few, they do get repetitive. I think it's best to view the films with quite a bit of breathing room in between.

Yeah, but I think one week between each would be fine. I also wonder if the series should be taken over by a new director (Apted did not start this). I love the concept but I think there are better documentarians out there. I would love to see someone like Ross McElwee (who I think would be more empathic towards its subjects) take over from here. I would also like the films to take a more introspective look at what it's doing - something it started doing at the end 42 Up and which has started to elevate this project to something more than what was originally intended.

[Ivan Drago]

As much as I love Gaspar Noe and every film he's done so far, I don't know if I want to see sex in

[Winston*]

I watched 49 Up before the others and I regret it. Will 56 Up be the last?

[soitgoes...]

I just finished the entire Up series up through 49. It really is a great series of films. The only qualm I have is the extensive reusing of previously aired footage - it might be better to watch one film per week (except for the first two which are short). Up 56 (coming next year I would hope) is easily the film I most look forward to.

Yeah, I watched through 28 all in the span of week, and then quit watching them. Not because they aren't great, but because of the repetition. I'll get around to watching the rest, but I'll make sure to continue to give each viewing a little cushion.

[B-side]

City of Pirates (Ruiz 83) ***½

I don't think I repped you for this. I'll rectify that.

[soitgoes...]

I don't think I repped you for this. I'll rectify that.

And not for Scream 4?!?

[B-side]

And not for Scream 4?!?

[Boner M]

Really shitty and embarrassing article on T2 that's been justifiably ridiculed by everyone who's read it.

[Qrazy]

As much as I love Gaspar Noe and every film he's done so far, I don't know if I want to see sex in

Haven't we seen Noe's vision of sex in every film he's done up until this point? I would expect it's par for the course at this point.

[Winston*]

I want to see Noe's vision of chaste.

Boner that article is unbelievably awful. Please continue to post awful examples of film criticism on the regular.

[Bosco B Thug]

Speaking of which, an amusing tidbit I discovered in the latest Film Comment, which I'll just copy verbatim:

One of FC's editorial staffers recently ran into Larry Cohen during one of the legendary writer/diretor's stopovers in New York. The 70-year-old Cohen mentioned that he had just come from a meeting with an interesting young Frenchman who was seeking the rights to remake God Told Me To. "What's his name?" inquired the staffer. "I don't remember, but he game me some DVDs of his films." The director rummaged in a bag and produced copies of Irreversible and Enter the Void.

Yes. Yes yes yes yes.

[B-side]

Really shitty and embarrassing article on T2 that's been justifiably ridiculed by everyone who's read it.

Eh, I don't know that it's that bad. It's needlessly condescending, and ignores the value of juxtaposing history with the now, but it's an interesting premise.

[Irish]

Eh, I don't know that it's that bad. It's needlessly condescending, and ignores the value of juxtaposing history with the now, but it's an interesting premise.

She seems to be taking a deconstructionist standpoint, which would be more interesting if it wasn't being used as a means to celebrate ignorance of film history.

I think the essay is bad because it's mostly posturing and buildup with little in the way of insight and payoff.

[Irish]

Coda: if she wanted to talk about emotional or familial themes in Cameron's work, Aliens would have been a better choice, where it's more on the surface and deftly handled by script and performance.

In T2, sure those themes exist but pointing them out is a harder sell because the kid playing John Connor is fucking terrible. He nearly undermines the entire movie, not just its themes.

[Boner M]

Eh, I don't know that it's that bad. It's needlessly condescending, and ignores the value of juxtaposing history with the now, but it's an interesting premise.

What's an interesting premise? That, like, everyone's too stuffy and thinking in the past and should just lighten up and champion movies of da mainstreamz? It's a tiresome stance, and her tone is grandiose and insecure. And last time I checked, T2 already was a canonical classic of sorts... although she wouldn't know that, what with her historical ignorance and all. I mean, really:

Movies, as a medium, are too lively and populist to wait for historic consensus. History does not inform the value of a film; you need never see a stylized Godard flick or Cary Grant comedy to understand the enthralling power of Fargo or Independence Day.

This is inexcusably braindead 'criticism'.

[Winston*]

Fargo is a pretty weird example to use there. Surely a big part of its "enthralling power" is how it fucks with convention?

[B-side]

What's an interesting premise? That, like, everyone's too stuffy and thinking in the past and should just lighten up and champion movies of da mainstreamz? It's a tiresome stance, and her tone is grandiose and insecure. And last time I checked, T2 already was a canonical classic of sorts... although she wouldn't know that, what with her historical ignorance and all. I mean, really:

Movies, as a medium, are too lively and populist to wait for historic consensus. History does not inform the value of a film; you need never see a stylized Godard flick or Cary Grant comedy to understand the enthralling power of Fargo or Independence Day.

This is inexcusably braindead 'criticism'.

I don't know. I think it's more a call to judge modern films on their own merit, as opposed to how they compare to the outwardly determined classics. Seems to be like she's saying that people need to start deciding for themselves how valuable a film is rather than waiting for film historians to deem it "important." There is a hesitance among film-goers to declare any modern film a masterpiece. I think it's an agreeable premise. And it's agreeable to me that she's unwilling to let other people inform her of what is or isn't "right" to praise due to its low or middlebrow status. Granted, she goes about in a silly manner and seems completely oblivious to the fact that T2 is a well established critical darling.

[B-side]

I think the essay is bad because it's mostly posturing and buildup with little in the way of insight and payoff.

This is also true. It's a somewhat squandered premise and a decent review of T2. She doesn't connect the two in any fashion and say much other than the fact that people should just like what they like regardless of what critic says it's OK.

[Winston*]

waiting for film historians to deem it "important."

Who are the people who are doing this?

[B-side]

Who are the people who are doing this?

Most film-goers do it, though mostly without really knowing they're doing it. It's the same principle behind why you'd be more willing to give a film a shot if it's on Criterion as opposed to any other DVD label.

[baby doll]

Boner that article is unbelievably awful. Please continue to post awful examples of film criticism on the regular.

How are we defining film criticism in this context? Is any published article on film related topics automatically considered film criticism, or does it have to fufill a particular criteria? Armond White has suggested that a critic is some one capable of analysis and interpretation (a test which he himself fails on a regular basis). In other words, some one could write a serious piece arguing the merits of any film, Terminator 2 included, but for that they would have to be capable of breaking the film down and showing how the parts relate to one another to achieve particular effects. I haven't read this particular essay (life is short, folks), but from what other folks are saying (i.e., Glenn Kenny and Boner), it seems like another sub-Pauline Kael polemic that confuses opinions with ideas.

[Winston*]

you'd be more willing to give a film a shot if it's on Criterion as opposed to any other DVD label.

No I wouldn't.

[B-side]

No I wouldn't.

Oh, come on. Seeing the Criterion label on something has a way of subconsciously legitimizing it. It doesn't mean you'd completely ignore that the subject matter or whatever doesn't interest you at all, but for most film-goers who are aware of what Criterion does, it'd certainly be a factor in them finding and watching it.

[Winston*]

How are we defining film criticism in this context?

By whether or not its art.

Oh, come on. Seeing the Criterion label on something has a way of subconsciously legitimizing it. It doesn't mean you'd completely ignore that the subject matter or whatever doesn't interest you at all, but for most film-goers who are aware of what Criterion does, it'd certainly be a factor in them finding and watching it.

A film being on the Criterion Collection has never been the impetus for me watching it. Not lying, Brightside.