Match Cut Madness 2: Best of the 90s

[StuSmallz]

Obviously it's not on the same level of egregiousness as Fight Club (nice metaphor by the way), and it is a minor slip up, although I think it's indicative of how thinly the character is conceived: given what we know about him, that he doesn't watch TV seems as probable as him watching TV.

It isn't a slip-up though, not even a minor one; Vincent says "I don't watch TV", as in he doesn't generally watch it in the present tense for whatever reason (maybe because he doesn't own one, for instance), not "I've never watched a single second of TV in my entire life". There's no contradiction between Vincent saying that, and him remembering a detail from a popular show like Green Acres because he used to watch TV as a child back in the 60's (because everybody did back then), or him remembering something from an episode of Cops because as far as we know, he happened to glance at the TV in Lance's living room one time while he was waiting around to buy some more smack.

[quido8_5]

In addition to the filmmakers cited above (and I should've included Charles Burnett as well), I'm also a big fan of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry James, and William Faulkner. I have nothing against American fiction per se; what I object to is bad storytelling and storytelling has no nationality, although for whatever reason it seems to me that this sort of contempt for the spectator's intelligence has become increasingly pervasive in mainstream US filmmaking since the end of the studio era in the early '60s.

Contempt for the spectator's intelligence? C'mon, that's a bit of a jump. I doubt most artists go in to the process of creating something with contempt for their audience.

[dreamdead]

Pulp Fiction vs. Three Colors: Blue
Out of Sight vs. Saving Private Ryan
Toy Story vs. The Sixth Sense
Schindler’s List vs. The Iron Giant
Fight Club vs. Safe
Barton Fink vs. Leon: The Professional
Chungking Express vs. Lost Highway
Jackie Brown vs. Princess Mononoke
The Silence of the Lambs vs. Close-Up
Terminator 2: Judgment Day vs. The Lion King
Heat vs. JFK
Dazed and Confused vs. Basic Instinct
Boogie Nights vs. La Haine - still haven't seen La Haine; should throw the dvd in this year...
Malcolm X vs. Contact
The Big Lebowski vs. The Truman Show
Groundhog Day vs. Titanic
Goodfellas vs. There’s Something About Mary
Miller’s Crossing vs. Jurassic Park
Magnolia vs. All About My Mother
Being John Malkovich vs. Office Space
Unforgiven vs. Three Kings
Trainspotting vs. The Nightmare Before Christmas
The Matrix vs. The Blair Witch Project
Hoop Dreams vs. The Thin Red Line painful, but Malick stans gonna stan
Fargo vs. Dead Man
L. A. Confidential vs. Run Lola Run
Before Sunrise vs. The Piano
Eyes Wide Shut vs. Three Colors: Red
Rushmore vs. The Sweet Hereafter
The Shawshank Redemption vs The Usual Suspects
Reservoir Dogs vs. Ed Wood
Seven vs. Scream

[Idioteque Stalker]

All About My Mother is finally on the board!

Before Sunrise vs. The Piano

How dare you turn your back on your own avatar.

[Idioteque Stalker]

According to Letterboxd, the most obscure movie in this tournament is The Sweet Hereafter at 15k views (followed by Safe at 32k); I find it noteworthy then that Rushmore vs. Sweet Hereafter is not the match-up with the fewest votes (that would be Silence of the Lambs vs. Close-Up, followed by Malcolm X vs. Contact and Chungking Express vs. Lost Highway). Apparently Match Cut is an internet oasis of Atom Egoyan love.

[Spun Lepton]

Toy Story vs. The Sixth Sense
Schindler’s List vs. The Iron Giant
Barton Fink vs. Leon: The Professional
Jackie Brown vs. Princess Mononoke
Terminator 2: Judgment Day vs. The Lion King
The Big Lebowski vs. The Truman Show
Goodfellas vs. There’s Something About Mary
Miller’s Crossing vs. Jurassic Park
Being John Malkovich vs. Office Space
Unforgiven vs. Three Kings (this is tough one)
Trainspotting vs. The Nightmare Before Christmas
The Matrix vs. The Blair Witch Project
Fargo vs. Dead Man
L. A. Confidential vs. Run Lola Run
Reservoir Dogs vs. Ed Wood
Seven vs. Scream

[Yxklyx]

We all have different things we value in movies. For me, with exceptions the visual component is the most important. Everything else would be secondary with music being the most important of those. Substance is usually important to some degree but if I want real substance I'll read a book. Movies for me are primarily a visual art-form. That's why the movies I like are usually visually appealing. Safe looks ugly to me. It has a washed out color palette - in sharp contrast to films by Jeunet, Almodóvar etc... and the story is just not compelling enough for me. Maybe Haynes was trying to put us in the protagonist's frame of reference, interesting idea but not for me. (I love his audio-visual driven movie Velvet Goldmine) Fight Club on the other hand is made up of one lovely frame after another. Now substance does matter usually so I while find Wes Anderson's films visually appealing they're vapid for the most part, the one notable exception being Moonrise Kingdom. This explains why I love movies like Run Lola Run, Donnie Darko, 2001, Enter the Void, Amelie, Hukkle - all these movies are glorious to look at. Then there are movies that I love because of interesting stories, they're funny or because they are unique. In this category would fall movies like What's Up Doc?, Groundhog Day, Being John Malkovich and Jeanne Dielman - the latter is also very visually appealing in subtle ways (not the typical flashy video experience) - and some films I just love because of their stories or their characters like Nights of Cabiria. Those are the exceptions but for me movies are first and foremost a visual experience.

[Yxklyx]

According to Letterboxd, the most obscure movie in this tournament is The Sweet Hereafter at 15k views (followed by Safe at 32k); I find it noteworthy then that Rushmore vs. Sweet Hereafter is not the match-up with the fewest votes (that would be Silence of the Lambs vs. Close-Up, followed by Malcolm X vs. Contact and Chungking Express vs. Lost Highway). Apparently Match Cut is an internet oasis of Atom Egoyan love.

There was lots of Egoyan discussion on this forum years ago, maybe in Match Cut version 1 so this might be from the old guard.

[baby doll]

On one hand: Excellent point. I agree. You've pinpointed a weakness in Tarantino that's always bugged me --- a preference for attitude and color over character. On the other: "Pulp Fiction" is all about attitude, from individuals (when Jackson literally says, "Alright, let's get into character" to Travolta early on) to the ridiculous figures of Marcellus Wallace and Mr Wolf, to the scenario when Mia demands Vincent help her win a dance trophy at a diner.

The movie is hyper-aware of itself, with a heightened artificiality, and Tarantino is self-consciously writing a genre piece. He's doing pastiche of pastiche. So how much character do we really need?

I'm gonna bait you a little and ask --- how much character is there in Dean Martin's Borrachón in "Rio Bravo"? That doesn't depend on Martin's natural charisma? Or in Ricky Martin's Colorado?

Or to take another example: "Bad Day at Black Rock"? That movie has something like 5 Academy Award winning actors in it and all of them lean into personas and portrayals they've done before. I haven't read the script but I imagine some of those characters read pretty flat on the page.

PS: Admittedly, I creeped on your letterboxd diary and cherry picked 2 examples I knew you'd seen and loved.

The difference between those films and Pulp Fiction is that the characters' traits, actions, and their star personas are all of a piece with one another, whereas some of the traits of Tarantino's characters feel glued on (e.g., Travolta insisting on a please in the episode with Harvey Keitel).

[baby doll]

It isn't a slip-up though, not even a minor one; Vincent says "I don't watch TV", as in he doesn't generally watch it in the present tense for whatever reason (maybe because he doesn't own one, for instance), not "I've never watched a single second of TV in my entire life". There's no contradiction between Vincent saying that, and him remembering a detail from a popular show like Green Acres because he used to watch TV as a child back in the 60's (because everybody did back then), or him remembering something from an episode of Cops because as far as we know, he happened to glance at the TV in Lance's living room one time while he was waiting around to buy some more smack.

Of course it's possible to rationalize this seeming contradiction, but I believe my point about the character being thinly conceived still stands.

[baby doll]

Contempt for the spectator's intelligence? C'mon, that's a bit of a jump. I doubt most artists go in to the process of creating something with contempt for their audience.

Just the other day Andrei Konchalovsky gave an interview in the Guardian where he described an incident in Hollywood in the 1980s in which a producer told him he should move his camera in every shot, regardless of story. Although Konchalovsky doesn't elaborate, I think this kind of thinking does betray a certain contempt for the spectator, who is assumed to have no attention span whatsoever.

[Idioteque Stalker]

We all have different things we value in movies. For me, with exceptions the visual component is the most important. Everything else would be secondary with music being the most important of those. Substance is usually important to some degree but if I want real substance I'll read a book.

You got me thinking. I'm not sure I can definitively say/rank what I find most important in a movie, but I will say that editing has become more and more important to me through the years. Also a great/bad performance can elevate/tank a movie (I feel like acting isn't brought up on MC nearly as much as it is brought up irl).

There was lots of Egoyan discussion on this forum years ago, maybe in Match Cut version 1 so this might be from the old guard.

This is a convincing theory. Pretty sure I watched The Sweet Hereafter because Raiders loved it.

[baby doll]

We all have different things we value in movies. For me, with exceptions the visual component is the most important. Everything else would be secondary with music being the most important of those. Substance is usually important to some degree but if I want real substance I'll read a book. Movies for me are primarily a visual art-form. That's why the movies I like are usually visually appealing. Safe looks ugly to me. It has a washed out color palette - in sharp contrast to films by Jeunet, Almodóvar etc... and the story is just not compelling enough for me. Maybe Haynes was trying to put us in the protagonist's frame of reference, interesting idea but not for me. (I love his audio-visual driven movie Velvet Goldmine) Fight Club on the other hand is made up of one lovely frame after another. Now substance does matter usually so I while find Wes Anderson's films visually appealing they're vapid for the most part, the one notable exception being Moonrise Kingdom. This explains why I love movies like Run Lola Run, Donnie Darko, 2001, Enter the Void, Amelie, Hukkle - all these movies are glorious to look at. Then there are movies that I love because of interesting stories, they're funny or because they are unique. In this category would fall movies like What's Up Doc?, Groundhog Day, Being John Malkovich and Jeanne Dielman - the latter is also very visually appealing in subtle ways (not the typical flashy video experience) - and some films I just love because of their stories or their characters like Nights of Cabiria. Those are the exceptions but for me movies are first and foremost a visual experience.

The achievement of Safe is in large part due to its purposeful visual style--and sound mix--in which the tastefully antiseptic environments overwhelm the characters. The film's creepiness emerges largely from Haynes' style, which defamiliarizes the story's milieu. In contrast, the visual styles of Fight Club, Lola rennt, Donnie Darko, Enter the Void, and Amélie are flashy and attention-grabbing but less purposeful, a case of stylishness taking the place of style.

[Irish]

The difference between those films and Pulp Fiction is that the characters' traits, actions, and their star personas are all of a piece with one another, whereas some of the traits of Tarantino's characters feel glued on (e.g., Travolta insisting on a please in the episode with Harvey Keitel).

Another good point. (I can't rep you again so soon.)

Substance is usually important to some degree but if I want real substance I'll read a book.

This is sorta like saying, "Visuals are usually important to some degree, but if I want to look at pretty pictures, I'll visit a museum."

[dreamdead]

How dare you turn your back on your own avatar.

I will fight anyone on Before Sunset. And ...Midnight is quite challenging in its final third act, plus the gorgeous Rohmer homage in the avatar. However, Sunrise has always felt to me like a pleasant romance film, yet one that hasn't assimilated all of its ideas into its very film design. So I'll happily celebrate Campion, especially since her 90s run was so great.

[baby doll]

Apparently Match Cut is an internet oasis of Atom Egoyan love.

I've never met the guy but I once saw him at a screening of Tian Zhuangzhuang's Horse Thief in 2016 where he boldly unbuckled his belt before the house lights went down.

[baby doll]

The same year I passed Jim Jarmusch on King St. during TIFF. That dude is tall (unlike Egoyan).

[quido8_5]

I remember Sweet Hereafter was was really high on a list that Raiders made. That's why I watched it and loved it. I t is a profoundly sad movie. I don't know how I would react to this after having children. Manchester by the Sea wrecked me, but it's also top five of the last decade for me.

To the obscurity point: when you Google it, the first result is this: http://hereafterpdx.com/

[quido8_5]

Just the other day Andrei Konchalovsky gave an interview in the Guardian where he described an incident in Hollywood in the 1980s in which a producer told him he should move his camera in every shot, regardless of story. Although Konchalovsky doesn't elaborate, I think this kind of thinking does betray a certain contempt for the spectator, who is assumed to have no attention span whatsoever.

I think that's a really good point. I hated my experience at film school because they were so condescending about the audience. At the same time, they're not wrong about the average spectator's attention span.

[quido8_5]

I wonder which Coen Brothers film will go the furthest.

[Idioteque Stalker]

To the obscurity point: when you Google it, the first result is this: http://hereafterpdx.com/

I'll have the Jamaican Bowl, and Ezee E will have the Fried Chk'n Po Boy -- with two Oaxacan Old Fashioneds, please and thank you.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I've never met the guy but I once saw him at a screening of Tian Zhuangzhuang's Horse Thief in 2016 where he boldly unbuckled his belt before the house lights went down.

That is either 1. a boss move or 2. an indication he has given up on life -- I won't try to guess which.

And Horse Thief is yet another movie I want to see that is very hard to track down. But I did recently get my hands on copies of City of Sadness and A Moment of Innocence via interlibrary loan, so I'm feeling hopeful these days.

[Ezee E]

I'll have the Jamaican Bowl, and Ezee E will have the Fried Chk'n Po Boy -- with two Oaxacan Old Fashioneds, please and thank you.

Don't tempt me with a good time.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I wonder which Coen Brothers film will go the furthest.

Even though Fargo was the champ in Filmspotting's tourney, I bet you 50 MC rolls with Lebowski.

[baby doll]

That is either 1. a boss move or 2. an indication he has given up on life -- I won't try to guess which.

Both of those things can be true.