Match Cut Presents: Four Top Fifties

[Skitch]

I heard about the scene, Duke. I'll never watch that movie, fuck that.

EWS is a masterpiece.

[transmogrifier]

Eyes Wide Shut, like a lot of Kubrick movies, is pretty and intelligent, but feels somewhat embalmed. There is always a feeling that he analyzed a scene/shot to death, but never really got the feeling of it. Most of his filmography is a bit like eating your vegetables - healthy and responsible, but not sexy in the slightest. He will not be on my Top 50 directors list.

[megladon8]

I still haven't seen A Serbian Film. I feel like I've made the right choice so far.

[baby doll]

Eyes Wide Shut, like a lot of Kubrick movies, is pretty and intelligent, but feels somewhat embalmed. There is always a feeling that he analyzed a scene/shot to death, but never really got the feeling of it. Most of his filmography is a bit like eating your vegetables - healthy and responsible, but not sexy in the slightest. He will not be on my Top 50 directors list.

Why do people assume that shitty, half-assed filmmaking is automatically more emotional than highly controlled filmmaking? After all, angst-ridden, Method acting only looks spontaneous and unrehearsed, and is as much a construction as the most anti-naturalistic performances in Kubrick's films. (Recall that Stanlislavski advised against using the Method in performance.) Of course, Kubrick could have encouraged that sort of acting in his films if he had wanted to, but with the exception of the two films he made with Kirk Douglas (who is characteristically full of spontaneous-looking indignation), it wasn't to his purpose to do so, since the spectator isn't supposed to sympathize uncritically with the protagonists of his later films.

[transmogrifier]

Why do people assume that shitty, half-assed filmmaking is automatically more emotional than highly controlled filmmaking?

Dunno. Maybe ask one of those people and find out?

[StuSmallz]

Eyes Wide Shut, like a lot of Kubrick movies, is pretty and intelligent, but feels somewhat embalmed. There is always a feeling that he analyzed a scene/shot to death, but never really got the feeling of it. Most of his filmography is a bit like eating your vegetables - healthy and responsible, but not sexy in the slightest. He will not be on my Top 50 directors list.

I dunno, I think that Kubrick's rep as a cold, emotion-less sort of director has been kind of overblown over the years. I mean, I kind of get it, since 2001 is one of his most iconic works, but I think some people get hung up on judging the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations, which are obviously very clinical in that film, but that would be ignoring the infinite, overwhelming sense of wonder of the overall experience, which is honestly just as emotional as any straight-up Drama, as far as I'm concerned.

[transmogrifier]

I dunno, I think that Kubrick's rep as a cold, emotion-less sort of director has been kind of overblown over the years. I mean, I kind of get it, since 2001 is one of his most iconic works, but I think some people get hung up on judging the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations, which are obviously very clinical in that film, but that would be ignoring the infinite, overwhelming sense of wonder of the overall experience, which is honestly just as emotional as any straight-up Drama, as far as I'm concerned.

It's no coincidence that my three favorite Kubrick films are Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon - all three have a stronger undercurrent of feeling than anything else he has done (tragedy, silly comedy, and droll comedy, respectively). However, I don't judge "the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations"; I judge it on whether I feel any emotion. It's totally subjective, of course, which is why I find it annoying when Kubrick fans always try to pin any lack of emotional response on some kind of "error" in reading his films, without acknowledging any emotional response they get is just as subjective (see for example, baby doll's "Why do people assume that shitty, half-assed filmmaking is automatically more emotional than highly controlled filmmaking?" and your "some people get hung up on judging the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations", both major assumptions about how detractors obviously have some deficiency in their movie watching ability, rather than just explaining how you disagree and just explaining where the emotion is generated for you; you do this at the end of your reply, which is fine and nothing I would dispute - I can't in anyway refute your personal experience of what makes you feel, obviously).

[baby doll]

It's no coincidence that my three favorite Kubrick films are Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon - all three have a stronger undercurrent of feeling than anything else he has done (tragedy, silly comedy, and droll comedy, respectively). However, I don't judge "the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations"; I judge it on whether I feel any emotion. It's totally subjective, of course, which is why I find it annoying when Kubrick fans always try to pin any lack of emotional response on some kind of "error" in reading his films, without acknowledging any emotional response they get is just as subjective (see for example, baby doll's "Why do people assume that shitty, half-assed filmmaking is automatically more emotional than highly controlled filmmaking?" and your "some people get hung up on judging the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations", both major assumptions about how detractors obviously have some deficiency in their movie watching ability, rather than just explaining how you disagree and just explaining where the emotion is generated for you; you do this at the end of your reply, which is fine and nothing I would dispute - I can't in anyway refute your personal experience of what makes you feel, obviously).

It seems to me that the fundamental issue here is a disagreement about how one defines feeling an emotion. Personally I adhere to the cognitivist position that emotions involve--but are not necessarily reducible to--judgements about external objects, and therefore are not purely subjective. An emotion is always about something, and if viewers' emotional responses weren't to a large extent predictable, it would be impossible for filmmakers to manipulate the emotions of a mass audience. The final sequence of Full Metal Jacket, with the American GIs robotically chanting the Mickey Mouse Club theme, strikes me as unsettling precisely because of the lack of affect in the GIs' voices (especially coming as it does immediately after the confrontation with the child soldier). In the case of Eyes Wide Shut, the main emotion the film generates for me is a profound ambivalence toward the Tom Cruise character: He's smug, complacent, and due to his blundering, he may be responsible for the deaths of two people, yet by consistently aligning us with his range of knowledge, the film never allows us to view him from a superior position. So yes, if you don't feel an emotion watching this film, I think that says more about you as a viewer (and specifically, what counts as feeling an emotion in your view) than it does about any artistic failing inherent in the film itself.

[transmogrifier]

It seems to me that the fundamental issue here is a disagreement about how one defines feeling an emotion.

Yes. I specifically used this phrase regarding Kubrick: "but never really got the feeling of it" and "undercurrent of feeling" to underpin that I feel Kubrick's films lack a sense of life and energy, not that viewers cannot experience an emotion watching one of his movies, which it patently absurd.

...strikes me as unsettling....

...generates for me is ambivalence....

Yes. I can also think a scene is unsettling or a character is ambivalent is a film that I otherwise think is a careful facsimile of human interaction without the energy underlying it to move it beyond an intellectual exercise. But you will notice your use of "me" in your sentences. Now, of course, you could go and dig through Kubrick interviews to find him stating that his goal was to be unsettling or ambivalent in those cases, and you will "win" the argument by correctly responding in the way he intended. But be sure to extend that to the next Michael Bay movie you watch; if another audience members really enjoys his next cock and balls joke or his next frenetic bout of blowing shit up, that says more about you than any artistic failing of the film itself. Because, unless I'm misunderstanding something, you seem to be saying that because you felt something, and I didn't, I cannot criticize the film for it, but must instead blame myself. If that is the case, surely film criticism is impossible? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you are saying. I need more sleep....

[baby doll]

Yes. I specifically used this phrase regarding Kubrick: "but never really got the feeling of it" and "undercurrent of feeling" to underpin that I feel Kubrick's films lack a sense of life and energy, not that viewers cannot experience an emotion watching one of his movies, which it patently absurd.

Yes. I can also think a scene is unsettling or a character is ambivalent is a film that I otherwise think is a careful facsimile of human interaction without the energy underlying it to move it beyond an intellectual exercise. But you will notice your use of "me" in your sentences. Now, of course, you could go and dig through Kubrick interviews to find him stating that his goal was to be unsettling or ambivalent in those cases, and you will "win" the argument by correctly responding in the way he intended. But be sure to extend that to the next Michael Bay movie you watch; if another audience members really enjoys his next cock and balls joke or his next frenetic bout of blowing shit up, that says more about you than any artistic failing of the film itself. Because, unless I'm misunderstanding something, you seem to be saying that because you felt something, and I didn't, I cannot criticize the film for it, but must instead blame myself. If that is the case, surely film criticism is impossible? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you are saying. I need more sleep....

Obviously there isn't one correct way to respond to Kubrick's films, or any films, and the director's intentions are irrelevant; whatever your experience of the film is is correct (for you). My point was that your reaction says more about you in the sense that, if for instance you didn't find the final scene of Full Metal Jacket unsettling, it would mean presumably that the judgement you made about the characters' behaviour differed from mine and therefore you had a different feeling about it (e.g., "What cheerful fellows!"). But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, although honestly I'm not sure that I am: You seem to be conflating the expression of emotion in a film's diegesis ("a sense of life and energy") with the emotion felt by the spectator ("I judge [emotion] on whether I feel any emotion"), which are two completely different things. Again, the final scene of Full Metal Jacket is instructive: The lack of emotion in the characters' singing is what produces an emotional response in me, namely to feel unsettled by it. As for life and energy, I refer to my earlier remarks on Method acting: Putting aside the vexed issue of realism in the arts (that is, whether the purported realism of Method acting is really realistic or if it's merely an arbitrary convention signifying realism), you've not attempted to refute my claim earlier that this style of acting would be inappropriate for Kubrick's purposes. Nor does there seem to be any reason for thinking that this style of acting has a monopoly on emotional expression. Elizabethan and kabuki drama did not employ the conventions of realist theatre that became the dominant form of theatre in Europe from the 17th century on (i.e., the proscenium stage with an invisible fourth wall between the players and the audience), but there's little evidence to suggest that the plays of Shakespeare and Chikamatsu were experienced by their original audiences as intellectual exercises devoid of life.

[transmogrifier]

But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, although honestly I'm not sure that I am: You seem to be conflating the expression of emotion in a film's diegesis ("a sense of life and energy") with the emotion felt by the spectator ("I judge [emotion] on whether I feel any emotion"), which are two completely different things.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I mentioned them in two different posts discussing two different things (my original reaction to Kubrick's films in general, and StuSmallz claiming that "some people get hung up on judging the emotional-ness of a movie by just looking at the surface level characterizations").

[transmogrifier]

As for life and energy, I refer to my earlier remarks on Method acting: Putting aside the vexed issue of realism in the arts (that is, whether the purported realism of Method acting is really realistic or if it's merely an arbitrary convention signifying realism), you've not attempted to refute my claim earlier that this style of acting would be inappropriate for Kubrick's purposes. Nor does there seem to be any reason for thinking that this style of acting has a monopoly on emotional expression. Elizabethan and kabuki drama did not employ the conventions of realist theatre that became the dominant form of theatre in Europe from the 17th century on (i.e., the proscenium stage with an invisible fourth wall between the players and the audience), but there's little evidence to suggest that the plays of Shakespeare and Chikamatsu were experienced by their original audiences as intellectual exercises devoid of life.

But I didn't mention acting at all as a criteria for what gives a film life or energy - you did. Hence why I did not refute it, because it has nothing to do with my reaction to Kubrick's films. Vincent D'Onofrio overacts the hell out of the last sequences with Private Pyle, and the film still seems schematic and obvious (seriously, his comical leering is ridiculous given the context), while Nicholson and Duvall are shooting for the rafters, and The Shining still seems like a horror movie made by someone who has never seen one before but had the general gist described to him by his secretary one day. Meanwhile, Ryan O'Neal is a plank, and he is perfect for Barry Lyndon. So, it's like asking me to defend Chicago-style pizza over New York pizza by defending tomatoes grown in soil over those grown hydroponically.

[baby doll]

But I didn't mention acting at all as a criteria for what gives a film life or energy - you did. Hence why I did not refute it, because it has nothing to do with my reaction to Kubrick's films. Vincent D'Onofrio overacts the hell out of the last sequences with Private Pyle, and the film still seems schematic and obvious (seriously, his comical leering is ridiculous given the context), while Nicholson and Duvall are shooting for the rafters, and The Shining still seems like a horror movie made by someone who has never seen one before but had the general gist described to him by his secretary one day. Meanwhile, Ryan O'Neal is a plank, and he is perfect for Barry Lyndon. So, it's like asking me to defend Chicago-style pizza over New York pizza by defending tomatoes grown in soil over those grown hydroponically.

Thanks for clarifying your argument. The late Kubrick film that strikes me as schematic and obvious is A Clockwork Orange, where the neat symmetry of the plot really does seem like an illustration of a preconceived thesis (despite a lively and energetic performance by McDowell): Alex abuses a set of characters over 48 hours, goes to prison, and after being released, is abused himself by the nearly same set of characters over 24 hours. On the other hand, despite their two-part structures and multiple rhyme effects, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut strike me as far less schematic in their narrative development. I suppose one could fault the allusions to settler colonialism in both Full Metal Jacket and The Shining, which register as notations in the margins rather than an organic part of their stories, but there's nothing so crude here as the use of Beethoven in A Clockwork Orange to symbolize a character's "humanity." And while Eyes Wide Shut has something like a message, articulated by the Kidman character in the final scene, each stop on Cruise's itinerary is so effectively developed as a scene that whatever point is being made seems to emerge organically from the drama. Moreover, I'd be hard-pressed to extract a clear message from either The Shining or Full Metal Jacket. I don't think the latter could even be described unambiguously as anti-war, much less anti-American (the film acknowledges that the Vietnamese people largely hated the Americans, but for better or for worse, the film seems as mystified by this fact as the characters). Paths of Glory on the other hand strikes me as much more of a message movie.

As for the acting of D'Onofrio, Nicholson, and Duvall, I think the purpose is less to inject humanity into a preconceived thesis by turning up the volume on the performances than to objectify and defamiliarize extreme emotion, thereby pushing the tone of these films toward grotesque black comedy. Incidentally, James Naremore has some interesting comments on Nicholson in particular, noting that "Nicholson's performance is so deliberately strange and radical that it challenges my ability to judge whether it's good or bad."

[transmogrifier]

To my fellow list makers - I don't have time to bust out my entry right now, so please continue and I will catch up ASAP (I forgot it was my turn and could have done it instead of arguing with bd and Irish, but that ship has sailed...)

[Idioteque Stalker]

We will wait. I’m helping a friend move at the moment so I’ll be delayed anyway.

[Mal]

Yeah no rush Trans.

[transmogrifier]

44.

Movie: United 93 (2006)
Director: Paul Greengrass
Commentary: Controversial at the time as possible terror exploitation (“too soon! too soon!”), this is still as devastating as ever 14 years later, as the ramifications of this devastating act of terror still ripples through our global systems (and American culture in particular), this is both an insular retelling of the doomed flight and a fascinating glimpse at the inertia of organizations in the face of an emergency, and how difficult it is for bureaucracies to react to pure visceral hate. A perfect double bill with Zero Dark Thirty. Not sure how it is an insult to the victims at all. It is what it is, and it's incredibly powerful.
Key Quote: “Dedicated to the memory of all those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.”
“Best” Moment: The final charge is simply devastating and a testament to courage in the face of despair.


Director: Fritz Lang
Films Seen: 12
Average: 69.5
Commentary: From expressionism to pure pessimism, such is the trajectory of Lang’s films following his move from Germany to Hollywood, and his obvious friction with studio heads led to some wondrously thorny genre films.
Best Film: The Big Heat (1953)
“Worst” Film: The Return of Frank James (1940)
Key Quote: “In America, sex is preached; in France, it is done.”


Musical Artist: Rage Against the Machine
Commentary: My roommates were much more into these guys than I was in college, and I resisted because of that, trying to chart my own course with that very niche and unknown genre of grunge (I originally resisted embracing Nirvana at high school because everyone was doing it, then a mate of mine made me listen to In Utero, and that was that). I’m over that now, because RATM are one of the best exercise bands in existence and just fantastic when you want something, loud, angry, yet rhythmic, so you can bounce around like an idiot.
Best Album: Rage Against the Machine (1992)
Best Song: “Wake Up” from Rage Against the Machine

[Skitch]

RATM is top 3 bands ever for me. Like my other top bands, I discovered them entirely by blind buy. I thought the cover of the first album was interesting choice. Then I hit play and as you say, that was that. First the music, then the lyrics. Couldnt have hit me at a more impressionable age, and I'm so glad I found them when I did. I really wish they would put out a new album, I am in need of their art now more than ever.

[transmogrifier]

RATM is top 3 bands ever for me. Like my other top bands, I discovered them entirely by blind buy. I thought the cover of the first album was interesting choice. Then I hit play and as you say, that was that. First the music, then the lyrics. Couldnt have hit me at a more impressionable age, and I'm so glad I found them when I did. I really wish they would put out a new album, I am in need of their art now more than ever.

It is always cool to hear de la Rocha pop up on Run the Jewels albums.

[Mal]

Great selections. United 93 is unforgettable. Not sure I ever want to watch it again. Greengrass' crafting of moments is something special, haunting. Realism that is almost too real. Its because of his work on this film that I'm not sure I ever want to watch 22 July.

[Dukefrukem]

United 93 and the other 9/11 movie have been in my queue for years.

I can't bring myself to watch it.

[Skitch]

I watched it once.

[Mal]

44. BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017)

“A comfy nightmare blanket” - Mike Stoklasa

More Ryan Gosling... guess you could say I'm a fan.
I was fully prepared for Blade Runner 2049 to be awful when it was released. I got a $15 double feature ticket at my local theater to see it opening night along my sister. Naturally, the original Blade Runner from 1982 was playing beforehand. I figured it’d be a fun night to see a new film along with one my sister enjoyed a lot from our childhood, not thinking that I’d have one of the best movie nights of my life. Although I do think its an okay film, I’m not a huge fan of the original Blade Runner. I like sci-fi and its got an interesting visual flare to it that doesn't feel dated as far as futuristic ideas- but the film itself also suffers from feeling a little undercooked with its storytelling (the Philip K. Dick book its based on is fine). Denis Villeneuve’s prior film, 2016's Arrival, was bleak, dreary- with a script that did nothing for me emotionally regarding the fate of humanity and survival (I'd say it frankly pissed me off in a few ways on top of that). 2049 also has some ideas about humanity and survival, which makes it easy to see how Villeneuve might want to tackle this project. In practice, it almost seamlessly throws us right into a post-war futuristic California, the same dark future Ridley Scott created in the early 80s that none of us should ever want to visit or witness, so its somewhat of miracle that Blade Runner 2049 works for me from start to finish at nearly every turn. It has beautiful production design and visual storytelling, all framed to perfection by Roger Deakins, capturing vivid darkness from landscapes of sand and dirt, rain-drenched skylines with familiar projections of neon consumerism at every turn- this society is barely holding on and its environmental failings are inherent. We follow Agent K (Ryan Gosling) as he questions his existence in ways that Rick Deckard did in previous times, wanting to believe his past may be deeper than his assumed fabricated existence. Its slow dystopian cinema with damn great coats and new ways to have sex. Not a lot of structural surprises, though plenty of atmosphere, great things to look at, and good acting. If any film sequel can be worth more than one look, its a rare thing, so I’m grateful that 2049 expanded this universe enough that I now have more than one film to enjoy.

(Available for digital rental)

[StuSmallz]

BLADE RUNNER 2049

While Arrival is the favorite Villeneuve I’ve watched to date, I still warmed up to 2049 as a fairly close runner-up when I rewatched it at home, as the (minor) issues with its tone, length, and pacing from my initial theatrical viewing bothered me less when I was prepared for them, and I was better able to appreciate the way that the film was bursting at the seams with BIG, bold ideas (as all my favorite works of Science-Fiction, my favorite genre, do), and it was still an incredibly overwhelming sensory experience on the whole, even on a 10-inch tablet screen. It’s the kind of genuinely audience-challenging, thought-provoking film for adults that I wish Hollywood would make more of (they won’t of course, since this one failed as much as it did, but kudos to Warner Bros. anyway for taking such a big gamble on it at all). I also agree that it’s better than the original, which suffered from having a fairly dull romantic couple as the leads (especially when comparing them to Batty), whereas human or not, K was a genuinely compelling character in his own right, and my feelings on the original Runner aside, I do appreciate the way that 2049 honored the legacy of the original, while also being brave enough to expand upon it without just repeating everything Ridley’s film did, something that I really wish more sequels would try as well. Anyway, another good write-up/pick!

[Dukefrukem]

Duke's Top 50 Most Influential Movies Throughout Life
The movies I've seen from age 10-35 that have had ANY (small or large) impact on my personal viewpoint on life, lived by myself, or the perceived perspective of someone else's life.
#43



Romancing the Stone (1984)

I think my parents were desperate to fill the void that the Indiana Jones Trilogy has left. "Wait, they didn't make any more?," 12 year old me whined. The other Zemeckis Trilogy (that we'll probably talk about in a few dozen spots from now) also left a huge mark. So let's see what else this Zemeckis guy has done... Oh, combining the humor of BTTF and the adventure of Indiana Jones? Let's throw this at him and see if it works. Yeh, mom and dad, it did.

Romancing the Stone, is the definitive Indy rip off, but somehow keeps things moving and fun, was instantly added to my VHS rental rotation. It checks all the boxes that I required as a youth: 1) exotic location 2) humor 3) a group on a journey 4) rugged Alpha male that wins in the end (though it's pretty hilarous looking back to see that Michael Douglas produced this. Can you think of them sitting around the table: Michael Douglas: "Now, let's make sure I look cool in this shot".

It's probably a B movie at best now, but there's some charm to it that keeps in my collection. Cute gags: Danny DeVito yelling on the pay phone, the third world thugs recognizing a US author, the crocodile boots at the end.