28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
Iron Man
The Big Red One
The Bird People of China

[Ezee E]

You are out of your mind.

Sounds about right actually.

[Spinal]

Sounds about right actually.

Well, I already know about your insanity.

[Boner M]

You are out of your mind.

I didn't comment on it initially simply because I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Czech political situation at the time, but representing its leadership as a bunch of bug-eyed, lying, scheming curmudgeons doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant... which wouldn't be a problem if the film was visually appealing, well characterised, or actually funny. OK, a few scenes made me smile and the final shot was quite effective, but I think the extremely brief running time is the only thing keeping my opinion back from 'hate'.

[Spinal]

I didn't comment on it initially simply because I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Czech political situation at the time, but representing its leadership as a bunch of bug-eyed, lying, scheming curmudgeons doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant... which wouldn't be a problem if the film was visually appealing, well characterised, or actually funny. OK, a few scenes made me smile and the final shot was quite effective, but I think the extremely brief running time is the only thing keeping my opinion back from 'hate'.

Broad characterizations are a common element of farce.

[Boner M]

Broad characterizations are a common element of farce.

I guess it's that I don't find the film very effective as a farce. The audition for the 'beauty queens' scene could have been funny had it lasted a couple of minutes... instead it drags on forever to the point that I nearly wanted to fast-forward it. I went back to read your review at the old site where you said it's about "the way in which authority can value pageantry over people", and that never crossed my mind while watching it because to me Forman doesn't care about anyone onscreen except as amusingly ugly puppets for the delivery of a social message. Not my cup of tea.

PS: don't let my rating turn you off the films in my sig with high ratings... I immediately thought of you while watching Forbidden Lies and highly recommend it.

[Melville]

I disagree. It actually makes perfect sense. I imagine all so-called miracles have just such an explanation.

I think the film criticizes that mode of thinking in the character of the priest. The ending refutes the priest's claim that God would not contradict the usual workings of nature. It certainly doesn't come out and say that God exists and works miracles, but its power stems from it presenting an event with no ready explanation, an event that contradicts our understanding of the world, an event that we can only accept if we are "capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason" (Keat's original definition of Negative Capability, according to Wikipedia).

[Spinal]

I guess it's that I don't find the film very effective as a farce. The audition for the 'beauty queens' scene could have been funny had it lasted a couple of minutes... instead it drags on forever to the point that I nearly wanted to fast-forward it. I went back to read your review at the old site where you said it's about "the way in which authority can value pageantry over people", and that never crossed my mind while watching it because to me Forman doesn't care about anyone onscreen except as amusingly ugly puppets for the delivery of a social message. Not my cup of tea.

I don't recognize the film you're describing and can only assume that you watched some shady Australian bootleg.

[Boner M]

I don't recognize the film you're describing and can only assume that you watched some shady Australian bootleg.

I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me.

Well... consider myself pwned. :frustrated:

[Sven]

Today at lunch, it was me, three other students, a few faculty members, Paul Mazursky, and Jeff Garlin. It was pretty fun!

[Grouchy]

Well, the reviews sure are good. Too bad I've never even heard of Iron Man -- the character that is. Is it some new Marvel character? Or some old as the hills Marvel character? Is it even a Marvel character? (If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not much of a superhero/comicbook fan.)

Old as the hills.

[Milky Joe]

The Savages... I liked it. Seems like most around here hated it.

::shrug::

It was my #1 of last year! Totally took me by surprise. I can't fathom hating it, so, glad you liked it.

[Grouchy]

What do stars do? ... Shine!

Fuck you Neil Gaiman, stop writing.

I should negative rape you for this. MirrorMask is a masterpiece. Go buy Sandman and get some culture going.

My advice to all of the board is: never watch Container. Only at gunpoint, and even then try to duke it out. It's all I've seen from Modysson.

[Rowland]

It was my #1 of last year!

Wow. Now THAT I can't fathom... I really can't. But I suppose it's an unorthodox pick in a year where TWBB and NCFOM dominated top tens, so kudos for that.

[Qrazy]

I think Ordet leaves the door wide open for that very reading. Dreyer was struggling with his faith -- or so I've read anyway -- and crafted an ending that both believers and non-believers could appreciate.

[

Show Spoiler

Keep in mind that medical science in those times even led to people being accidently buried alive.

]

What a few hundred years ago people didn't realize breathing = life?
[

Show Spoiler

I dunno I wish the scales had been tilted more in favor of the coma possibility... it seems like she's 'dead' for quite a while.

]

[Qrazy]

Speaking as a non-believer, I couldn't appreciate Ordet's ending at all. I would have almost liked the movie without it.

That's what I mean, if they had made it obviously a coma I think it would have been much more potent in both regards... faith or lack of faith... the way it is it just strikes me as somewhat overwrought.

[Melville]

the way it is it just strikes me as somewhat overwrought.

Obviously you'll never hack it as a knight of faith.

[Qrazy]

I've heard some bad ideas in my time, but that's the baddest idea that ever badded. The ending is already an exemplar of negative capability. Keats would have loved it, I'm sure.

How is making it more amiguous a bad idea... it's barely amiguous, everyone there is like... omfg a miracle I believe! Fuck that.

[Qrazy]

Obviously you'll never hack it as a knight of faith.

Thank god for that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So, Southland Tales was definitely a film of some type.

My expressions while watching it:

:P



:|





:crazy:

[Qrazy]

The only incarnation of Batman that I truly enjoyed was the old TV series. I imagine this admission has truly painted me as a summer movie lost cause. I know I found what Nolan did to the character dreadfully boring. Maybe his next one will work for me.

If your issues were tonal I doubt the second film will correct that... I think it'll be more of the same (which I loved).

[Qrazy]

I didn't comment on it initially simply because I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Czech political situation at the time, but representing its leadership as a bunch of bug-eyed, lying, scheming curmudgeons doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant... which wouldn't be a problem if the film was visually appealing, well characterised, or actually funny. OK, a few scenes made me smile and the final shot was quite effective, but I think the extremely brief running time is the only thing keeping my opinion back from 'hate'.

Damn, I didn't find it really all that funny as some seem time but it strikes me as a solid up and coming director early type film... like some of Polanski's early works.

[Qrazy]

I think the film criticizes that mode of thinking in the character of the priest. The ending refutes the priest's claim that God would not contradict the usual workings of nature. It certainly doesn't come out and say that God exists and works miracles, but its power stems from it presenting an event with no ready explanation, an event that contradicts our understanding of the world, an event that we can only accept if we are "capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason" (Keat's original definition of Negative Capability, according to Wikipedia).

You're really misinterpreting negative capability as I have been taught it... negative capability is leaving questions open... freedom vs. determinism, dream vs. reality, faith vs. doubt, etc.

Ordet concludes the question fairly pro-faith, pro-God.

[Qrazy]

I should negative rape you for this. MirrorMask is a masterpiece. Go buy Sandman and get some culture going.

My advice to all of the board is: never watch Container. Only at gunpoint, and even then try to duke it out. It's all I've seen from Modysson.

I've heard good things about Sandman and will get to it at some point... but Mirrormask is not a masterpiece (and Stardust is simply awful)... it's a unique, middling fantasy... relatively nice imagery, some inventiveness but with a middling script and very poor drama. I'd rather rewatch Rou's The Kingdom of False Mirrors than Mirrormask again and both have their fair share of flaws.

[Melville]

How is making it more amiguous a bad idea

I just don't care for the kind of ambiguity that you want. If the character was in a coma, no questions would even be raised. The ending would just be an everyday event. Sure, someone who has faith that God's hand is in every event would say that God caused this particular event, but such an explanation would add nothing—if everything works according to our everyday notions, then saying God is responsible is superfluous. There's no tension in the ambiguity, since each each explanation works just fine on its own, and the nonbelievers have no new reason to believe.

You're really misinterpreting negative capability as I have been taught it... negative capability is leaving questions open... freedom vs. determinism, dream vs. reality, faith vs. doubt, etc.

Ordet concludes the question fairly pro-faith, pro-God.

My knowledge of negative capability is limited to quotations from Keats, so you're probably right that I'm misinterpreting it. But the ambiguities and contradictions that Ordet points to strike me as much more profound than simply saying "maybe it was God or maybe it wasn't". Have you read Fear and Trembling?