Match Cut Madness 3: Best of the 00s

[Skitch]

I haven't seen Man of Steel so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Precisely the point.

Roger Ebert: "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words 'I don't like films about...' are idiots, or censors."

You would dismiss such a film because of its subject matter. That is why people who would, say, dismiss such a film, say, because you (probably) don't like films about comic books, aka "you don't like films about dot dot dot..."

...are...

[Idioteque Stalker]

I propose Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl to replace Hot Fuzz.

+ Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow is iconic, Shaun of the Dead is already in the tournament
- Edgar Wright is a respected director
= Hot Fuzz is out! Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is in!

The Life Aquatic replace The Hurt Locker

+ MCers chimed in with support, The Life Aquatic has a devoted following
- Wes Anderson already has a film in the tournament
= The Hurt Locker is out! The Life Aquatic is in!

Fahrenheit 9/11 replaces YiYi

+Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary
- MCers chimed in with dissent, Yi Yi is non-English language
= Thank you, try again!

Neither Taken nor Burn After Reading has more views on LB than In Bruges. Duke has one replacement left.


The 32 movies that are on the bubble, and therefore able to be replaced:
[

Show Spoiler

Finding Nemo 903k
Donnie Darko 601k
Amelie 480k
Hot Fuzz 452k (Replaced by Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl -- Yxklyx)
Requiem for a Dream 444k
Oldboy 364k
Anchorman 293k (Replaced by Tropic Thunder -- Yxklyx)
City of God 282k

Unbreakable 279k
In Bruges 256k
Moon 223k
The Hurt Locker 201k (Replaced by The Life Aquatic -- Dukefrukem)
Atonement 189k (Replaced by A.I. Artificial Intelligence -- Baby Doll)
Adaptation 173k
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon 159k
Let the Right One In 146k (Replaced by Battle Royale -- Skitch)

Synecdoche NY 146k (Replaced by O Brother, Where Art Thou? -- Yxklyx)
Y Tu Mama Tambien 128k
History of Violence 111k (Replaced by Ghost World -- Yxklyx) BLOCKED by Ezee E, History advances
Assassination of Jesse James 110k (Replaced by Paprika -- Skitch)
Elephant 94k (Replaced by Primer -- Skitch)
Squid and the Whale 93k (Replaced by The Descent -- Peng)
Once 79k (Replaced by Irreversible -- Ezee E)
Cache 73k (Replaced by Assassination of Jesse James -- Ezee E)

Grizzly Man 65k (Replaced by Dogtooth -- Baby Doll)
25th Hour 62k
Talk to Her 52k (Replaced by Kung Fu Hustle -- Dukefrukem)
Yi Yi 52k
4 months 3 weeks 2 days 33k (Replaced by Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring -- Peng)
Beau Travail 32k (1999?) (Replaced by I'm Not There -- Baby Doll)
Wendy and Lucy 28k (Replaced by The Diving Bell and the Butterfly -- Ezee E)
L’Enfant 13k (Replaced by Still Walking -- Peng)

]

[baby doll]

Precisely the point.

Roger Ebert: "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words 'I don't like films about...' are idiots, or censors."

You would dismiss such a film because of its subject matter. That is why people who would, say, dismiss such a film, say, because you (probably) don't like films about comic books, aka "you don't like films about dot dot dot..."

...are...

I didn't dismiss the film because I haven't seen it. Therefore, I have no opinion on it. No one can see every movie.

[baby doll]

Nope, didn't say it was more "noble", only said that it didn't relate to anything I understand. And considering the ideas hes presenting of the fraction of a percent of a percent of a percent of the populace, I was relaying that that fraction of a fraction of a fraction who do should maybe quit herumphing films that play to 99.99999% of the planet. The Life Aquatic isn't necessarily out of the criticism I've already named, but at least its some researchers who still require funding rather than crybabies who have weeks to ride trains around the world while bemoaning their personal existential life crises. Not that we all dont go through that turmoil, but its a hard sell when the vast majority of us cant take a few months or years rent free to roam and contemplate.

To say that I inferred it was more noble to write characters that are relatable to the vast majority of people is akin to telling me I dont understand the emotional struggle Jeff Bezos goes through everyday.

I would never want to spend five minutes with the characters in Goodfellas but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad film. One of things fiction can do is to make us care about characters we would find repellent if we were to meet them in real life. The problems of privileged Manhattanites does not seem to me less (or more) worthy as a subject for dramatic representation than, say, the lives of Mexican slum children or rice farmers in Southeast Asia. The real Matt Zuckerberg is a sleazy douchebag but I still enjoyed The Social Network. Jane Austen is probably the most entertaining novelist in the English language and all her books are about people in rooms discussing marriage and property.

[DFA1979]

Michael Moore is a gifted propagandist and I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Also Fahrenheit 911 isn't even close to being his best film or even his best film from the 2000s, imo of course.

[DFA1979]

The Life Aquatic is imo better than The Hurt Locker. I do love The Hurt Locker, though.

[transmogrifier]

I am so confused why Yi Yi is on the chopping block so frequently This is a seriously amazing film that has not left me since I watched it over 15 years ago. It is one of the most pure and quiet depictions of life as it is actually lived that I have seen.

Seriously. 90% of the suggested replacements in this thread are making the competition worse.

[Dukefrukem]

The Host to replace YiYi

[Skitch]

I would never want to spend five minutes with the characters in Goodfellas but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad film. One of things fiction can do is to make us care about characters we would find repellent if we were to meet them in real life. The problems of privileged Manhattanites does not seem to me less (or more) worthy as a subject for dramatic representation than, say, the lives of Mexican slum children or rice farmers in Southeast Asia. The real Matt Zuckerberg is a sleazy douchebag but I still enjoyed The Social Network. Jane Austen is probably the most entertaining novelist in the English language and all her books are about people in rooms discussing marriage and property.

Again, you're changing the base of conversation, so I'll respond with an equally silly comparison: I don't know what it's like to be Batman, but I like movies about Batman.

[Idioteque Stalker]

The Host to replace YiYi

+ The host is a strict genre film
- Yi Yi has weathered a lot during this round and received support at every turn
= Thank you, try again!

You still have one replacement left. If you submit something it will probably be your last chance because Round 1 will begin in a couple hours.

[baby doll]

The Host to replace YiYi

Just curious: have you seen Yi Yi?

[Idioteque Stalker]

Seriously. 90% of the suggested replacements in this thread are making the competition worse.

From my perspective the line-up has clearly gotten more interesting, but I have suppressed as much as possible the part of myself that prefers certain movies to others. If I allowed myself to have opinions on movies again, then went through one-by-one, it's entirely possible my heart would break. But such is the price of democracy.

[baby doll]

Again, you're changing the base of conversation, so I'll respond with an equally silly comparison: I don't know what it's like to be Batman, but I like movies about Batman.

How am I changing the base of conversation? Your complaint against Anderson's films, as I understand it, is that you can't sympathize with his characters' problems because they're too rich ("crybabies who have weeks to ride trains around the world while bemoaning their personal existential life crises"). My argument is that we don't evaluate fictional characters by the same standard as people in real life; the work creates its own context. The problems of the super-rich may not be of interest to us in real life, but a film may cause us care deeply about them. To point out that the characters in Anderson's films are rich enough that they can take off to India on a whim without having to worry about jobs or bills is not a meaningful criticism of his films because it says nothing about the films' treatment of their subject matter.

[Dukefrukem]

Borat to replace YiYi

[Idioteque Stalker]

Borat to replace YiYi

+ Borat was a cultural phenomenon, Borat is a strict comedy
- Yi Yi is non-English language, Edward Yang is a respected director, Yi Yi has received a lot of MC support, Borat (360k) is several orders of magnitude more popular than Yi Yi (52k)
= Thank you, try again!

[Skitch]

How am I changing the base of conversation? Your complaint against Anderson's films, as I understand it, is that you can't sympathize with his characters' problems because they're too rich ("crybabies who have weeks to ride trains around the world while bemoaning their personal existential life crises"). My argument ...

...was that you started this off by essentially calling me an idiot. You start off with an insult then act defensive like you didn't. I said that I don't care for a lot of his films because of those reasons and I also acknowledged hes a really good filmmaker. I didn't say I have to associate with every character's motivation in every movie to say its a good movie, thats ridiculous. I also find it ridiculous that you could never use "not buying/caring about a character's motivation/plight" a valid criticism. A peak filmmaking ability is to make you care about characters you normally wouldn't.

[Dukefrukem]

The Devil’s Backbone replaces YiYi

[Idioteque Stalker]

The Devil’s Backbone replaces YiYi

The Devil's Backbone does not have more LB views than Yi Yi.

For a multitude of reasons, Yi Yi is quite resilient. At this point I would suggest trying to replace another film. Borat for instance has enough views that you would have plenty of other options.

[Skitch]

Duke you are really motivating me to see this Yi Yi that is causing so much hub-bub! lol

[Dukefrukem]

House of Wax replaced YiYi

[Skitch]

hahahahaha

[baby doll]

...was that you started this off by essentially calling me an idiot. You start off with an insult then act defensive like you didn't. I said that I don't care for a lot of his films because of those reasons and I also acknowledged hes a really good filmmaker. I didn't say I have to associate with every character's motivation in every movie to say its a good movie, thats ridiculous. I also find it ridiculous that you could never use "not buying/caring about a character's motivation/plight" a valid criticism. A peak filmmaking ability is to make you care about characters you normally wouldn't.

First of all, I apologize for implying that you're an idiot. That was unnecessarily provocative; if I genuinely thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't bother having this discussion with you.

As for the validity of not buying or caring about a character's plight, that is a valid criticism but it is insufficient to point to the characters' economic status as a reason for one's disinterest. In the case of The Royal Tenenbaums, I think there is little question of "not buying" the characters' problems since they are self-evidently real problems: familial estrangement, festering resentments, unrequited love, infidelity, drug addiction, the death of one's spouse. The characters aren't imagining these things. So the question then becomes one of the audience caring about these problems. In other words, are the characters' problems not just real but serious? It seems to me that none of the problems I just listed are made less painful by having buckets of cash.

[Skitch]

First of all, I apologize for implying that you're an idiot. That was unnecessarily provocative; if I genuinely thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't bother having this discussion with you.

As for the validity of not buying or caring about a character's plight, that is a valid criticism but it is insufficient to point to the characters' economic status as a reason for one's disinterest. In the case of The Royal Tenenbaums, I think there is little question of "not buying" the characters' problems since they are self-evidently real problems: familial estrangement, festering resentments, unrequited love, infidelity, drug addiction, the death of one's spouse. The characters aren't imagining these things. So the question then becomes one of the audience caring about these problems. In other words, are the characters problems not just real but serious? It seems to me that none of the problems I just listed are made less painful by having buckets of cash.

I've only seen it once (even though I own the Criterion mega-set)...yes, these are real problems anyone of any financial status can have. I'm well aware this is coming from an audience member's (me) personal view of life. In the case of several of Anderson's movies, its presented in such a way that its harder for me to be sympathetic to the characters emotional state because of their extreme wealth. I'm not discounting their emotional state exists or invalidating it. I believe they feel the way they do. But I also feel like, "Oh yeah? Come on down to my level and smell this shit and have the same emotional issues with no money." Maybe it is selfish and silly, but its the way I feel. And if we remove all feeling for flat out cold criticism, there will be no soul to criticism. Hell, I can't think of an Anderson film I give a negative score to. I give them positive scores even if I don't like them because the filmmaking is solid.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Hell, I can't think of an Anderson film I give a negative score to.

Same here. Dude can craft a movie. But for all the reasons you cite, I would hesitate to do an Anderson marathon for instance. It would wear me down over time.

[baby doll]

I've only seen it once (even though I own the Criterion mega-set)...yes, these are real problems anyone of any financial status can have. I'm well aware this is coming from an audience member's (me) personal view of life. In the case of several of Anderson's movies, its presented in such a way that its harder for me to be sympathetic to the characters emotional state because of their extreme wealth. I'm not discounting their emotional state exists or invalidating it. I believe they feel the way they do. But I also feel like, "Oh yeah? Come on down to my level and smell this shit and have the same emotional issues with no money." Maybe it is selfish and silly, but its the way I feel. And if we remove all feeling for flat out cold criticism, there will be no soul to criticism. Hell, I can't think of an Anderson film I give a negative score to. I give them positive scores even if I don't like them because the filmmaking is solid.

If the characters in Anderson's films were less wealthy, it might have the effect of making it harder for the spectator to care about their emotional problems. Imagine an Italian neorealist film where one character needs to recover his stolen bicycle in order to support his family and another attempts suicide over his unrequited love for his adopted sister: the latter problem would seem trivial in comparison with the former, rendering the suicide attempt ridiculous. By focusing on lives of wealth and privilege, Anderson creates a context where the characters' emotional problems feel important.

Incidentally, I find Lost in Translation and much of Somewhere (excluding the scenes with Elle Fanning) stupefyingly boring because I don't judge the characters' problems to be serious, even without reference to poverty: they're just bored.