11/22/63 (Jonathan Demme)

[Raiders]

Wow, really? We're on a movie discussion board on the Internet. Unless all of you are claiming to be film scholars and historians of professional caliber, almost everything posted here is uninformed opinion.

Uninformed is not the same as unprofessional. You don't seem to have really seen very many of his films and yet feel comfortable making a rather assured characterization of his work.

But why the snipe? I'll grant you that my take isn't a great one, but it's really the only interpretation I could offer. I haven't seen everything the guy has done, and most of what i have seen I've only seen once.

I honestly don't really mean offense, but you are allowed to refrain from posting if it is a subject you aren't that well-versed on.

[Irish]

Uninformed is not the same as unprofessional. You don't seem to have really seen very many of his films and yet feel comfortable making a rather assured characterization of his work.

I honestly don't really mean offense, but you are allowed to refrain from posting if it is a subject you aren't that well-versed on.

Well, now you're just pissing me off.

Let's take every claim you've made at face value -- or, because I'm Irish (heh) let's take it beyond any logical conclusion to a ridiculous degree.

Let's assume you're a Demme expert. You've published papers in film journals about him, and oh let's say you're thinking about writing his biography. You're just that knowledgable and interested in Demme's work.

Let's also assume I've only ever seen Silence of the Lambs, just once, and during that viewing I was drunk and passed out halfway through the second act. And I haven't seen anything else he's ever made since.

What are we left with, in the context of this thread? That you still haven't posted a single counter argument to anything I said in my original post.

Worse, you're a mod and along with Boner and Watashi you've succeed in detailing the thread. You've made this more about me and the nature of my opinion than about Demme or his movies.

There are obvious alternatives for you here. If you think I'm some kind of blowhard, you can ignore what I say, you can use the forum settings to ignore me completely, or you can actually post about the topics at hand. All three of these options keep the discussion focused where it should be, on the movies and the moviemakers, and not on me.

It's pretty simple, really. You'd think an expert would be able to figure this stuff out.

[Raiders]

Counter-argument: See more of his movies.

[Watashi]

Making your post about me instead of topic at hand is, you know, really quite boring.

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by posting stuff like this, aside from wasting everyone's time.

Oh hey, it's Irish avoiding the question. I think the point remains that you had to look up Demme to see what he has done.

[Irish]

Oh hey, it's Irish avoiding the question. I think the point remains that you had to look up Demme to see what he has done.

I don't have a mind for trivia, as you apparently don't have a mind for English vocabulary.

[Winston*]

Does knowledge of a director's films really count as trivia? (especially on a film discussion board)

[Watashi]

I don't have a mind for trivia, as you apparently don't have a mind for English vocabulary.

Stop making this thread about me. Who do you think you are, Irish?

[Irish]

Does knowledge of a director's films really count as trivia? (especially on a film discussion board)

If I memorize a series of dates and place names, would you then say I'm knowledgable about history? Even though I understood nothing about the social, economic or cultural forces that shaped those events?

Likewise, if I memorized Demme's filmography, and the names of every producer, DP, and actor he's worked with and the studios he's produced for, would that give me any real insight into the content and nature of his films?

Facts that never change are just that; they're by definition trivia. Knowing them by rote makes you good at party tricks and Jeopardy and not much else.

[Irish]

Stop making this thread about me. Who do you think you are, Irish?

Keep trying. You're almost there. In another half dozen attempts you might be as good as Boner or Qrazy.

But then that would be a prolific number of posts to make about something so inconsequential, don't you think?

[Winston*]

Likewise, if I memorized Demme's filmography, and the names of every producer, DP, and actor he's worked with and the studios he's produced for, would that give me any real insight into the content and nature of his films?

No. However, knowledge of the films the man has directed without IMDBing it it would imply that you may have had prior consideration of Demme's worth as an artist, instead of just coming up with an opinion him a minute before submitting reply.

[Watashi]

Keep trying. You're almost there. In another half dozen attempts you might be as good as Boner or Qrazy.

But then that would be a prolific number of posts to make about something so inconsequential, don't you think?

I'm going to sleep better tonight knowing that Irish cares about my status as a Match Cut poster.

[Watashi]

If you want to play the semantics game, I could describe The Silence of the Lambs as prolific as it kick-started the serial killer craze and produced several similar films in the genre (Se7en, Kiss the Girls, Along Came a Spider... hell... most of Morgan Freeman's filmography in the 90's).

[Boner M]

Since people were, I thought, unfairly dogpiling on baby for saying something interesting

He wasn't saying anything interesting, though. He was dragging out his routine 'fairly conventional' argument based on an obviously superficial/limited experience of Demme's work, we responded accordingly, and he presumably hasn't yet offered a counter-argument yet because he wisely knows that he'd only be wasting the time further.

But thanks for picking up the slack anyway.

[Irish]

No. However, knowledge of the films the man has directed without IMDBing it it would imply that you may have had prior consideration of Demme's worth as an artist, instead of just coming up with an opinion him a minute before submitting reply.

That's a fair interpretation, but misguided. In one case, it assumes that I've watched Demme's films and somehow failed to form any opinion of them at the time. In another case, it doesn't allow for the possibility of immediate or off the cuff insights. In fact, it makes such things impossible.

I only mentioned it to imply how inconsequential I find his work, and as a nod to my own faulty memory for things like dates, names, and titles.

Request for mods: Sticky this thread and rename it "We Love You, Irish," please.

[Irish]

If you want to play the semantics game, I could describe The Silence of the Lambs as prolific as it kick-started the serial killer craze and produced several similar films in the genre (Se7en, Kiss the Girls, Along Came a Spider... hell... most of Morgan Freeman's filmography in the 90's).

No, because films are inanimate objects incapable of producing anything on their own. You could say Silence was influential, but not prolific.

You're also abusing the word "semantics" with this post. At this point, your high school English teacher is grabbing their now numb left arm and dropping to the floor in pain. Right before he passes out, onlookers overhear him gasp, "Watashi ... just ... please ... stop."

Request for mods: Sticky this thread, duplicate it, and rename it "Watashi Loves Irish More Than Life," please. Alternative title: "Irish Was Right About Vertigo All Along." Second alternative: "Hook is a Fucking Terrible Movie."

[Watashi]

No, because films are inanimate objects incapable of producing anything on their own. You could say Silence was influential, but not prolific.

You're also abusing the word "semantics" with this post. At this point, your high school English teacher is grabbing their now numb left arm and dropping to the floor in pain. Right before he passes out, onlookers overhear him gasp, "Watashi ... just ... please ... stop."

Request for mods: Sticky this thread, duplicate it, and rename it "Watashi Loves Irish More Than Life," please. Alternative title: "Irish Was Right About Vertigo All Along." Second alternative: "Hook is a Fucking Terrible Movie."

I'm an English Lit. major. I know what the meanings of words are. I also tend to post on Match Cut not worrying about what grade I'm receiving by a fellow poster.

[baby doll]

Err, no. There is plenty of stuff going on around Daniels and Griffiths in that film; from composition, color, use of music, and the shifts in tone which are what the film is primarily famous for. Frankly I don't think you've actually seen the film to make that statement.

And I can think of few recent films elevated more by their direction than his Manchurian Candidate remake.

It's been a few years, but as far as colour and composition, nothing sticks out in my memory that would elevate the film above the realm of ordinary. In any case, I'll take your word for it. As for music, I couldn't watch the clip you selected (due to Chinese censorship), but the only thing I can remember from the film in the Haitian lady singing over the closing credits, which just felt tacked on. As for the shifts in tone, I'm guessing you're referring to bringing in Ray Liotta halfway through to play the villain, which is for me where the plot goes on autopilot.

[Boner M]

As for the shifts in tone, I'm guessing you're referring to bringing in Ray Liotta halfway through to play the villain, which is for me where the plot goes on autopilot.

I'm gonna end this discussion here based on irreconcilable differences.

[baby doll]

based on an obviously superficial/limited experience of Demme's work

For the record, I've seen Stop Making Sense, Something Wild, The Silence of the Lambs, The Agronomist, and Rachel Getting Married, and I'd like to see Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Man From Plains, but have little interest in Philidelphia, Beloved, The Truth About Charlie, or The Manchurian Candidate.

[Boner M]

For the record, I've seen Stop Making Sense, Something Wild, The Silence of the Lambs, The Agronomist, and Rachel Getting Married, and I'd like to see Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Man From Plains, but have little interest in Philidelphia, Beloved, The Truth About Charlie, or The Manchurian Candidate.

I haven't seen The Truth About Charlie, but I've heard from many (including Raiders) that it's the closest that contemporary Hollywood has got to Nouvelle Vague (complete with an Anna Karina cameo).

[transmogrifier]

I'm gonna end this discussion here based on irreconcilable differences.

But who's gonna get the kids?

Me, I don't really think one way or the other about Demme. He's made some good films and some not so good films and he's not someone I actively follow nor avoid.

[Boner M]

I'll never get what people see in Rachel Getting Married, though. That film is unbearable.

[number8]

Again, I don't know what we're arguing about, but I'm sure the correct answer is also Julia Roberts.

[Ezee E]

I wish I went back to that time portal so I could stop myself from making this thread too early.

[Adam]

I'll never get what people see in Rachel Getting Married, though. That film is unbearable.

Wish fulfillment for everyone who's ever wanted to have Robyn Hitchcock play at their wedding